Courtesy: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office
With each passing year, we learn how a changing climate can affect our lives. For most Californians, two things stand out: bigger, more destructive wildfires and long-term threats to our precious water supply.
There are proven solutions to these challenges, enabling us to shift to prevention instead of simply responding to growing natural disasters fueled by climate change. The longer we wait to make this change, the greater the consequences and the costs.
Proposition 4, on the Nov. 5 ballot, represents a strategic investment in California’s environment, its economy and its people. The $10 billion bond measure dedicates $1.5 billion to preventing wildfires and smoke by creating fire breaks near communities, improving forest health to reduce wildfire intensity, supporting specialized firefighting equipment, and deploying early detection and response systems. To protect safe drinking water supplies, it provides $3.8 billion to treat groundwater contaminants, recharge aquifers, rebuild crumbling water infrastructure, and restore watersheds.
It also provides an important opportunity for California’s community colleges and the students we serve.
Proposition 4 will create important jobs in an evolving green economy. The question is how we build the workforce needed to do the work ahead.
California’s Community Colleges are uniquely positioned to ensure Proposition 4 dollars are leveraged to usher in this new workforce. If it passes, students will see new opportunities in career technical education programs that align with industry needs, including:
Expansion of clean energy training programs: Proposition 4 could support programs in solar energy installation, wind turbine maintenance and battery storage technology. By equipping students with these skills, community colleges can prepare them for high-demand jobs in the renewable energy sector, which is projected to grow as California expands its clean energy infrastructure.
Green construction and sustainable building techniques: The bond could provide resources to expand programs in sustainable construction, teaching students energy-efficient building methods and retrofitting techniques. These skills are crucial as California ramps up efforts to build climate-resilient infrastructure, creating jobs for students in green construction.
Water management and conservation technology: As the state faces ongoing water challenges, Proposition 4 could help community colleges develop programs focused on water conservation and management. Students trained in operating water technologies and wastewater treatment would be in high demand across various sectors, especially agriculture and public utilities.
Electric vehicle (EV) maintenance and infrastructure: With the rapid shift toward electric vehicles, funding from Proposition 4 could be used to expand EV technology programs, preparing students to service EVs and maintain charging stations. This would align with the state’s push to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles, creating opportunities for students in a growing market.
Work-based learning and internships in climate projects: Proposition 4 could enable partnerships between community colleges and green industry employers to provide internships and hands-on experience. Students could work on real-world projects in renewable energy, water management, or green construction, giving them practical skills and a competitive edge in the job market.
By dedicating at least 40% of its investment to disadvantaged communities, Proposition 4 ensures that these communities must be part of the work ahead, not witnesses to it.
As an educator, I see opportunity. California’s 116 community colleges are distributed across the state and are deeply embedded in their communities, particularly those in rural areas. When natural disasters strike, these communities find shelter at their community college campuses. Proposition 4 is a chance for California to build out its climate infrastructure efficiently by leaning on its community colleges in two ways: (1) sites for infrastructure deployment and (2) for workforce development. By expanding access to green job training programs, Proposition 4 will enable Californians from all backgrounds to participate in climate jobs of the future.
The students in our community colleges today will be the innovators, technicians and leaders of tomorrow. Proposition 4, through its focus on climate resilience, offers the chance to support these students in gaining the skills they need to succeed in an evolving job market while preventing wildfires, providing safe drinking water, protecting California’s iconic natural heritage, and contributing to the state’s clean energy transition. If we invest in them now, we invest in California’s future.
The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
The 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 selectiveUniversity 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 $7.6million 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.
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 FAFSAapplications 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.
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.
The guidance for math placement at community colleges has changed since this article was written. For more current information, visit this article.
If you’re a student at one of California’s community colleges and you plan to study a STEM field, you’ll typically have to pass calculusfirst before diving into many of the other required classes in physics, engineering, computer science, biology or chemistry.
A decade ago, you might have started college by taking algebra, trigonometry or precalculus class — or even a remedial class like prealgebra — before getting to calculus. But a body of research has suggested that having to complete a string of prerequisites before enrolling in calculus wasn’t working for many students and that too many never made it to calculus. That finding wasbolsteredby evidence showing that Black, Latino and Pell Grant students were overrepresented in community colleges’ remedial courses.
Two recent California laws try to address this problem. Assembly Bill 705 allows most students to skipall sorts of remedial classes in favor of full credit courses that can transfer to a four-year college; AB 1705 additionally requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.
AB 1705 has sparked fervent opposition from some math educators, who worry that less-prepared students who skip traditional prerequisites will fail in calculus and abandon plans to study STEM. They’ve also voiced concern that students who want to take courses like trigonometry and precalculus will no longer be able to do so because the classes will be dropped by colleges.
But defenders say AB 1705, which math departments have until fall 2025 to implement, will prevent students from getting detoured or derailed by long course sequences.
They note that colleges are swapping out the old prerequisite-heavymodel of calculus for new calculus courses with extra support for students who need to learn concepts from algebra and trigonometry as they go. Colleges are also investing in tutoring. In addition, colleges have two years to develop revamped precalculus courses.
This guide seeks to answer some of the most common questions about what the law means for STEM students and how colleges plan to implement it.
What’s the problem AB 1705 is trying to solve?
Community colleges regularly used to place students deemed to be underprepared in remedialclasses that can’t be transferred to a four-year university. That started to change after AB 705 took effect in 2018. The Public Policy Institute of California found that between fall 2018 and 2022, the share of students starting in transfer-level math rose, as did the percentage of first-time math students completing such a course in one term.
Still, racial equity gaps persisted, with white students completing courses at higher rates than Black and Latino students. Advocates also worried that some community colleges were not implementing AB 705 correctly.
AB 1705 builds on AB 705. As a result of its passage, the state education code now requires U.S. high school graduates to begin community college in courses that meet a requirement of their intended major, though there is an exception if a college can prove a prerequisite course would benefit students. Colleges also have to provide extra help to students who want or need it, such as tutoring or concurrent support courses.
“Students should be aware that they have the right to access calculus and, if they want support while they’re in that course, that they’re entitled to get support,” said Jetaun Stevens, a senior staff attorney at the nonprofit law firm Public Advocates.
What guidance has the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office provided colleges on implementing the law?
All STEM students must be given the option to take STEM calculus starting on July 1, 2025, according to California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office guidance.
Only students who either had a high school GPA of 2.6 or less, or who did not pass high school trigonometry, precalculus or calculus with at least a C have the option to take preparatory courses for calculus. Traditionally, that would include courses like precalculus.
To comply with the law, the chancellor’s office says colleges can drop or redesign existing preparatory courses like precalculus. If they want to continue offering an existing preparatory course, they’ll need to get the chancellor’s office approval. Colleges must show a student is deemed “highly unlikely to succeed” in STEM calculus without the prep course and meetadditional criteria.
What’s the evidence in favor of overhauling the traditional STEM math prerequisites?
Supporters of AB 1705 often point to studies that tracked howmuch betterSTEM students performed when they enrolled directly in calculus.
RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the California community college system, reported that students who started in STEM calculus completed the course in two years at higher rates than students who entered a preparatory course for calculus instead and then later tackled calculus, regardless of students’ high school math preparation.
Controlling for multiple factors, RP Group also reported that the probability of completing a first STEM calculus course was lower for students who started in a prerequisite as opposed to students who went straight into calculus.
AB 1705’s proponents also highlight Cuyamaca College as an early adopter. A brief by the California Acceleration Project, one of AB 1705’s backers, reports that 69% of Cuyamaca students who had not studied precalculus and also enrolled in a two-unit support course completed STEM calculus in one term, compared with 30% of students who completed precalculus and then calculus in two terms. Cuyamaca observed improved calculus rates across races; gaps between students of different races were also smaller.
What are math professors’ concerns about AB 1705?
Many math educators said they’re worried about STEM majors with the least math experience — such as students whose highest high school math course was algebra — enrolling directly into calculus. They fear that students will fail those courses at high rates, then drop out of their major or college altogether.
“I feel like the state might just be giving up on those students, to be honest,” Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College said. “They’re wanting to be a STEM major, and they’re going to get put right into Calculus 1. I just can’t imagine a situation where that student would be successful.”
Professors are also concerned about students who have been out of school for a long time. Students older than the age of traditional college-goers make up a large portion of the students at California’s community colleges.
“To be dropped right into calculus, that’s a pretty significant heavy lift for many of those students,”said Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.
Some faculty members also question the RP Group’s research. Both the statewide Academic Senate for the community college system and the academic senates of at least two colleges — Modesto Junior College and San Joaquin Delta College — have passed resolutions calling for a “comprehensive audit” of the data. The CSU Math Council, a forum for the chairs of the university system’s math and statistics departments, also passed a resolution calling for a peer review of research used to back AB 1705.
Can STEM students still take calculus prerequisite courses before taking calculus?
Yes, in some cases, at least until 2027.
Students at several colleges will have the option to take reshaped, so-called “innovative preparatory courses,” which may includecontent from college algebra, trigonometry and precalculus.
Since the chancellor’s office has not specified what those preparatory courses should include, there is likely to be a lot of variation across the system. At Modesto Junior College, faculty are developing a class that will include curriculum from all three traditional prerequisite courses, said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at the college.
Weiss said Moorpark College’s redesigned precalculus course will follow a flipped model, in which students watch lecture videos and complete exercises at home, apply the material to activities in class and then practice the same concepts again after class. Streamlining is another approach; Ohlone College math professor Andy Bloom said colleagues are removing content from an existing precalculus course that students won’t need for their first calculus class.
Colleges have until July 2027 to test out the newly revamped preparatory courses. Then, the chancellor’s office will assess the courses again to see if they meet student performance benchmarks.
Weiss said she and her colleagues “decided that it was really important to have a precalculus option for students who need it.”
Beyond the new innovative preparatory courses, it’s unclear how many colleges will continue to offer prerequisite calculus classes for STEM majors.
Tim Melvin, a math professor at Santa Rosa Junior College, is hoping that students can still enroll in calculus prerequisites to get more prepared, even if they have to sign a form acknowledging that the courses aren’t required. “We want to give students more options,” he said. “No requirements, but options.”
Brill-Wynkoop said the faculty association is in talks with some legislators and may push for additional legislation that would clarify that colleges can still give STEM majors the option of taking prerequisite classes, without requiring them. The association opposed AB 1705 when it was originally proposed.
Chancellor’s office officials, however, would likely oppose such an effort. John Hetts, an executive vice chancellor for the office, said in an email that arguments in favor of giving students a choice are often used “to persuade students to take a slower path or to allow students to self-select into a slower path,” despite the potential for negative consequences.
What are corequisite courses and how are colleges planning to implement them?
Chancellor’s office guidance now says colleges should offer a corequisite course alongside and linked to the calculus class. The corequisite is an additional course of at most two units designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus.
The idea is that with extra course time, instructors can see where students are struggling and offer extra help.
Colleges including Chaffey College and Sierra College, for example, now plan to link together corequisite and calculus courses explicitly. Students would sign up for a corequisite scheduledimmediately before or after their calculus course. The two courses would feel to students like a longer, continuous course — one that gives their professors time to review or introduce skills students might have missed.
Melvin, at Santa Rosa, said his department is developing a seven-unit calculus class with corequisite support for next fall, which will take up more than half of a given student’s course load.
“But for students that maybe need precalculus and a little algebra help, we definitely think it’s going to be effective,” Melvin said.
How are some early calculus corequisite courses going so far?
There are mixed opinions at colleges that already allow STEM students who have not taken precalculus to enroll in calculus courses with a corequisite.
Southwestern College math professors Kimberly Eclar and Karen Cliffe said that in fall 2023, the campus opened a calculus course with a two-unit support course for students who had not taken precalculus, offering students additional tutoring and non-credit refresher material, too. They were troubled by the results: Of the students who had not taken precalculus, less than 5% passed the class in its first semester.
Some students who do pass calculus without having taken precalculusat college turn out to have learned precalculus while attending high school outside the U.S., Eclar and Cliffe added.
Ohlone College is also allowing students who haven’t taken precalculus to enroll directly in calculus with corequisite courses.
“I’m not seeing this huge underperformance of my students this semester compared to last semester,” said Bloom, who has presented about STEM calculus support at an RP Group conference.
Bloom said that though some students have dropped the course, there are also positive indicators, including that the average score on the first test of the semester exceeded last year’s average.
What other changes are math departments planning alongside AB 1705?
Professors said their campuses are experimenting with technology (like guiding students on how to use AI or using homework software that gauges students’ math skills as they answer questions) and different approaches to testing (like allowing students to retake tests or to choose which questions to answer). Others said they’re aiming to create smaller class sizes, use embedded tutors and tailor calculus courses to meet the needs of life sciences students.
The California community colleges will soon implement changes to STEM math placement in which more students will be enrolled directly in calculus without first taking a longer sequence of lower-level courses such as precalculus and trigonometry.
Defenders of the law have argued that its intent is to ensure students can progress more quickly toward transferring to four-year colleges by avoiding long sequences of pre-requisite courses, but some math educators have said they fear more students might fail calculus if they do not first enroll in the preparatory courses.
Tina Akers-Porter is one such math professor at Modesto Junior College. During Tuesday’s roundtable, she shared concerns she has heard from other math professors statewide. The concerns have centered less on the law as intended and more on the implementation guidance from the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which she said “don’t exactly match up well with the law” and are “very strict.”
Akers-Porter pointed out that in order for a precalculus course to continue being offered at a community college, at least 50% of students enrolled in such preparatory classes must be successful in the class. By contrast, just 15% of students directly enrolled in calculus without first taking preparatory courses must successfully pass the class.
Such guidance leads to “one size fits all,” an approach she said “is definitely not in the name of equity.”
John Hetts, executive vice chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics Office at the Chancellor’s Office, discussed some of the research he said the implementation guidance is based on.
“At heart, what [the guidelines] are is based on a really substantial set of research across not just California, but across the country, that suggests that the way that we place students into our courses in community colleges vastly underestimated their capacity,” Hetts said.
The implementation guidance includes the offering of support courses, called corequisites, which students will be able to take concurrently with calculus. The additional courses of at most two units are designed to integrate topics from areas like algebra and trigonometry into calculus.
Hetts referred to research that showed corequisites being more effective than prerequisites and that having students repeat courses previously taken does not help them “and, in many cases, makes them less likely to complete the subsequent course.”
Some students, such as panelist Alicia Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick, expressed concerns about the amount of additional time that corequisites might require. As student senate president and a disabled student programs and services peer mentor, Szutowicz-Fitzpatrick said she is worried about how the changes made to STEM math placement will impact financial aid, students’ time and unit loads.
“We’re also worried about the education itself; a lot of support classes are not as supportive as they could be, and it’s just more work,” she said, highlighting a particular concern about how the changes would impact students with disabilities and nontraditional students.
Prior to 2018, community colleges regularly placed students in remedial classes if they were deemed underprepared. Evidence showed an overrepresentation of Black, Latino and Pell Grant students in such courses, most of which could not be transferred to a four-year university.
Assembly Bill 705 was signed into law in 2017 — with a confusingly similar number as the 2022 AB 1705 legislation — with the intention of reducing inequities by placing more students in transfer-level courses.
But racial inequities persisted, leading to the passage of Assembly Bill 1705. This bill, intended to build on AB 705, in part requires colleges to place more STEM students directly into calculus rather than lower-level courses like precalculus or trigonometry.
Tammi Marshall, dean of math, science and engineering at Cuyamaca College, highlighted that since the fall of 2023, her campus has offered calculus plus support for students who have not taken preparatory classes such as precalculus.
“We have seen extreme success,” Marshall said, noting that the previous model of enrolling students in preparatory courses resulted in less than 30% of their students passing calculus in one year.
“The intention was always thinking about students and their success, but we were not supporting students,” said Marshall. “The number of students that would have started in pre-algebra class and ever completed calculus was single digits.”
Since enrolling them directly in calculus, she said, 70% of their students pass calculus in one year.
Panelist Doug Yegge has similarly worked to implement the guidance on AB 1705 at Chaffey College, where he is a math professor.
“I’m not saying that there aren’t drawbacks to the way that the law is being implemented. But my view, and the view of Chaffey, is, until the law is modified, here we are,” said Yegge. “How are we going to implement this at our own schools to try to give our students the best chance at success?”
Yegge’s approach to the changes on STEM math placement has been to build a cohort model among students so that educators are “not only encouraging, but requiring collaboration and active learning.”
At Chaffey, all math professors assigned to teach calculus-support courses are also required to meet every other Friday for two to three hours to collectively develop content and activities.
Panelist Rena Weiss has also worked to implement support courses at Moorpark College but found that the classes didn’t quickly fill when they were not mandated for students. In response, her department removed the support courses and opted instead to focus on tutoring, a decision that seems to be proving successful for their students.
They also opted to develop an “innovative pre-calculus course replacement” which is allowed by AB 1705 and will be implemented by the Fall of 2025. They intend for the replacement classes to be smaller in size, allow sufficient time for active learning, provide videos that students can watch at home, and to continue working in small groups alongside their peers. The course will be evaluated after an experimental two years.
“We are really worried that if the same methodology for validating a prerequisite to calculus 1 is applied to this experimental course, that all of this great work that we’re doing might be for nothing because we are only given two years to produce results and then that will be evaluated,” Weiss said.
Although she noted that many of the resources used in the experimental course will be applied toward a calculus corequisite course, she echoed the concern expressed by most of the panelists about the strict AB 1705 implementation guidance set by the Chancellor’s Office.
This story was updated to note that Moorpark’s future replacement course, not their current structure, will be up for evaluation two years after it is implemented in Fall of 2025.
Community college bachelor’s degree programs can provide a concrete pathway to socioeconomic mobility, while helping achieve the dream of completing a bachelor’s degree for students who have not been served by any other public college sector, especially among populations who are historically underserved.
Nationwide, 187 community colleges in 24 states are now authorized to offer at least one bachelor’s degree program. It has been nearly a decade since 15 California community colleges first offered a bachelor’s degree program, and there are now at least 38 California community colleges that can do so. A survey of students participating in California’s pilot program found that more than half would not have pursued a bachelor’s degree had it not been offered at their community college.
Given that these programs can improve access to bachelor’s degree programs and jobs, it is frustrating that the programs are not more widely available across the state’s 116 community college campuses, which are closer to home for far more of the state’s students than either a UC or CSU campus.
Unfortunately, community colleges have historically had a complicated standing within the higher education ecosystem, and their bachelor’s degree programs have been held back by stigma, suspicion and scrutiny.
Stigma is palpable in references to community colleges as “junior” or “lower-tier” colleges, despite California authorizing them to provide bachelor’s degrees nearly a decade ago. Suspicion is evident in claims that community colleges are not cooperating with other entities, despite California’s policies that give universities the power to delay and even prevent community colleges from offering bachelor’s degrees. Scrutiny refers to the numbers of hoops that community colleges must jump through, especially with bachelor’s degree program approval.
But California’s community colleges are an important feature of the higher education landscape. Serving nearly 2 million students annually, it is the largest higher education system in the country. Despite evidence of their success in providing a concrete pathway to jobs and socioeconomic mobility, community college bachelor’s degree programs continue to face many roadblocks that do not center students’ and communities’ best interest at heart.
Let’s address common myths about community college bachelor’s degree programs:
Myth 1: These programs duplicate existing academic programs and steal students from colleges.
Reality: By 2030, there is a projected state shortage of 1.1 million bachelor’s degrees. Community college bachelor’s degree programs are one solution to this supply problem. Research shows California’s community college bachelor’s degree programs provide a pathway to bachelor’s degrees for people who likely would not have had it otherwise. They especially benefit older students — 77% of community college bachelor’s degree program students are 25 or older, compared with just 23% at California State University (CSU). There is no concrete evidence, to our knowledge, that shows that community college bachelor’s degree programs are “stealing” students from other public education segments in California. Research in Florida shows no decline in regional public university enrollment when community colleges offered a bachelor’s degree.
Myth 2: Community colleges lack quality and produce poor outcomes.
Myth 3: It is easy for community college bachelor’s degree programs to get approved.
Reality: Current policies create unique hurdles for community colleges that want to offer bachelor’s degrees. While California’s process of approving community college bachelor’s degree programs is similar to other states in some ways, it is unique in terms of the power that the CSU and University of California (UC) systems have to delay or prevent them from happening at all. For example, when Feather River College attempted to offer a bachelor’s degree in applied fire management, Cal Poly Humboldt — a college 270 miles away — objected to the program, citing duplication despite the fact that the fire program at Humboldt did not even exist yet.
It is easy to get caught up in preconceived myths about community colleges. But the reality is that community colleges are beneficial for students, and, by offering bachelor’s degrees, they can support the economic mobility of more students.
As California faces growing demand for bachelor’s degree holders, these programs offer a practical solution that deserves recognition and support rather than continued stigma, suspicion and scrutiny. Given their success, policymakers should strengthen and support these programs, allowing them to grow alongside other college options in California.
Debra D. Bragg is president of Bragg & Associates and endowed professor emerita of higher education at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Elizabeth Meza is a senior research scientist at the University of Washington and a New America Education Policy Program Fellow for Community Colleges.
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.
The international students office at Grossmont College in El Cajon,.
Amy DiPierro
Top Takeaways
About 14,000 international students attend California’s community colleges, many of them in the Bay Area.
Community colleges charge international students as much as 10 times resident tuition.
The Trump administration said it is restoring abruptly revoked international student visas, but anxiety persists.
As Kaung Lett Yhone finished high school at home in Myanmar, he knew he wanted to go to college in the U.S. So to find the perfect fit, he did what anyone would do: He searched online.
“I looked up on Google, ‘best community college,’ and De Anza showed up as No. 1,” he said. So he soon enrolled at De Anza College, a two-year school located in Cupertino, in the heart of Silicon Valley, which has an international reputation for preparing students for transfer into their dream universities.
Yhone, a biology student, plans to transfer from De Anza to a four-year institution next fall. He has his sights set on two San Francisco Bay Area gems — Stanford or, failing that, Berkeley — just as international students are getting more scrutiny than ever from the Trump administration, provoking anxiety among them.
Yhone is one of 14,000 international students enrolled in California’s community colleges as of fall 2023, with the largest shares clustered at institutions in the Bay Area. Public two-year colleges, though better known for educating U.S. students from their immediate area, enrollroughly 12% of international students in California. Some community colleges have made overseas recruiting a specialty, as a way to boost tuition revenue and add cultural variety to their campuses.
International enrollment attracts more attention at higher-profile bachelor’s degree-granting campuses such as the University of Southern California and UC San Diego. Some people are surprised to learn that community colleges have substantial numbers.However, more international students attended community colleges in California in the 2023-24 school year than in any other state.
But with the Trump administration’s visa policies possibly discouraging their enrollment, the number of international students who will re-enroll next school year is an important question for California community colleges. Some community colleges, like De Anza, now depend on international students for as much as 7% of enrollment.
Media reports estimate that as many as 4,700 international students nationwide have had their visas abruptly revoked in recent weeks, including more than a dozen California community college students. In what appears to be a reversal, the Trump administration shifted and said it will reactivate those visas pending a new framework for visa terminations. But anxiety remains among college staff who work most closely with them.
“You have no idea how nervous I am,” said Nazy Galoyan, De Anza College’s dean of enrollment services and head of international student programs, before news of the Trump administration’s reversal broke. “To go to California and Silicon Valley and get your education, that’s something that is absolutely a dream, right? And students really work hard toward that. What we’re going through, I don’t know, that dream might be jeopardized.”
Galoyan’s college has experienced the student visa crackdown firsthand. De Anza enrolls 1,100 international students, according to federal data for fall 2023. And at least six had their F-1 visa records terminated in the initial round of Trump administration actions. It’s not alone among community colleges in having visas canceled. Santa Monica College, which enrolls almost 1,700 international students, reported seven visa terminations.
In interviews, international students at California community colleges were happy to explain why they came to school here, but declined time and again to discuss the threat of visa terminations.
Some community colleges could feel the effects of a student visa crackdown even if their students are not directly impacted or are granted a reprieve after having a visa revoked.
There is “no indication that it will become any easier for international students to gain new visas, and the chaos caused by the government’s revocation and later reversal will likely cause even more turmoil and unease in the international student community,” said Carrie B. Kisker, a director of the Los Angeles-based nonprofit Center for the Study of Community Colleges, in an email. “Without clear guidance on what international students can expect in the coming months and years, I don’t think that the government’s about-face will ease any concerns about the U.S. being a safe and welcoming place to study.”
Non-resident tuition, diversity and ‘a little bit of prestige’
In international students, community colleges see a source of higher tuition, diversity and “even a little bit of prestige,” said Linda Serra Hagedorn, a professor emeritus at Iowa State University who has studied the role of international students in community colleges.
De Anza College is among those that have cultivated students from overseas. Many enroll from Asian countries, including China, Japan and South Korea. But the college also gets students from Europe, Africa and Latin America — “from everywhere,” said Galoyan, who makes two trips annually to recruit students abroad, one to central Asia and another to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia.
Nuri Illini Ahmad, who graduated from the College of San Mateo in 2019, came across the Bay Area community college while attending a recruitment fair in her home country, Malaysia. New York University and George Washington University were advertising their campuses, too, but she thought the San Mateo campus would be a better fit for her budget and interest in studying media. There was even a Malaysian student featured in the college flyer.
“We got in contact with the student, and then somehow, that person ended up being one of my closest friends as well,” she said.
International students at De Anza pay $276 per unit. At Santa Monica College, they and other nonresidents pay a total of $444 per unit — nearly 10 times as much as California residents.
But from the perspective of international students, a California community can still be a bargain. An international student on track to graduate from Santa Monica College in two years would pay $13,320 in tuition a year, assuming they don’t get any scholarships or other discounts. The same non-resident student would pay $19,770 at a California State University (CSU) campus, $50,328 at a University of California (UC) campus and $73,260 at the University of Southern California without financial aid.
Eyeing a path to top-tier universities — and, perhaps, a day at the beach
In brochures and other marketing materials, community colleges around California paint a glittering portrait of what it’s like to be an international student on their campus.
Irvine Valley College, which enrolled about 550 international students as of fall 2023, seeks to beguile prospective international students with a promotional video. “A lot of international students dream of graduating from a UC or top private university. Whatever you choose, your future starts at Irvine Valley College,” an unseen narrator intones, before the video cuts to a series of testimonials from international students. “You’ll enjoy great weather year round and world-class shopping, culture and beaches are nearby.”
Grossmont College in El Cajon, with almost 190 international students last school year, has its own promotional video interspersing images of nearby downtown San Diego and Balboa Park. Among other perks, a Grossmont website touts small classes and “camping in the desert, kayaking in San Diego Bay, and barbeques at the beach.”
Community colleges also pitch their campuses to international students as a less expensive route to a four-year degree, a place to fine-tune English language skills and prepare for bachelor’s degrees from prestigious institutions.
In fall 2024, De Anza College students who applied to aUniversity of California campus had an 81% acceptance rate; Diablo Valley and Irvine Valley students were not far behind, with roughly 80% and 79% acceptance rates to UC, respectively.
Dinara Usonova, a business major at De Anza, decided in high school in Kyrgyzstan to apply to U.S. community colleges rather than go straight to a four-year university. That, she believed, would allow her to adjust to the American higher education system and give her time to improve her English before attending a university. The cost was also attractive to Usonova, who pays rent and other living expenses on her own.
Usonova has been admitted to Berkeley and is waiting to hear from additional universities before deciding where to transfer this fall.
“Going to community college, paying cheaper tuition and getting all these kinds of experiences and building my foundation, I think it was a great choice,” she said.
‘I feel so much at home’
Statewide, international students at community colleges contributed $591 million to the California economy last school year, according to an analysis by NAFSA, a nonprofit association for higher education professionals who work with international students.
Santa Monica College’s international students added an estimated economic value of $56 million and another 245 jobs, NAFSA found.
Santa Monica’s international students, who are from about 100 different countries, contribute significant non-resident tuition revenue to the campus, said Pressian Nicolov, the college’s dean of international education, in an email. Losing those students and the nonresident tuition they bring “would result in a significant impact on college programs and, ultimately, on all students.”
But the loss of international students would not just be financial, he said.
“There would be fewer opportunities to engage with global viewpoints, fewer opportunities for domestic students to develop life-changing cross-cultural friendships and learn about diverse cultures,” Nicolov said.
Nuri Illini Ahmad, second from right, and other Malaysian MARA Scholars in their traditional clothing at the College of San Mateo’s 2016 World Village.Courtesy of Nuri Illini Ahmad
International students provide “huge value” to campus culture, Galoyan at De Anza added. Many experience culture shock when they first arrive, but most adapt and become active in the community, joining clubs and even the student government.
That’s the case for Yhone, who is the legislative liaison for the Inter Club Council, a coordinating body for more than 60 student clubs at De Anza. Since enrolling, he has also helped to reactivate two clubs: the De Anza Red Cross and the Business Information Technology Club.
“There are so many opportunities, so many clubs to expose yourself to here,” Yhone said.
Ahmad,the student who finished at San Mateo, succeeded in earning a four-year degree from a U.S. college — and then some. She earned a bachelor’s degree at San Francisco State University, then advanced to a master’s program at Columbia University.
For now, Ahmad is watching the U.S. from London, where she’s seeking work as a freelance video producer after a job in New York ended abruptly, forcing her to leave the country. If she were a high school senior today, she said, she would probably start college in the U.S. all over again. “I know it sounds weird saying this,” she said, “but I feel so much at home when I was there.”
STEM students at California community colleges will be able to enroll in calculus prerequisites like trigonometry if they didn’t take those classes in high school.
California math educators this fall have been locked in a vigorous debate: Will the implementation of a new law help more community college STEM students by skipping prerequisites and placing them directly into calculus, or will it set up the state’s least-prepared students for failure?
This week, critics scored something of a victory. In a move that already faces legal scrutiny, the chancellor’s office for the state’s community colleges issued a memo making clear that, when the law takes effect next fall, students in science, technology, engineering and math majors who haven’t passed courses like trigonometry in high school will still have the option to start college math with up to two semesters of courses that are considered preparation for calculus.
Previous guidance instructed colleges to enroll those students directly into calculus — sometimes with a simultaneous 1- or 2-unit support class — or place them in new semester-long preparatory classes offered on a trial basis.
The changes were made after some math faculty across the state criticized the original guidance, including during an EdSource roundtable on the topic hosted last month. They worried that students without a solid math foundation would struggle if forced to startright away in calculus and said the original guidance went beyond what is required by the law, Assembly Bill 1705.
Other math faculty joined advocacy groups in defending the initial rollout plan, citing research that students perform better when they can go straight into calculus regardless of their high school math preparation. Critics, though, say some of that research is flawed.
The chancellor’s office issued the memo after gathering feedback from faculty, administrators and students about whether the state’s least experienced math students, such as those who didn’t take a class higher than geometry in high school, would be ready for calculus without taking prerequisites, said Melissa Villarin, a spokesperson for the office.
“We’ve been listening to folks, examining the evidence that colleges are bringing to us, and we got to the point that we needed to make a decision,” added John Hetts, the college system’s executive vice chancellor for the Office of Innovation, Data, Evidence and Analytics. “If we didn’t make a decision now, it would not leave colleges enough time to prepare for fall 2025.”
Calculus is often a required course for many science, technology and engineering majors. In the past, research has shown that some students never get to calculus because they fail to complete necessary prerequisite courses like trigonometry or precalculus, effectively blocking those students from pursuing their degrees.
AB 1705, signed into law in 2022, requires the college system to evaluate the impact of enrolling students in prerequisites to calculus and, if they can’t prove students benefit from those classes, to stop requiring or even recommending them.
Some backers of the law interpret it as mandating a shift as much as possible to enrolling all STEM students directly into calculus. They cite a section that states students “shall be directly placed into” the transfer-level class that satisfies the requirement for their degree.
Chancellor’s office officials, however, maintain that the latest guidance is consistent with the law. “The guidance is fully within the parameters of AB 1705,” Paul Feist, a spokesperson for the system, said in an email.
Under the new guidance, students who didn’t pass Algebra II or its equivalent in high school will be allowed to take two semesters worth of calculus prerequisites, which could include some combination of college algebra, trigonometry or precalculus. Students who did pass that course but not trigonometry or precalculus will be allowed to enroll in a one-semester prerequisite course, typically precalculus.
The new guidance is a compromise, said Pamela Burdman, executive director of Just Equations, a nonprofit organization focused on the role of math in education equity.
“I think the chancellor’s office is trying to strike a balance here,” she added. “I do think there has been a tendency to place students in more prerequisites than they may need, but we don’t know enough from the research exactly what the optimal placement system is and how to identify which students need which levels of support.”
The guidance won’t be the final word on the issue. It could face a future legal challenge. Jetaun Stevens, an attorney with the civil rights law firm Public Advocates, said the chancellor’s new directive urges colleges“to violate the law.” Stevens said the firm is still “assessing what we can do” and did not rule out a lawsuit.
“This guidance gives colleges permission to completely ignore students’ rights to be placed in calculus. It creates exceptions in the law that don’t exist,” Stevens said. “This is illegal and beyond the chancellor’s office’s authority. They don’t get to pick what part of the law they want to enforce.”
Faculty, meanwhile, still plan to pursue legislation next year that would permanently clarify that colleges can offer “standalone foundational pre-transfer courses,” according to a memo being circulated by the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, a faculty advocacy organization. Wendy Brill-Wynkoop, president of the association, said the draft is being “shared widely with system partners and legislators.”
In the meantime, starting next year, the chancellor’s office plans to collect data from each college and examine how students are accessing calculus. Colleges will have to prove that students are at least as likely to get to and complete calculus when they start in prerequisites as when they start right away in calculus. If the prerequisite path shows worse results, guidance says those prerequisites will need to be eliminated for STEM majorsby 2027.
The updated guidance is “simple and based in common sense,” said Tina Akers-Porter, a math professor at Modesto Junior College and one of the leading critics of the original guidance. “If you’ve taken the preparatory courses, then go into calculus. But if you haven’t, then still offer the preparatory courses. That’s what we wanted.”
Tammi Marshall, dean of math, science and engineering at Cuyamaca College, was disappointed in the chancellor’s office’s new direction. She said the chancellor’s office has previously “done a great job of holding the colleges accountable” to evidence suggesting students perform better when placed directly into calculus witha companion support course than in longer sequencesof preparatory courses. Her college has been highlighted as an early adopter of AB 1705 and has reported improved calculus completion rates across racial groups.
“I felt like they were pressured into making a decision that isn’t completely based on the data,” she said of the new guidance.
Some math faculty said the new guidance leaves departments little time to adapt and may sap energy from attempts to reimagine math courses ahead of next fall. Many departments have designed new classes to prepare students for calculus in anticipation of AB 1705, but it’s unclear whether colleges will choose to offer those courses next fall, as they initially planned, or fall back on older courses.
“We just don’t know where to focus our energy right now,” said Rena Weiss, a math professor at Moorpark College, adding that she’s glad the chancellor’s office listened to faculty members’ concerns and is grateful for the option to place STEM students into courses like trigonometry.
Other faculty are hoping for more information about exactly which students they can now place into precalculus courses.
Forecasts of what the guidance means for access to STEM education varied. Marshall predicted greater inequity at colleges that opt to continue calculus prerequisite sequences with high attrition rates, which she said have a “disproportionate impact on our Black and brown STEM students.”
On the other side, Southwestern College math professor Kimberly Eclar said this week’s guidance gives more options to students whose high schools do not offer higher math classes. James Sullivan, a math professor at Sierra College, said the updated rules will benefit students who transition into a STEM career later in life but haven’t yet learned the concepts they’ll need for calculus.
Hetts, the executive vice chancellor, said the current evidence is simply “not strong enough” to prohibit colleges from offering prerequisites next year. The chancellor’s office, in consultation with the RP Group, a nonprofit that conducts research on behalf of the college system, plans to conduct additional research starting in 2025 “to more thoroughly understand” how students access calculus.
The RP Group is also deciding whether to conduct a follow-up study that would compare the longer-term outcomes of students who enroll directly in calculus to those who do not, according to Alyssa T. Nguyen, the organization’s senior director of research and evaluation. Such a study could examine how often each group of students completes associate degrees or transfers. Nguyen wrote in an email that RP Group will continue to draw from student records in its analysis and may also survey, interview or conduct focus groups with students.
A San Jose Unified teacher attends a rally Oct. 9 to promote candidates and a school bond measure that includes funding for staff housing.
Credit: Photo courtesy of California Teachers Union
This past November, hundreds of California school districts pursued local bond dollars to fix or update campuses across their communities.
Voters passed 205 of 267 proposed local construction bonds on the Nov. 5 ballot, including 14 of 15 for community colleges. Along with the largest number of bonds, the 77% passage rate was just shy of the historic approval rate of 79% since 2000, said Michael Coleman, founder of CaliforniaCityFinance.com, who compiled the voting results.
Voters in major urban areas were the most receptive to bond proposals, including Los Angeles Unified (LAUSD), whose $9 billion bond was by far the biggest on the ballot; $1.15 billion in San Jose Unified, which included money to underwrite staff housing; and $790 million in San Francisco Unified. San Diego Community College District’s $3.5 billion bond proposal was the largest community college measure.
The bond in Earlimart Elementary in Tulare County passed with the state’s highest approval of 81.6%. But in the if-only-we-had-knocked-on-more-doors category, bonds in Kingsburg Union High School District, spanning three Central Valley counties, and Elverta Joint Elementary District in Sacramento County, lost by only three votes, and in Weed Union School District, in Siskiyou County, by four votes.
Across the Central San Joaquin Valley, stretching from San Joaquin and Calaveras counties to Kern County, more than 40 measures were approved.
Enrollment is growing in some parts of the region, so voters decided on multimillion dollar measures to meet the demand, such as Clovis Unified’s $400 million bond and Sanger Unified’s $175 million measure. In both districts, 57.6% of voters said yes to meet the needs of their growing communities.
“We have emphasized that this bond measure is critical to keeping our schools in the great shape they are in today and to finishing the much-needed Clovis South High School,” Clovis Unified Superintendent Corrine Folmer said when voting results showed that the district’s bond measure had secured a win.
Clovis and Sanger Unified listed finishing construction at their high schools as priorities. Estimating its student population doubling in the next 10 to 20 years, Sanger Unified is also looking to build a new elementary school to alleviate overcrowding.
Other school communities in the Central Valley and up and down the state approved bond money to address the deteriorating condition of aging facilities. For instance, in Fresno Unified, 64.5% of voters said yes to a $500 million bond — the largest in district history.
In the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area, all districts but one, Vacaville Unified, passed bond measures. In Los Angeles County, only Saugus Union School District’s bond failed. In Orange County, all transitional kindergarten to grade 12 school district bond measures passed, but voters nixed Rancho Santiago Community College District’s bond.
However, voters in many predominantly rural and low-property-wealth districts, from Humboldt County in the north to Imperial County in the south, voted down bonds that would have raised taxes. This included eight small districts in San Diego County and Del Norte Unified in Del Norte County. In October, EdSource highlighted Del Norte’s struggle with mold-infested, leaky portables and hazardous playgrounds in a roundtable on Proposition 2, a statewide school construction bond that voters passed.
“Our one-district county is strained by a lack of economy, and the community is struggling with high tax rates. This wasn’t a lack of desire for our youth, but one based on meeting basic needs for household necessities,” said Brie Fraley, a parent of four boys and active bond supporter. “The structure of bonds in California doesn’t help the neediest communities.”
Nearly all parcel taxes pass
Along with construction bonds, 26 school districts placed annual parcel taxes on the ballot, and 24 passed. Parcel taxes are also property taxes, but they must be a uniform amount per property in a district — whether it’s assessed for a run-down home or a five-star hotel. Although it requires a two-thirds majority vote for approval, 92% of the parcel taxes passed in November; 17 of those renewed existing taxes.
Particularly popular in the Bay Area and coastal Los Angeles County, they ranged from $647 per parcel in Lakeside Union School District, a small rural district lying in both Santa Clara and Santa Cruz counties, and $369 per parcel in Woodside Elementary, near Palo Alto, to $59 per parcel in both Sunnyvale School District and Ventura Unified.
Santiago Canyon College is one of seven community colleges in the state that have yet to get final approval for bachelor’s degrees they proposed in 2023.
Courtesy of Santiago Canyon College
Rudy Garcia was excited when he learned that his local community college, Moorpark in Ventura County, planned to offer a bachelor’s degree in cybersecurity and network operations.
A father of four and the only source of income for his family, Garcia believed getting the degree would help him advance in his career in IT support. He had come to realize that more senior jobs typically required a bachelor’s degree.
Getting that degree at nearby Moorpark was appealing, especially because he had already finished an associate degree in cybersecurity at the college.
Rudy Garcia has two associate degrees from Moorpark College and hopes to enroll in a proposed bachelor’s degree program in cybersecurity.Rudy Garcia
“Being able to add that to my resume, it would help me get a better job, better benefits and everything,” he said.
But in the two years since Moorpark first proposed the degree, the college has still not received final approval. It’s one of seven degrees across California that received provisional approval from the state community college chancellor’s office in 2023 but remain in limbo because California State University has flagged them as duplicative of its own programs. The two sides have yet to come to a compromise.
Since the passage of that law, many community colleges have successfully launched new degrees: Thirty-two new degrees are now fully approved across the state, joining 15 that already existed as part of a pilot. Some of the most recently-approved degrees include drone and autonomous systems at Fullerton College, emergency services administration at Mission College in Santa Clara and water resource management at San Bernardino Community College.
But due to disagreements over what constitutes duplication, some degree proposals have stalled.
Resolution, however, could be coming soon. The seven degrees delayed since 2023 are currently being reviewed by WestEd, a nonprofit research organization that was selected to serve as a neutral, third-party evaluator.
Some local community colleges have been under the impression that WestEd would render final decisions on the programs, but that is not the case, a spokesperson clarified. Instead, WestEd will evaluate the programs and share an analysis with the community college system’s board of governors that will “help inform the review process,” the spokesperson said.
The spokesperson shared the additional details about WestEd’s role on Tuesday morning. WestEd had previously declined an interview request prior to publication of this story.
Colleges have been told to expect the reviews from WestEd as early as this month, though it could take longer.
Officials with the systemwide chancellor’s offices for both the community colleges and CSU also declined interview requests.
For the community colleges, getting a verdict will be welcomed as they have grown increasingly annoyed that their degrees are being delayed.
“My frustration is on behalf of the students that are missing out on this opportunity,” said Jeannie Kim, president of Santiago Canyon College in Orange County, which got preliminary approval for a degree in digital infrastructure and location services. “We talk a really loud game about student success and being student centered. But right now, preventing these kinds of degrees from going forward is not student centered.”
Although officials from CSU campuses declined to be interviewed, memos obtained by EdSource through a Public Records Act request show that those campuses cited a number of reasons for objecting to proposed degrees.
In some cases, CSU campuses objected only to a few courses where they believed there was overlap. For example, CSU San Bernardino’s objection to San Diego Mesa’s proposed physical therapy assistant degree came down to three upper-division courses focused on biomechanics, nutrition and exercise physiology that would be part of the Mesa program. San Bernardino staff argued those courses duplicate classes that they offer as part of a bachelor’s degree program in kinesiology.
San Diego Mesa officials believe they may have been able to find common ground if they had more time to negotiate. Their only live interaction with San Bernardino staff was a 30-minute Zoom meeting last year, according to Cassandra Storey, dean for health sciences at Mesa. “We never really had the discussion on those three courses,” Storey said. “I would like to think that we could have a conversation and negotiate this.”
Other proposals faced stronger objections. Moorpark faces duplication claims from seven CSU campuses over its proposed cybersecurity program. One campus, CSU San Marcos in San Diego County, wrote in a memo that the proposal “substantially overlaps” with its own cybersecurity degree. “Almost all cybersecurity issues are directly or indirectly related to network operation. The proposed program description is a typical cybersecurity degree,” San Marcos staff wrote.
In the view of Moorpark officials, however, there are fundamental differences between its degree and what San Marcos offers. Whereas degrees like the one offered at San Marcos prepare students for engineering and computer science careers, Moorpark would train students to be technicians and work in cybersecurity support, said John Forbes, the college’s vice president of academic affairs.
“We understand we need more engineers in this world across every type of engineering, and we need good computer scientists that understand coding,” Forbes said. “But our labor force also needs the people that aren’t authoring and designing and engineering. They need the technicians that are using this stuff.”
Moorpark’s program would not be a calculus-based STEM degree, he added. The San Marcos degree does require a calculus course and other math classes as prerequisites.
That itself is a positive for students like Garcia. If he were to attempt a CSU bachelor’s degree,he would essentially have to start over and take several lower-division courses to be eligible to transfer to a CSU campus and potentially pay more in tuition. At Moorpark, he would need only upper-division credits to get his bachelor’s degree and have to pay $130 per credit. On average, community college bachelor’s degrees in California cost $10,560 in tuition and fees over all four years, much less than attending a CSU or UC campus. Much of Garcia’s tuition would also get covered by financial aid, he said.
“So that’s a big plus for me,” he said.
The other major selling point for Garcia is that the Moorpark campus is just a short drive from his house. He’s hoping it will get approved soon and he can start taking classes in the fall.
“The college is like four exits from my house,” he said. “I would totally jump on that.”
Some students are place bound and can’t attend colleges outside their hometown, the community colleges emphasize. But the law does not mention location, allowing CSU campuses to bring objections even if they aren’t located in the same region as the college proposing the degree.
Moorpark, for example, has faced objections from CSU campuses other than San Marcos, including Sacramento State and three San Francisco Bay Area campuses: Cal State East Bay, Sonoma State and San Jose State.
Those campuses may be worried about losing potential students to community colleges. Sonoma State in particular has seen its enrollment plummet in recent years. Staff at San Jose State, where enrollment has flattened, wrote in a memo that they are concerned the Moorpark program would “draw from the same pool of students” as their bachelor’s degree in engineering technology.
Forbes said he understands those worries but believes they may be misguided. “We are big fans of the CSU system, and we want our students to be successful there, and we’re doing everything we can to help them on the transfer end. But for this program, these are not students who would be going to CSU,” he said.
Forbes and other community college officials around the state are eager for resolution. “We’re hopeful, with the smart people we have in California, that rational minds can come to the table and figure out a better path forward,” Forbes said.
This article was corrected on Jan. 21 to include further detail and clarification about WestEd’s role in the review process.
Bill Blanken, a chemistry professor at Reedley College, claims that a diversity and equity policy in California’s community colleges amounts to a “loyalty oath.”
Photo courtesy of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression
A federal judge has dismissed a case filed on behalf of professors claiming that California Community Colleges diversity and equity policies infringe on their academic freedom.
Professors at State Center Community College District, based in Fresno, had, in a suit filed in August 2023, sought to block the California Community Colleges from enforcing diversity, equity, accessibility and inclusion (DEIA) principles.
But U.S. District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff, a Biden appointee who joined the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in 2024, wrote in an order Tuesday that the plaintiffs “failed to allege that there exists a credible threat of enforcement of the regulations against them.”
The plaintiff’s attorney, Daniel Ortner, with the free-speech advocacy group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), said he was reviewing the decision and discussing it with his clients.
In 2022, the board of governors for the California Community Colleges adopted regulations requiring all 73 of its local districts to evaluate employees, including faculty, on their competency in working with a diverse student population. More than 7 out of 10 of California’s 2.1 million community students are not white, according to enrollment data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.
State Center Community College District complied with these regulations with a faculty union contract approved in March 2023. The district declined through a spokesperson to comment on the case.
The push for new diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility policies came out of a long-running effort to improve student outcomes in the community colleges, but it picked up steam in the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020.
The original complaint described the professors as critics of anti-racism, who instead support “race-neutral policies and perspectives that treat all students equally.” The complaint stated that requiring faculty to be evaluated on their commitment to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility principles is unconstitutional and has a chilling effect on their free speech rights. The professors said they feared receiving disciplinary action or being fired under these new regulations.
Lead plaintiff Loren Palsgaard, an English professor at Madera Community College, said in the complaint that he no longer assigned Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” because it “offer[s] perspectives that are different from the ‘anti-racism’ and ‘intersectionality’ perspective mandated by the DEIA Rules.” Reedley College chemistry professor Bill Blanken said he feared that not mentioning the races of Marie Curie or Robert Boyle means that “he will be accused of failing to adopt a ‘culturally responsive practices and a social justice lens.’”
Judge Sherriff wrote that many of the professors’ concerns arose from documents from the Chancellor’s Office, such as guidance, recommendations, model principles and a glossary of terms. He added that none of these recommendations were formally adopted or legally binding, and that what the professors largely objected to was not in their faculty contract.
Sherriff also noted that the Chancellor’s Office confirmed in court documents that it could not take any action against professors concerning their speech, because decisions regarding employees, such as hiring, performance evaluations and terminations, are the responsibility of the district. The Office also stated that they do not believe that the examples cited by the professors would be precluded by the diversity regulations.
In September, Sherriff dismissed a related suit on behalf of Bakersfield College history professor Daymon Johnson. Sherriff wrote in his order that Johnson lacked standing because the Kern Community College District that employed him had not yet imposed local policies implementing diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility regulations.
In October, Johnson’s case was filed in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The State Center Community College professors filed an amicus brief in November in support of Johnson, urging the court to “protect academic freedom across the state by vacating the district court’s decision.”
