I wasn’t expecting a math journal entry to shift my perspective. But as I scanned through my students’ reflections that morning, one response stopped me in my tracks:
“It’s more important to me that my teacher sees me as a person than if I get all the answers right.”
A student, who I’ll call Jason, had been in my class for months — quiet, polite, barely noticeable. Not failing, not thriving. Just…there.
Jason’s words reflected what many students feel but rarely say. As I reviewed other journal entries, I discovered an echo of voices expressing uncertainty, quiet resilience and a desire to be heard. I highlighted themes and let their words settle in, but as responses piled up, I needed help seeing the bigger picture.
That’s when I turned to artificial intelligence (AI), using it to help summarize journal entries — not replacing my judgment but sharpening it. ChatGPT surfaced patterns I might have missed: anxiety about speaking up, appreciation for kindness, the importance of being seen. AI didn’t give me a summary of responses — it gave me perspective, revealing what my students were telling me between the lines.
Too many students walk into math class carrying untold stories — about race, failure, shame, invisibility. And math, with its perceived rigid right-or-wrong structure, often leaves little room for the messiness of being human. Reflective journals and AI made that space. They reminded us that learning is emotional before it’s cognitive.
For educators exploring how to move from algorithms to empathy, here’s what I’ve learned:
Use AI as a reflection partner to surface trends in student voice. I introduced reflective journals with prompts like “How do you see yourself in math?” and “Where might math be important in your life?” When responses accumulated, AI helped me identify emotional throughlines—what students feared, valued, and needed to feel seen. It didn’t analyze feelings for me; it spotlighted patterns across dozens of responses, allowing me to respond not just as a content expert, but as a listener who could address the class’s collective needs.
Let AI handle the grunt work so you can do the heart work. After AI helped me identify themes like “I don’t feel smart, but I try harder than people know” and “I’m not the only one scared to ask for help,” I shared these anonymous insights with my class. Heads nodded. The room shifted. These reflections weren’t about fixing students — they were about making space where vulnerability felt safe and mathematical identity could evolve.
Design with AI — not for it. I didn’t start by asking what AI could do, but rather “What do my students need to feel seen, challenged and supported?” Only then did I explore how technology could help me meet those needs more thoughtfully and efficiently. The tools followed the vision, not the other way around.
Treat AI like a co-teacher, not a substitute. AI will never replace the personal connections at the heart of teaching, but it can help me see what I might miss in the everyday chaos of the classroom. This partnership allows me to combine technological insights with the relational knowledge that only comes from knowing my students.
The day after reading Jason’s journal entry, I greeted him more intentionally and shared that I had once felt the same way about being seen as a person first. It was a tiny signal: I see you. This breakthrough emerged from recognizing that community building in math class doesn’t require elaborate group projects or icebreakers. Sometimes it starts with something quieter: giving students space to examine their relationship with mathematics itself, then using AI to help us listen more deeply to what they’re telling us.
A week later, Jason lingered after class. “Thanks,” he said. “For, like, sharing with me.”
That two-second moment cracked something open — for both of us. Because behind every silence is a student waiting to be seen. And sometimes, the most powerful data we can use isn’t a test score or a benchmark — it’s a journal entry, a nod of recognition, or a quiet “thank you” made visible with the help of AI, reminding us why we teach.
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.
When most people think of part-time employment in the public sector, they assume that it (1) could be a steppingstone to a full-time job; (2) pays less than full-time, chiefly because it involves fewer hours of work; (3) is voluntary, and (4) is primarily meant to supplement a family’s income.
When it comes to California’s 36,000 part-time community college professors, the facts defy all four assumptions.
Unlike workers in other professions, part-time college instructors, regardless of length of service and/or quality of performance, will not be promoted to full-time unless they are lucky enough to secure an increasingly scarce full-time position teaching on the tenure track. Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”
Over the last five decades, colleges have gravitated toward part-time instructors for the flexibility of their semester-length agreements with no obligation to rehire, and their lower expense. For example, while all full-time instructors receive state-paid health insurance, only about 10% (3,742) of the state’s part-timers do.
Part-time instructor salaries are not pro-rated based on a typical full-time salary; instead, they are a separate scale which amounts to about 50-60% of the full-time instructor rate. To be clear, this doesn’t mean they receive 50-60% of the income of a full-time instructor: California law caps part-time faculty workload at no more than 67% of full-time. This workload cap, when combined with the discounted rate of pay, means that the average California part-time instructor teaching at 60% of full-time receives about $20,000 while the average annual income for full-time instructors is in excess of $100,000 a year.
Surveys conducted by the American Federation of Teachers in 2020 and 2022 found that roughly 25% of part-time community college faculty nationwide were below the federal poverty line.
With no natural transition from part-time to full-time, this two-tier workplace takes on features of a caste system, especially as both full-time and part-time instructors satisfy the same credential requirements, award grades and credits that have the same value, and have the same tuition charged for their courses.
While California college instructors are represented by faculty unions (primarily the California Federation of Teachers or the California Teachers Association), the priority of those unions would seem to be tenured faculty, as evidenced by the differences in the collectively bargained working conditions.
In the case of workload, for example, while part-time instructors are barred from teaching full-time, full-time instructors may elect to teach overtime, often called course overloads, for additional income. Full-time instructors displace part-time jobs whenever they do. In fact, full-timers generally get to choose their courses, including overloads, before part-timers are assigned courses.
A bill being considered at present in the California Legislature is Assembly Bill 2277. It would raise the current part-time workload restriction from 67% to 85% of full time, which, in theory, could enable some part-timers to teach more classes and earn more income. But if passed, AB 2277 would hardly solve the problem for part-time instructors.
To make a more meaningful improvement, AB 2277 could be amended in two ways, neither of which make an impact on the state budget:
Remove the artificial workload cap outright, thereby enabling part-time instructors the opportunity to work up to 100% of full time when work is available.
Impose a ban on full-time tenure-track instructors from teaching overtime (overloads).
One possible source of opposition to these changes could be California’s faculty unions, which are dominated by full-timers. While supportive of earlier attempts at raising the cap to 85% (e.g., AB 897 in 2020, AB 375 in 2021, and AB 1856 in 2022) — neither union has shown a willingness to support elimination of the cap outright or curbing full-time overloads.
Another source of opposition could be those full-time instructors accustomed to teaching overtime/overloads; they could oppose losing that option, which underscores the conflict of interest in a two-tier workplace when more for one tier means less for the other.
Faculty unions and lawmakers should take a step toward abolishing California’s faculty involuntary part-time work restriction by allowing them to work full time and protecting their jobs. An amended version of AB 2277 is a no-cost way of doing so.
•••
Alexis Moore taught visual art at colleges and universities for over three decades and served on the executive board of the Pasadena City College Faculty Association of the California Community College Independents (CCCI).
Jack Longmate has long served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and taught for over 28 years at Olympic College in Bremerton, Washington, where his ending annual salary was about $20,000 for teaching at 55% of an annual full-time teaching load.
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.
The overreliance on undersupported part-time faculty in the nation’s community colleges dates back to the 1970s during the era of neoliberal reform — the defunding of public education and the beginning of the corporatization of higher education in the United States. Decades of research show that the systemic overreliance on part-time faculty correlates closely with declining rates of student success.
Furthermore, when faculty are equitably compensated and thus able to provide high-quality student-faculty engagement in and out of the classroom, students succeed at significantly higher rates.
Nonetheless, part-time faculty do not have job security, often teach at several different colleges, struggle to earn a living wage, are generally not paid for office hours, and are not compensated equally for the same work as their full-time counterparts. This two-tiered structure was never meant to be permanent. It has deprived students and colleges of having a fully supported faculty, and has mostly remained hidden from the public.
It is time for the California Community Colleges to address the hypocrisy at the heart of its institutions: decades of disinvestment from the faculty and thus, students. Transitioning from a two-tiered to a nontiered — unified faculty— model will better serve the students, colleges and the state of California. The concept of a unified faculty emphasizes the elimination of the two employment tiers — part-time and full-time — to create a nontiered structure.
This model is based on faculty and collegewide unity as opposed to the current structure that has produced a divided faculty, inequitable service to students, and stagnant or diminishing student outcomes. The K-12 system and the Vancouver model at Vancouver Community College exemplify education systems structured around a unified faculty model.
A unified faculty model would vastly improve student success rates and the efficiency of the California Community Colleges by prioritizing student-faculty engagement in and out of the classroom, ensuring a culture of academic freedom, increasing the number of faculty participating in college governance and institutional effectiveness processes, fulfilling the system’s civic engagement mission to prepare Californians to become active participants in the state’s democratic processes, and increasing college and systemwide fiscal stability.
In 1988, AB 1725, a landmark community college bill, codified in California education law the goal to have 75% of its credit instruction taught by full-time faculty. Given its overreliance on an undersupported part-time faculty, however, the system has never come close to achieving this goal. The fact that the state established such a goal and has invested in some yearly budget increases to improve part-time faculty conditions indicates California’s awareness of the problem and interest in addressing the inequities of the two-tiered model.
Taking inspiration from the Vancouver model, many of the California Community Colleges’ system partners and stakeholders have been preparing to launch a systemwide transition to a unified faculty model. While the creation and adoption of legislation could also support this transition, legislation is not necessary for a transition to begin at the college level. Individual colleges, for example, could pilot a unified faculty model to demonstrate its efficacy.
A statewide transition to a unified faculty model will require leadership and coalition-building among the statewide faculty unions, academic senate, Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, the Chancellor’s Office, and other stakeholder groups.
In the past two decades, the California Community Colleges system has undergone significant “reform,” narrowing students’ educational opportunities and shrinking the student body by more than 1 million students. For example, remedial instruction, English as a second language programs, and lifelong learning courses have been cut or severely reduced without public debate.
During this period, the system’s student outcomes have declined, stagnated or only slightly improved despite decades of so-called reform efforts. Furthermore, the system has not successfully met its transfer, employment, or equity goals over the past five years. After decades of narrowing the student experience, defunding instructional programs and curriculum, and deprofessionalizing the faculty, the community college system has failed the California public.
Investing in a unified faculty model would remedy the California Community College system that is currently struggling to bring back the millions of students who have been pushed out of their colleges. Prioritizing the faculty’s vital role in students’ lives, California will set a precedent for a truly inclusive and equitable educational system that will empower millions of students to positively impact the economy and democracy of California, the nation and the world.
•••
Debbie Klein is an anthropology professor at Gavilan College in Gilroy and a former president of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
California’s $4.1 billion investment in community schools is the largest in the nation. An investment of this size raises important questions about whether community schools are working and what difference they are making for students.
Community schools are intended to provide the multitude of opportunities and supports that students need to thrive and succeed. They include a rich array of integrated services, expanded learning opportunities, deep community partnerships, and importantly, offer a more democratic way of engaging with students, families and the school community to shape school priorities and vision.
Community schools are a complex endeavor that, when done well, substantially expand what schools do to support students — and who is included in this work. Assessing the implementation and impact of community schools is similarly complex.
The California Department of Education (CDE) recently requested proposals for an evaluator of the California Community Schools Partnership Program (CCSPP) initiative and will make a selection this spring. We wish to share lessons for future evaluators of program, the department of education, and the county offices of education, districts, schools and communities implementing these community school models throughout the state and country. Ideally, whatever data is required for the state evaluation and grant compliance should also be usable to help schools and districts in guiding strategic, high-quality community schools implementation.
The suggestions below come out of our work as evaluators for Oakland Unified School District’s community schools initiative for many years while working at Stanford University’s Gardner Center, and as authors of a book about the effort to transform all the district’s schools into community schools.
Community schools are not a program that a school either has or does not have, but rather an approach to education with many gradations along a spectrum.
While many California schools have recently or will soon receive funding to become community schools, fully implementing the model can take years. Further, many of these schools already operated some elements of community schools prior to funding (such as expanded learning, school-based health services, positive discipline practices, coordination of services, or family engagement strategies), without the “community school” label. The community school grant, which includes funding for an on-site community school coordinator, is meant to expand and strengthen whole-child work and bring increased collaboration and coherence across many people, organizations and initiatives. Thus, identifying the community school “start date” as the receipt of CCSPP funds is not as clean as it may seem.
Lesson for evaluators: The multifaceted and fluid nature of community schools make traditional causal research designs challenging. Evaluators ideally should adopt a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative) approach that examines change over time at community schools and illuminates connections between quality implementation and desired outcomes. Evaluators should thoughtfully consider the extent to which it is possible to isolate the impact of community schools and be precise about which elements or stages of community schools are captured in any assessment of impact.
A multilevel strategy map can provide a framework to guide implementation and evaluation.
Community schools provide a range of additional services, engage families and community organizations, and align all of these toward school goals; increasing students’ well-being and, ultimately, educational success. Successful community schools are more than a site-level intervention and require intentional district support. Given the multifaceted nature of community schools, we recommend a theory of change or “system strategy map” at three levels. Assessing key activities and outcomes at the 1) System (school district), 2) Site (school and community), and 3) Individual (student and family) levels can help ensure a comprehensive evaluation and improve understanding of differences in implementation and outcomes across the state.
Impact on traditional measures of student success can take time, and is predicated on quality implementation. But there is a lot you can measure along the way.
Community schools are a whole child, whole school improvement strategy. It takes time to adopt new practices, integrate resources, cultivate meaningful collaboration, develop supportive structures, and shift culture. We are unlikely to see immediate effects on traditional measures of student achievement — e.g., test scores, graduation rates, attendance, and suspensions — for at least 3-5 years. We may start to see bumps in achievement for specific student subgroups as community schools are designed to precipitate more equitable access across opportunity gaps.
To impact long-term student wellbeing and success, quality implementation matters. Proximal indicators can show if schools are on the right track: for example, participation, knowledge, and use indicators (e.g., to what extent are students and families accessing services and opportunities; to what extent is staff aware of and utilizing community school resources); culture/climate indicators (e.g., levels of trust, collaboration, and participation); and if other enabling conditions are being met. Additionally, qualitative data is crucial for answering critical questions about how community schools are working, what is going well, what is not, and why.
These findings can directly inform program improvement at the LEA and state level. For example, some of our early research with Oakland Unified showed that many principals were struggling to understand their role in community schools development. In response to these findings, the district increased investment in professional development for site leaders.
Lessons for evaluators: Before assessing whether community schools are yielding desired results for students, it’s imperative to examine the extent to which implementation is happening as hoped and planned, such as, school-level coherence and collaboration and family-school partnerships. Further, an evaluation should include more nuanced indicators of student experiences beyond what is included in the California Data Dashboard and existing statewide culture/climate surveys to capture youth voice, cultural relevance and community connection.
The California Community Schools Partnership Program evaluator will set the tone for “what matters” in community school implementation across the state. Additionally, the evaluation activities should include support for schools, districts and county offices to help them use data in collaborative, participatory ways with their teams and community.
A strong evaluation of the California community schools initiative will provide lessons that inform ongoing school and district-level implementation, and give us an understanding of the difference community schools make for students and families.
Gov. Gavin Newsom unveils his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.
Credit: AP Photo / Rich Pedroncelli
Despite a further deterioration in state revenues, Gov. Gavin Newsom again pledged Friday to protect ongoing funding and the large-scale initiatives for TK-12 schools that he has set in motion.
“I just don’t want to see education cuts,” Newsom said during a news conference on the revision to the proposed 2024-25 state budget he presented in January. “Right now, I want to see us preserve the progress we have made on community schools, on preschool, on after-school-for-all, summer school — all the work we’ve been doing.”
Newsom’s comment during a two-hour session with reporters reflected the challenge of writing annual budgets subject to volatile revenue fluctuations dependent on the incomes of the top 1% of earners. Receipts from capital gains taxes that soared to $349 billion in 2021-22 dropped to $137 billion in 2023-24. The current fiscal year ends June 30.
As a result of the projected shortfall, other state operations could face additional cuts. Newsom didn’t make the same promise he made for schools to higher education, leaving California State University system officials on edge. In a statement, CSU Chancellor Mildred Garcia said she was “deeply concerned” about a revised state budget that would grant no increase next year, then a 2% increase in 2025-26, instead of a 10% increase over two years as promised in January.
“As the institution that educates the evolving workforce of California, this budget places us in a position of making difficult decisions,” Garcia said.
It was not clear whether the University of California would face similar cuts, although Newsom typically treats both systems similarly. UC officials would not comment on the issue. In a statement Friday, UC President Michael Drake said that the system is hoping to “finalize a budget that sustains the University’s research, public service, and education mission.”
The summary of revenue reductions and spending cuts Newsom released lacked the details that usually accompany a May budget revision; however, more information is expected by Tuesday, the deadline for statutory budget language.
Some TK-12 advocates expressed relief, nonetheless.
“Given the magnitude of the fiscal crisis, that the governor could put together a budget that largely protects K-12 is remarkable,” said education consultant Kevin Gordon,president of Capitol Advisors.
Derick Lennox, senior director of governmental relations and legal affairs with the California County Superintendents, was more cautious. “We can appreciate the governor’s commitment to hold schools harmless to the extent he can, but so much will all depend on the details for Proposition 98 and what is available,” he said, referring to the portion of the general fund that determines funding for TK-12 schools and community colleges.
Newsom said general fund revenues were expected to decline an additional $7 billion for a total of $27.6 billion for the three-year period from 2022-23 through 2024-25. The total deficit would be nearly twice as big, but the Legislature has made a combination of cuts, savings, and deferred spending since January.
The shortfall for TK-12 and community colleges, due to lower Proposition 98 funding, would be about $4.2 billion. Although details are scant, Newsom would make up for it mostly by emptying nearly all the remaining $9 billion rainy day fund for schools and community colleges.
Newsom said the average TK-12 per-student funding for 2024-25 would be $17,502 — $151 per student less than proposed in January. Despite that, funding would include a 1% cost of living increase, a smidge higher than in January.
The May revision lists about $1 billion in cuts for early education through high school. Most of the programs are funded by the general fund, not Proposition 98. It would preserve ongoing funding for the expanded transitional kindergarten program for 4-year-olds and long-awaited pay raises for child care providers.
Cuts would include:
$425 million to the Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative out of a $4 billion investment, which Newsom said would reflect directing more funding to wellness centers at school sites. Carl Pinkston of the Black Parallel School Board expressed concern. “In the aftermath of the pandemic, many students continue to display signs of trauma, adversely affecting their academic performance and overall well-being,” he said. The initiative “is a critical program that champions equity, aiming to improve behavioral health outcomes for children and youth.”
Delayed funding for additional slots for state-funded child care. Instead of funding 146,000 as planned, the state will continue funding 119,000 new slots funded so far. “Delaying access to child care for the next two years to our youngest Californians is deeply troubling,” said Mary Ignatius, executive director of Parent Voices CA, an advocacy group. “Their childhoods do not pause. Their undiagnosed speech or other developmental delays will make it harder for them two years from now.”
Elimination of $550 million in facilities funding forpreschools, transitional kindergarten and full-day kindergarten programs. Newsom suggested funding could be included in a statewide school facilities bond. He said Friday that negotiations were continuing with legislative leaders for a bond on the statewide ballot in November.
A cut of $60.2 million to the Golden State Teacher Grant Program, which pays up to $20,000 to teacher candidates enrolled in credential programs who commit to working for years in priority schools.
Elimination of $48 million in 2025-26 and $98 million in 2026-27 for increased payments for state preschools that serve additional students with disabilities.
A cut of all but $100 million in ongoing funding for the Middle Class Scholarship Program, which previously received more than $600 million annually. In past years, more than 300,000 students across UC and CSU have received scholarships, which are available to students whose families earn up to $217,000.
Criticism of a key fix to the shortfall
Newsom’s solution for minimizing cuts to schools and community colleges would rely on a controversial maneuver. He would fill in the biggest piece of the shortfall — $8 billion in an unanticipated drop in Proposition 98 revenue in 2022-23 — by treating it as an overpayment of the state’s funding obligation. Since schools and community colleges have already spent the money, he’d fill in the gap by cutting the general fund — but not until 2028-29, when the state’s revenue picture presumably would have improved. Since Newsom announced the idea in January, the repayment obligation has grown to $8.8 billion.
An accounting move of that magnitude hasn‘t been done before. The Legislative Analyst Office (LAO) has questioned the tactic, and so did the California School Boards Association in a statement Friday in which it implied it might sue.
The association’s logic reflects the complexity of the Proposition 98 formula for determining funding. The school boards association asserts that the 2022-23 funding level was not a voluntary overpayment but rather a constitutional obligation on which subsequent years’ levels of funding are set.
“This accounting gimmick would lower the baseline for calculating education funding in subsequent years, subjecting California schools to lower revenue for the foreseeable future,” school boards association President Albert Gonzalez said. “This sets a terrible precedent that potentially destabilizes education funding and undermines the voters’ intent when they passed Proposition 98 more than 35 years ago.”
The California Department of Finance has insisted that the solution is legal. However, on Friday, Newsom did acknowledge that Proposition 98 is complicated.
“You need not only a Ph.D., but a physics degree, an engineering degree and everything else to unpack its complexities,” he said.
State Sen. Roger Niello, R-Fair Oaks, vice chairman of the Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee, back to camera, urges lawmakers to reject a measure to reduce the state budget deficit at the Capitol in Sacramento on April 11, 2024.
Many details of the spending plan will be hashed out in the coming days and weeks, but Thursday’s action will allow lawmakers to continue getting paid because it meets the constitutional requirement that they pass a budget before June 15.
The bare-bones plan passed Thursday would increase the size of the can lawmakers had previously contemplated kicking down the road in order to deal with lagging revenue. It would increase the amount of Proposition 98 funding — the amount of the overall general fund that must go to K-12 education and community colleges — that would be suspended in the current year, but with the expectation that much of it will be repaid and revenue will increase in the coming year.
Plenty of details remain unresolved. The Senate and the Assembly rejected $895 million that Gov. Gavin Newsom had proposed in one-time funding to purchase zero-emission school buses, and instead reinstated a cut that Newsom had proposed for the Golden State Teachers Grant Program, which pays $20,000 to teacher candidates who agree to teach in priority schools for four years. A supplemental bill that has not been released will detail how the rest of the money would be used. The Legislature accepted Newsom’s proposed cut of $550 million in facilities for transitional kindergarten and full-day kindergarten on the assumption that money will be included in a facilities bond that the governor and legislative leaders are negotiating to place on the November election ballot.
The framework with the California Teachers Association last month settled the question of how the state would account for an $8.8 billion shortfall in revenue below what the Legislature appropriated for 2022-23. The deal calls for suspending funding still owed for the current year ending June 30 — something that had been done only twice in the past 40 years — by $5.5 billion and delaying paying $2.6 billion appropriated for 2023-24 until 2024-25.
Suspending a portion of the Proposition 98 obligation requires creating a type of IOU that must be repaid in coming years. Newsom avoided outright cutting of TK-12 and community college funding by suspending some state funding and pushing off paying districts from the end of one fiscal year to the start of the next one — a tactic known as deferrals.
The placeholder budget passed on Thursday increases the funding that will be suspended by $2.8 billion. The Legislature assumes that higher income tax revenue next year, based on updated projections that Newsom didn’t have for his revised May budget, will help to pay down the suspended funding. The Legislature also would generate a new source of revenue by accelerating a three-year postponement of deductions that corporations can claim from net operating losses and various business tax credits. That would bring in temporarily $5 billion, of which about $2 billion would go to schools and community colleges under Proposition 98.
Newsom had proposed the three-year interruption to begin in 2025-26. Since businesses haven’t had time to plan an accelerated schedule, Newsom hasn’t said if he’d go along. Resuming the operating deductions and credits would then reduce revenues in future years.
Republicans in the Legislature criticized addressing the state’s budget deficit by raising taxes on the business community and shifting funds around. The budget is “little more than a shell game meant to hide the bleak truth of our financial situation,” said Senate Minority Leader Brian W. Jones, R-San Diego, who blamed overspending for the swing from a massive budget surplus to a deficit in two years.
The advocacy group Children Now, generally an ally of the Democratic leaders on children’s issues, criticized increasing the amount of Proposition 98 suspension and the use of funding deferrals. Suspension, the group said, “should be a last resort, not a tool to manipulate education spending,” adding that suspension, with its creation of an IOU, subjects education to funding volatility and uncertainty about when the money will be repaid.
“While we understand the necessity of suspending Proposition 98 under the current circumstances, a suspension isn’t ideal, and its size should be minimized as California still ranks fifth worst in the nation in terms of student-to-teacher ratios and, similarly, has among the lowest staffing levels for other educators, including support staff, nurses, and administrators,” the letter said.
Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Geyserville, predicted a deal between lawmakers and Newsom as early as next week and that the final budget would be similar to what the Legislature approved.
Gov. Gavin Newsom answers a reporter’s question about his revised 2024-25 state budget during a news conference in Sacramento on May 10, 2024.
Credit: AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli
True to Gov. Gavin Newsom’s promise, the 2024-25 budget compromise that the Legislature announced Saturday and will pass this week will spare TK-12 and community colleges from cuts that other state operations will bear.
TK-12 funding will be flat and will continue Newsom’s major commitments to multiyear, multibillion-dollar programs, including community schools and before- and after-school expansion.
Update: State Budget Signed
On June 26, Gov. Newsom signed Assembly Bill 107, the main budget bill, and Senate Bill 154, the Proposition 98 suspension bill. On June 28, Newsom signed SB 153, the education trailer bill.
The budget will even throw in a couple of billion in new revenue that Newsom didn’t call for in January or in his May budget revisions. Newsom and legislators, meanwhile, struggled to squeeze an additional $28 billion out of a $211 billion general fund spending.
But protection for schools and community colleges will carry risk. To balance the budget, Newsom and legislative leaders rely on budget maneuvers that would give a button-down accountant acid reflux.
They include creating a $6 billion debt that won’t be fully repaid to the state treasury for a dozen years, and draining the $8.4 billion education rainy day fund.
The deal also requires delaying payments to schools and community colleges and suspending — for only the third time in its 36-year history — Proposition 98 obligations for the current school year, on the assumption the money will be repaid quickly. Proposition 98, a constitutional amendment voters passed in 1988, established a formula for determining the minimum level of general fund spending on transitional kindergarten through grade 12 and community colleges — generally about 40%.
Rather than punish schools for money already spent, the budget bill creates a $6.2 billion debt that the general fund, not schools and community colleges, will repay the state treasury over a decade, starting in 2026-27. The remaining $2.6 billion will be a Proposition 98 obligation pushed ahead to 2023-24; that unfunded amount is called a deferral.
The California State University and the University of California won’t fare as well in the budget deal, although better than Newsom had proposed in January, even with a drop in state revenues since then. Both will get a 5% budget increase in 2024-25 that Newsom had proposed delaying, equal to $227.8 million for UC and $240.2 million for CSU, to support enrollment growth of California residents this fall.
Another promised 5% budget increase for both systems in 2025-26, however, will be put off a year. UC and CSU also face one-time cuts in 2024-25 of $125 million and $75 million, respectively, which will be restored in 2025-26.
Both CSU and UC will also face a 7.95% cut in their administrative expenses in 2025-26.
There will be no reforming the Cal Grant program in 2024-25, but, at the Legislature’s insistence, the $637 million ongoing funding for middle-class scholarships will continue, with a $289 million one-time increase.
Late spending changes
The final budget will also restore some TK-12 and child-care cuts that Newsom had proposed in his May budget revision while maintaining others. They include:
Restoring $60 million for the Golden State Teachers Program, which provides $20,000 in scholarships to teacher candidates, although a new means test may pare back $10 million in eligibility.
Restoring $100 million in funding to help preschools prepare classrooms and train teachers in order to enroll more children with disabilities, while withdrawing larger plans to expand the program.
Continuing the existing agreement to serve 200,000 more children in the state-subsidized child care system but pushing back the timetable for full compliance to 2028.
Rescinding $895 million in one-time spending on electric-powered school buses that Newsom had made a priority. Instead, the money will be used to reduce some of the late payments in state funding for schools.
School districts receive the bulk of their funding through the Local Control Funding Formula, which is based on daily student attendance and a yearly cost-of-living adjustment. So, even though overall state funding won’t be cut, many districts with declining enrollments and high absenteeism rates will face financial challenges.
The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA), which is based on a federal formula tied to the cost of goods and services but does not factor in regional costs, including housing, will be only 1.07% for 2024-25, forcing further belt-tightening. One option for school districts, giving layoff notices to staff, will be off the table. State law allows an additional round of layoffs in August in years when the COLA is less than 2%, but, at the urging of public employee unions, Newsom and legislative leaders included a clause prohibiting late summer layoffs. They have done the same statutory override before.
The initial reaction from two veteran TK-12 budget watchers was mixed. “This budget remarkably insulates K-14 funding from cuts, abides by constitutional requirements to restore funding in the future, and even provides a modest cost-of-living increase, all amid a record budget shortfall. Pretty amazing,” wrote Kevin Gordon, president of Capitol Advisors Group, a school consultancy firm.
Rob Manwaring, senior policy and fiscal adviser with the nonprofit advocacy organization Children Now, was cautious. “While the final budget is perhaps the best schools could anticipate given the budget challenges, we worry about the size of the suspension for schools, $8.3 billion,” he wrote. “Schools will eventually get paid back those funds in future years on top of the minimum guarantee, but these payments will result in increased school funding volatility and uncertainty until they are paid back.”
And if revenues falter next year, schools and community colleges will no longer have a rainy day fund to turn to; it will be depleted by the end of 2023-24, with the possibility of replenishing it by $1.1 billion in 2024-25.
Proposition 98 juggling act
The proposed 2024-25 budget for schools and community colleges will be balanced, if revenue projections hold true, by juggling three years of Proposition 98 shortfalls, with one year’s solution creating the next year’s dilemma.
The big drop was in 2022-23 when the Legislature “over-appropriated” the minimum Proposition 98 guarantee by $8.8 billion, while state revenue from the post-Covid stock market and the tech sector plummeted. Legislators didn’t see the warning signals because winter storms had pushed back the tax filing deadline from April to November.
Under the mechanics of Proposition 98, the funding level for 2022-23 becomes the base level for 2023-24, even though the state still lacks the revenue to pick up the tab. So all but $1 billion of the $8.4 billion in the education rainy day fund will be drained to cover some of the 2023-24 deficit and the $2.6 billion deferral from the year before.
On top of that, the budget deal calls for suspending $8.3 billion of the Proposition 98 funding for 2023-24. That has the effect of lowering the minimum guaranteed funding by that amount, while freeing up money to avoid deeper cuts in other state operations. That’s how the Legislature can restore cuts in 2024-25 for child care and preschool that Newsom had planned.
The architects of Proposition 98 wanted to discourage the Legislature from suspending the law. So it requires the Legislature to declare a fiscal emergency and to make the suspended funding a priority for repayment as soon as there is new revenue. The 2024-25 budget assumes the state will have enough new revenue to pay back at least $4 billion of the suspended $8 billion, maybe more. But if revenues falter, districts won’t get what they’re entitled to, with no set date for repayment.
That’s why the deal is also a gamble for schools and community colleges.
There’s one more wrinkle. To raise revenue quickly, the Legislature has accelerated the temporary, three-year suspension of two tax benefits for large and medium-sized businesses: net operating loss deductions and tax credits. The period will start in 2024-25, one year ahead of schedule. It will yield a projected $5 billion, with $2 billion going to Proposition 98 — funding that will be used to pay down deferrals.
Between this new money and the $4 billion payback for suspended funding, the Proposition 98 minimum guarantee is expected to rise to a record $115.3 billion in 2024-25.
As with all deadline negotiations, legislators will have at most three days to review hundreds of pages of budget details spread over 16 separate bills. Newsom, Senate President pro Tempore Mike McGuire, D-Healdsburg, and Speaker of the Assembly Robert Rivas, D-Hollister, are expecting that legislators will demand some changes when they return from vacation in August.
Netty Hull, an instructor in Yakima Valley College’s teacher education program, speaks with a group of students.
Credit: Michael Burke/EdSource
Up the West Coast in Washington state, some students want a bachelor’s degree to enter careers like teaching and nursing but don’t have a local four-year university to attend. Fortunately for them, they have another option: getting that degree from a community college.
It’s an idea that California has taken steps to embrace, with the passage of a law three years ago allowing the state’s community college system to approve up to 30 new bachelor’s degrees annually, not just associate degrees and certificates. But some officials and advocates believe the colleges could be doing more if not for restrictions on what they can offer.
LESSONS IN HIGHER EDUCATION
California leads the nation in many areas of higher education, including educating the largest number of undergraduates at 2.3 million. The state is also grappling with issues that are being tackled by other public universities across the country. This story is part of a continuing EdSource series on issues and innovations that relate to California’s higher education systems.
— Rose Ciotta, Investigations and Projects Editor
The key, they say, is making bachelor’s degrees available to place-bound students — those who can only attend college close to home, usually because of work or family commitments. That has become a reality in Washington state, where community colleges in rural areas can offer essentially any bachelor’s degree as long as they demonstrate there’s a regional workforce need and that students will enroll in the program.
“Just because they’re in an isolated community, that does not mean the community members should not have access to higher education,” said Constance Carroll, president of the California Community College Baccalaureate Association.
In California, community colleges can only offer four-year degrees in programs not offered by the state’s four-year universities. That takes away the option to create degrees in majors like education and nursing, even as those industries face worker shortages. Reversing that would require legislative change and would surely face pushback from California State University. The 23-campus CSU system, with unstable enrollment at several campuses, is loath to lose potential students to the community colleges.
The rules even apply to community colleges in remote and rural areas without a CSU or University of California campus. That’s particularly troublesome for advocates who argue that students in those regions are being left behind. Instead of traveling to another part of the state to attend a CSU or UC campus, in many cases they are not going to college at all, leading to low degree attainment and workforce shortages in those regions.
“Duplication limitations hurt all of our students, especially those who are place-bound,” Melissa Villarin, a spokesperson for the community college system, said in an email.
The landscape could start to change with legislation being considered by California lawmakers, Senate Bill 895. The bill would permit up to 15 community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in nursing. If it passes, it could set a precedent for allowing community colleges to offer degrees already offered by CSU.
In Washington, a different reality
Saray Preciado decided to go to college during the Covid-19 pandemic after being laid off from her paralegal job. With a newborn daughter, she wanted to advance her career so her family didn’t have to rely only on her husband’s income.
A resident of Yakima, a city of about 98,000 in central Washington, Preciado initially considered a few colleges, including the closest four-year university, Central Washington University. But the 45-minute commute from Yakima made that untenable. With her husband working until 4 p.m. every day, Preciado needed to be with her daughter during the day.
Yakima Valley College’s campusCredit: Michael Burke / EdSource
Yakima Valley, which caters to students like Preciado by offering evening classes, was the obvious choice.
“I’ve always dreamed about being a teacher,” she said. “So I thought, let me just give it a shot.”
She graduated from the program last month and will start in the fall as a bilingual teacher at nearby Moxee Elementary.
Like California, bachelor’s degrees at Washington’s community colleges can’t duplicate what’s offered at the state’s four-year universities. But whether a degree is considered duplicative isn’t as simple as whether a similar program is offered at a four-year college. Officials there consider additional factors, especially location.
“There are a whole lot of students who are choosing not to go into higher ed,” said Valerie Sundby, director of transfer education with the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. “We’re not competing for the students who are already choosing and have a pathway into higher ed. We’re trying to broaden that pathway.”
Washington’s community colleges have offered bachelor’s degrees since 2005. There are currently 33 colleges offering a total of 165 bachelor’s degrees, including in nursing and teacher education. The state has awarded nearly 1,200 bachelor’s degrees in teacher education and 790 in nursing. Unlike California, where CSU and UC have a say during the approval process for community college bachelor’s degrees, the final approval in Washington rests solely with the community college officials.
Preciado’s experience isn’t an unusual one. For many students in the region, their options are either to attend Yakima Valley College or get no postsecondary degree at all. According to the latest census data, 17.6% of adults in Yakima County have at least a bachelor’s degree, compared with 36.7% statewide.
“One day we have to get beyond that,” said Herlinda Ruvalcaba, Yakima Valley College’s director of applied baccalaureate programs. “Most of the students are here because they’re in the valley. They’re not looking to move. They’re staying here.”
That’s the case for Sofia Gonzalez, who in the fall will enter her final year in the college’s dental hygiene program.
Gonzalez lives with her mother and 8-year-old brother. Her mom is enrolled in English courses at Yakima Valley, and Gonzalez watches her little brother while her mom is at class.
“I’m very family-oriented. I wanted to help her out,” Gonzalez said.
Being able to live at home and not pay rent, making the degree more affordable, was also attractive to Gonzalez.
Gonzalez plans to find a job locally after she gets her degree next year. Most Yakima bachelor’s degree earners remain in the region after graduation, and that’s by design. When community colleges like Yakima are considering a new bachelor’s degree, they’re required to demonstrate that there’s a regional labor market need for that profession, something that’s also required for community college bachelor’s degree programs in California.
Sofia Gonzalez, a student in the dental hygiene bachelor’s degree program at Yakima Valley College, practices cleaning teeth on another student.Credit: Michael Burke/EdSource
In Washington, the degrees are called applied bachelor’s degrees because they are designed to give students applicable experience.
In Yakima Valley’s agricultural sciences bachelor’s program, the capstone project for seniors is to design an agribusiness plan that they can use outside the classroom. For Pedro Huecias, that meant coming up with a plan to own and live off his own vineyard. His project mapped out a multi-year plan to come up with the money to do that.
Huecias, who graduated last month, was one of six students in the agricultural program’s first cohort. He currently works in cheese production for Darigold, a dairy cooperative operating in Washington and three other states. But he’s always dreamed bigger than that: Since he was 14, Huecias and his cousin have planned on one day owning their own vineyard. He’s hopeful his new degree will help him accomplish that.
“I wasn’t happy where I was at, and I needed to do something different,” he said.
California’s landscape
In California, there are 42 bachelor’s degree programs that are currently offered or will be soon across 35 different community colleges. But another eight proposed degrees are currently in limbo because CSU has raised duplication concerns. Four of those degrees have been held up for more than a year.
Beyond that, there are colleges that would like to offer additional bachelor’s degrees but haven’t proposed them because of the duplication law. Francisco Rodriguez, chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, the state’s largest district, said colleges “have a strong interest” in being able to offer bachelor’s degrees in a wider array of programs, including education.
“There are workforce shortages, and the community colleges are perfectly situated and positioned to address some of these regional needs,” he said. “My instinct tells me there are enough students for everyone.”
Some shortages are especially dire in the state’s rural counties. Nine of the state’s rural counties are teacher education deserts, having struggled to recruit teachers, concluded a recent report by the UCLA Center for the Transformation of Schools. One of the problems identified in the report is the lack of higher education options in those counties.
The UCLA report suggests allowing community colleges to play a larger role in preparing teachers. That could mean letting community colleges offer credentialing programs for students who already have a bachelor’s degree. It could also include letting the community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees in education, or at least parts of those degrees, said Kai Mathews, project director for the UCLA center that wrote the report.
“We’re in a teacher shortage. We need as many systems and supports and programs as possible to get students engaged into this profession,” Mathews added.
Under current state law, location isn’t considered at all when community colleges propose new bachelor’s degrees. When a degree is being considered, it goes out for review to all 23 CSU campuses, from San Diego to Humboldt.
“We try not to get emotionally involved or even consider it regionally,” said Brent Foster, an assistant vice chancellor at CSU.
State community college officials acknowledge that’s the law but say they wish it were different.
Being able to evaluate “regional labor market needs and the state’s existing ability to meet those demands” could be useful in determining whether a degree is duplicative, said Villarin, the spokesperson for the community college system.
Community college and CSU officials are working to find a third-party organization to serve as something of a mediator between the two sides and help smooth the review process.
At the same time, SB 895, the bill that would allow up to 15 community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in nursing, could be a turning point for the state. The bill cleared the Senate and is currently making its way through the Assembly. If signed into law, priority for the degrees would be given to colleges in underserved areas.
The legislation is opposed by CSU and by the Association for Independent California Colleges and Universities (AICCU), which represents the state’s private universities. In an opposition message submitted to lawmakers, the AICCU cited the state’s duplication law.
“Respectfully, we view this proposal to be a significant shift away from that recently agreed upon framework,” the AICCU wrote.
In an analysis of the bill, Senate staff said it “establishes a precedent for permitting duplication of degree programs and expands CCC’s ability to establish baccalaureate degrees independent from California’s other public universities.”
Carroll, whose organization supports the legislation, said the intent is not for the bill to be “a harbinger of lots of duplication.” Instead, she said it was specifically proposed to address nursing shortages facing the state.
Carroll added, though, that she’s hopeful the state will nonetheless be able to offer a wider range of community college bachelor’s degrees at some point in the future.
“As people learn more about it, and they see how the bachelor’s programs have benefited students and local communities, we’re hoping that they will become supportive,” she said.
A teacher kicks off a lesson during an AP Research class.
Credit: Allison Shelley for EDUimages
High school seniors walked the stage last month, but the FAFSA fiasco has left some still in limbo about their college plans for the fall.
Changes to the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) were supposed to make accessing financial aid easier for students and their families. Instead, it created new challenges for our students at the UCLA Community School, a public LAUSD school located in Koreatown. Despite our best efforts, our predominantly working class, Latino students lived in constant uncertainty around their college plans because issues with the application process led to delays in financial aid packages from universities.
Although it was a frustrating experience, our counseling team found a silver lining — using this opportunity to teach our students how to overcome one of the many systemic challenges they will face as first-generation college students. As a Latino first-gen student myself, I leveraged my lived experiences and worked with colleagues in our College Center to teach our students the critical college knowledge they will need to navigate a system that seems stacked against them.
Working in a community school means intentionally anticipating challenges and systemic barriers students and their families face along their educational journey. Community schools, located in neighborhoods with large numbers of high-needs students, work extra closely with community agencies and local government to provide a range of resources and services to students and families.
Two years ago, we created a College and Careers Transition course to help seniors develop a plan for college and/or careers after high school. However, we didn’t realize how important this course would be until we faced the FAFSA fiasco, which was a huge technical nightmare that delayed aid packages to students who were relying on federal aid to make their college decisions. First-generation college students and underserved communities have always needed support in the application process, but this year, more than ever. Through a collaborative partnership with UCLA, the Fulfillment Fund and Gear Up 4 LA, we helped all students access aid through one-on-one support and educated students and families on how to complete FAFSA once in college.
Although students were given dedicated class time to complete the application, several students needed extra support. One ambitious student, whom I’ll call Nadia to protect her privacy, was accepted to highly selective colleges and would visit the College Center every day seeking support and understanding. The first issue we faced was verifying their parents’ identities. Although the family had created their Federal Student Aid IDs and submitted verification documents as soon as the application opened (late) in January, Nadia was not able to complete the form. This issue occurred for more than half of our students simply because they are part of mixed-immigration status families. Not being able to provide a parent’s signature on the form meant that the Student Aid Index (SAI) could not be calculated, therefore leaving students uncertain of the amount of financial aid they would receive.
Although FAFSA provided temporary workarounds, Nadia was still not able to receive an accurate provisional aid letter by the May 15 deadline observed by most colleges in California. Pressured by looming deadlines she deferred admission to her second-choice college because she did not want to risk committing to a school she could not afford. After checking FAFSA every day for months, the day finally came when Nadia could access her Student Aid Index and she elected to attend community college for academic and financial reasons. In a turn of events, she got off the waitlist for her dream university, the University of Southern California (USC). We spent the week leading up to graduation watching Nadia take the lessons learned from the course as she advocated for herself to secure her aid package from USC. She will start there this year. However, while Nadia had a week to have important financial conversations with family, other students had less than 24 hours or no time at all. Some students felt forced to commit to a school without aid packages or deferred to community college to minimize the financial risk.
While we are hopeful that next year’s FAFSA process will be smoother, this year’s fiasco has helped us build confidence in students and their families who are sending children to college for the very first time. Our transition course affirmed students’ own agency and the power of community. We taught students to have hope and to find it in their circles of support. We also provided coordinated, one-on-one support for every student, which wouldn’t have been possible without the support of UCLA and college access partners like the Fulfillment Fund.
This experience has demonstrated how critical college access programs are in supporting first-generation college students and the many barriers they will face in their higher education journeys.
•••
Jonathan Oyaga is a research associate for UCLA Center for Community Schooling, a campuswide initiative to advance university-assisted community schools, and an educational aide at the UCLA Community School, working in the College and Career Center to support students’ postsecondary transitions.
The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Los Angeles City College, one of the state’s 116 community colleges.
Larry Gordon/EdSource Today
Thousands of current and prospective California Community College (CCC) students are being crushed by unmanageable college and living expenses and hefty student loans.
That’s the finding of a new report from The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS) and Student Senate for California Community Colleges (SSCCC). Our researchers analyzed data from state and federal officials to shine a light on the complex financial challenges plaguing community college students, particularly students of color.
The conclusion is clear: We must make community college more affordable and accessible.
Before diving into the findings, it’s important to understand the unique challenges of community college students. Many come from low-income backgrounds and experience food and housing insecurity while pursuing their postsecondary dreams. Many also financially support a child or other family members.
Unfortunately, the report found that community college can quickly become too expensive for these students to manage, and could even be more costly than public universities. Our researchers analyzed the price of various community colleges — including tuition, food, housing, textbooks and materials, and transportation — for a student whose family made less than $30,000 annually. We found that, including potential grant aid, Butte College still had an annual net price of $14,600. Cuesta College cost $18,900, and Long Beach City College came in at $20,200.
Furthermore, community college students often struggle to access grant aid. Prospective students may be unaware of their aid eligibility or lack the support to navigate the full application process. In 2019-20, only 51% of community college students in California applied for federal financial aid, compared with 75% of students attending public four-year universities.
All in all, 54% of students attending the state’s community colleges did not receive a single drop of grant aid in 2019-20.
Public university students, meanwhile, often fare better with financial aid because they are eligible for more generous and robust financial support from the state and their institutions. For example, unlike California community college students, they are eligible for funds from the Middle Class Scholarship for individuals pursuing a teaching credential.
As a result, thousands of community college students, particularly students of color, take out student loans. Alarmingly, while Black students made up just 5% of the California community college enrollment in 2021-22, they accounted for 20% of student borrowers.
Community college students also try to make ends meet by working while taking classes. More than 3 in 4 community college students surveyed in the 2021-22 Student Expenses and Resources Survey (SEARS) reported working at least 21 hours a week, compared with just half of their peers at California State University, University of California, and private, nonprofit institutions. And almost half of community college respondents worked at least 36 hours — nearly a full-time job.
Unfortunately, research shows that excessive work hours can negatively impact students’ academic success by slashing the time they have to learn and study.
California must do better.
It is critical to expand access to aid opportunities for community college students. First and foremost, policymakers can follow through on their commitment to reform the Cal Grant program. After years of advocacy, legislators agreed in the 2022-23 California state budget to expand eligibility to more low-income students, ensure student awards kept pace with inflation, and more. But they still haven’t provided the funding needed to complete these reforms — and the 2024-25 state budget doesn’t include it. We simply can’t keep putting this on the back burner.
In the meantime, state leaders should pursue other routes to increase aid opportunities. California just submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of Education to enable students without a high school diploma — or the equivalent — to access federal assistance for higher education, known as Title IV financial aid. This could be a big step forward in supporting community college students if allowed.
Policymakers and community colleges should also explore innovative ways to ensure that incoming students complete the Free Application For Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) or California Dream Act Application (CADAA). While high school students are required to submit a FAFSA or CADAA, many prospective community college students take years off between high school and postsecondary education. Increasing completion rates can maximize access to aid for those students.
Additionally, we urge policymakers to make the Student Success Completion Grant — which helps community college students cover their education and living expenses — more equitable. The grant is currently only available to those who attend full-time — generally, students with fewer external work and family responsibilities. And the amount of aid varies significantly. Students taking 12 -14.999 credits can only receive $1,298 per semester. However, once they hit 15 credits, that amount jumps to $4,000 per semester.
California Community Colleges are designed to serve all communities and uplift students from every walk of life. With intentional reforms that support the whole student, we ensure that all Californians have equitable and affordable access to a quality education at their local community college.
