اینترنت

برچسب: community

  • UC, Cal State, community colleges should work together to boost transfer rates, auditor says

    UC, Cal State, community colleges should work together to boost transfer rates, auditor says


    The Transfer and Reentry Center in Dutton Hall at UC Davis helps transfers get acclimated to their new environment.

    Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

    Few students who intend to transfer from California’s community colleges do so successfully. To reverse that trend, the state’s public college systems will need to work collaboratively.

    That’s the finding of a report released Tuesday by the California State Auditor, which, at the direction of the state Assembly’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee, examined the state’s community college transfer system. 

    Only about 1 in 5 students who entered community college between 2017 and 2019 and intended to transfer did so within four years, the audit found. Rates were even lower for Black and Latino students, as well as for students from certain regions of the state, including the Central Valley.

    Many students struggled to navigate what critics call a complex transfer system in California, with variations in transfer requirements across the University of California and California State University systems, the audit found. 

    The report recommends that UC and CSU work with the community college system to streamline the transfer process. UC should consider widely adopting the associate degree for transfer (ADT) model that is already in place at CSU, and the systems should also share more data, according to the audit’s recommendations. The Legislature could also step in and appropriate funding to help CSU and UC better align their transfer requirements.

    Complexity leads to low transfer rates

    Students wishing to transfer often face obstacles that prevent them from getting to a four-year university. If students are considering multiple four-year universities for transfer, that often means a different set of requirements for each.

    For example, the auditor reviewed six potential four-year campuses to which a community college student studying computer science could transfer: UC Berkeley, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, CSU San Marcos, San Diego State and Stanislaus State. 

    The course requirements vary greatly across the four-year campuses. UC San Diego and San Diego State require potential transfer students to complete a course in intermediate computer programming, whereas the other four campuses do not. UC San Diego is also the only campus to require an additional calculus course. Meanwhile, that campus does not require students to take differential equations, but UC Berkeley and UC Santa Barbara do.

    The audit calls out the ADT as a promising model at CSU, but even that has shortcomings, the report notes. The ADT, created in 2010, is a two-year degree that is no more than 60 credits and is fully transferable to CSU.

    Although completing the ADT guarantees a student admission into CSU, it does not guarantee students admission to a specific major campus. That’s a problem, the audit notes, because transfer-intending students are more likely to enroll if they’re admitted to their preferred program.

    UC, meanwhile, has not adopted the ADT at all and instead relies on its own transfer programs, such as the transfer admission guarantee. That program does admit students to specific campuses and majors, but not all campuses participate in the program, and for those that do, some majors are excluded. UC’s three most selective campuses — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Diego — are the three that do not offer the transfer admission guarantee.

    Among the transfer-intending students who entered community college between 2017 and 2019, 21% transferred within four years and less than 30% did so within six years.

    Among Black students, between 16.1% and about 17.3% successfully transferred within four years for each cohort. For Latino students, between 14.5% and 15.6% in each cohort transferred in that time frame. That compares to more than 28% of white students in each cohort and as many as 30% of Asian students. 

    There were also differences depending on a student’s location.

    The audit found that community colleges in the San Francisco Bay Area and San Diego regions, for example, had higher transfer rates than colleges in the Central Valley, Inland Empire and northern parts of the state.

    “One factor contributing to this difference may be the distances between community colleges and CSU and UC campuses in those regions. Students are more likely to transfer to a nearby university for a variety of reasons, including challenges associated with relocating,” the audit states.

    That’s true for students at Lassen Community College in northeastern California, according to an administrator there. The administrator told auditors that “proximity is a major barrier” for transfer-intending students. The closest CSU or UC campus is Chico State, which is still more than a two-hour drive. In fact, about three-quarters of students who did transfer from Lassen went to an out-of-state university.

    Streamlining transfer 

    The report offers several recommendations to lawmakers and the public college systems that could streamline the transfer process.

    Auditors recommend that lawmakers consider providing funding to the colleges to align requirements and make the ADT more widely accepted across the state. 

    The community colleges and the four-year systems could also do their part to improve the ADT. For the community colleges, that means analyzing why certain community colleges don’t offer the ADT for some majors. CSU, auditors recommend, should do the same for campuses that don’t accept the ADT for certain majors and then determine whether their reasons make sense.

    UC should either widely adopt the ADT model or, for campuses unwilling to do that, ensure that their transfer options “emulate the ADT’s key benefits for streamlining course requirements,” auditors say. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom did sign Assembly Bill 1291 to create a pilot program at UCLA in which students beginning in 2026-27 will get priority admission if they complete an associate degree in select majors. The pilot will eventually expand to more campuses, though some students and advocacy groups criticized the legislation because it won’t guarantee students admission to their chosen campus.

    The audit also recommends better data-sharing between the three systems. 

    The community college system could share data with UC and CSU about students who intend to transfer, which UC and CSU could use to better tailor their advice to those students. 

    Additionally, UC and CSU could share more data with the community colleges about the students who successfully transfer, which could help the community colleges better evaluate their transfer efforts and determine which ones are most effective.

    Sonya Christian, chancellor of the community college system, said in a letter responding to the audit that the system looks forward to working with UC, CSU and lawmakers to implement the report’s recommendations, but said there could be challenges, including with data-sharing.

    Christian said consistent and timely data remains a “persistent challenge” for the system because of its decentralized nature, which requires each of the 73 local community college districts to individually report data to Christian’s office. 

    “The lack of a common data platform hampers our ability to collect timely and reliable data on transfer rates and gaps and hinders our ability to be able to accelerate transfer for the students of California through real-time data sharing with four-year system and institutional partners,” she said.

    But, Christian added, she has made it a priority since becoming chancellor last year to improve those processes and “let the data flow.” 

    “I look forward to carrying forward recommendations around improvements to our data, research, and system-wide policy leadership,” she added.





    Source link

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

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


    Credit: Ekrulila/Pexels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Who’s eligible?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The CalKIDS team has started implementing some of those strategies. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Advancing CalKIDS

    Leverage community partnerships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Recommendation: CalKIDS ambassadors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    California’s local child savings accounts

    The 15 local programs are:

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

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

    Hardest part about CalKIDS outreach: A number

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

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

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

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

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

    Once aware, families must understand and trust information 

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

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

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

    CalKIDS recipients advocating for and about the program 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Source link

  • New math placement rules undermine preparation of community college STEM majors

    New math placement rules undermine preparation of community college STEM majors


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

    For an update on this topic, please see: Community colleges loosen STEM math placement rules, calming some critics

    It should come as no surprise to anyone that to succeed in a science, technology, engineering or math (STEM) field, one needs a solid foundation in mathematics.

    When my sons entered college, even though they had strong math skills, I encouraged all three to retake a transfer-level course they had completed in high school. This both solidified their mathematics foundation and started them off in college with at least one high grade toward their college GPA.

    Unfortunately, a new law, Assembly Bill 1705,  going into full effect in fall 2025, will prevent prospective STEM majors from acquiring or strengthening their foundational math skills at our community colleges.

    An earlier law restricted colleges’ ability to place students into remedial courses that carry no college credit. The noble intent of AB 1705 is to increase equity and student success, in part by extending those placement restrictions on remedial courses to credit-bearing prerequisites to calculus for STEM majors. Well-intentioned special interest groups convinced our politicians that calculus prerequisites such as trigonometry, college algebra or precalculus somehow represent inequitable roadblocks, rather than what they actually are: the building blocks to STEM success.

    This is despite emerging research showing that these kinds of policies only provide short-term benefits and are not actually helping the students in the long run.

    Community colleges have long used multiple measures, including student grades and other assessments, to evaluate mathematics proficiency. STEM majors who need stronger mathematics skills are then placed into college-level foundational courses such as trigonometry, college algebra or precalculus. These STEM building blocks carry college credit. And all students have the option to enroll in these courses to strengthen their math skills if they so choose. The credits and grades earned count toward graduation and toward their college GPA. But under the new law, a community college will only be allowed to enroll a STEM major into a prerequisite to calculus if the college meets strict validation requirements demonstrating that:

    1. The student is highly unlikely to succeed in the first STEM calculus course without the additional transfer-level preparation.
    2. The enrollment will improve the student’s probability of completing the first STEM calculus course.
    3. The enrollment will improve the student’s persistence to and completion of the second calculus course in the STEM program, if a second calculus course is required. (section 3 (f) AB 1705)

    The new law is completely tone-deaf to the critical role broad mathematics skill plays regarding college and career success in STEM fields. Furthermore, these validation requirements have predictably (and perhaps intentionally) proven to be extremely difficult to meet. A statewide study by the RP Group, a nonprofit community college research organization, failed to validate any group of students as needing the prerequisite classes, including even those who had never completed Algebra 2 in high school.

    The study concludes, “Based on high school GPA or high school math preparation, no group was highly unlikely to succeed in STEM Calculus 1 when directly enrolled and given two years.”  Without the validation, the law prohibits colleges from requiring or even placing STEM majors into any calculus prerequisite. Instead, colleges must enroll them directly into calculus.

    While the legislation forbids requiring prerequisites for calculus and STEM without the specified validation, it still allows students to drop the calculus class imposed on them and enroll instead in a calculus prerequisite. But based on the RP Group’s failure to confirm that any group of students meets the law’s absurdly strict validation requirements, the Community College Chancellor’s Office has inexplicably concluded no group would be helped by such prerequisites (see the February 2024 memo, page 5).

    As a consequence of this horrific misinterpretation, their implementation plan will forbid local community colleges from offering STEM majors any calculus prerequisites and instead require them to offer extra support to students while they are in Calculus. (See the Chancellor’s Office FAQs, “STEM Calculus Placement Rules” top of page 15). This means no STEM major would be able to enroll in any building block course like trigonometry even if they want to. The plan clearly goes beyond the law and will accelerate the dismantling of foundational math offerings at the community colleges.

    Having taught math in both the California Community College and State University systems for decades, I and all the math professors I know are convinced the end results of AB 1705 and this extreme implementation policy will be disastrous.

    The elimination of prerequisite courses represents a new artificial barrier that will prevent any underprepared STEM major from achieving the strong mathematics foundation they need to succeed and flourish. This will disproportionately affect underrepresented minorities and eliminate the “second chance” for students who didn’t develop sufficient math skills in high school. And that’s a lot of students. Data from the RP Group report show that between fall 2012 and spring 2020, over 68% of STEM majors were enrolled into foundational prerequisites (25,584 students). These students will now be denied any foundational coursework opportunities and instead be forced directly into calculus.

    We will flood our community college calculus classrooms with a large majority of students inadequately prepared. Grade inflation, increased student failure rates, discouraged faculty and the inadequate mathematics preparation of STEM majors transferring to the California State University and University of California campuses will be the sad but certain outcomes. You can say goodbye to the common sense of building strong mathematics foundations in our community college STEM majors. And cutting off this “second chance” will definitely discourage students from opting to major in a STEM field in the first place.

    The chancellor’s implementation, scheduled to take full effect by fall 2025, must make mid-course corrections to avoid a STEM preparation meltdown.

    The law itself needs major revisions to accomplish its noble equity ambitions. And all of us concerned with equity should be paying close attention to emerging research documenting the longer term outcomes of these experiments with restrictions on mathematics prerequisites.

    •••

    Richard Ford is professor emeritus and former mathematics and statistics department chair at California State University Chico. He served as chair of the Academic Preparation and Education Programs Committee (APEP) of the Academic Senate of the CSU in 2021-2022. A deeper analysis by the author of the AB 1705 implementation policy can be found here.

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





    Source link

  • Professor, community college reach $2.4 million settlement in free speech case

    Professor, community college reach $2.4 million settlement in free speech case


    Matthew Garrett, a former professor at Bakersfield College, recently settled a lawsuit with his former employer.

    Credit: Bakersfield College / Facebook

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    A long-running saga involving a Kern County community college professor — hailed as a defender of free speech by some but by others as a source of campus strife — has ended with a $2.4 million payment from the community college district and the professor’s resignation. 

    Matthew Garrett, who was a tenured professor of history at Bakersfield College, resigned from his position and agreed to drop all claims against the Kern Community College District, according to settlement terms reached in July.

    That includes the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, claiming that the community college district violated Garrett’s First Amendment rights. Garrett also agreed to drop an administrative challenge to the district’s board, which had voted in favor of firing Garrett on April 13, 2023.

    The federal suit alleging free speech violations will continue with Erin Miller, also a history professor at Bakersfield College, as lead plaintiff. The next hearing is set for Nov. 7 at the Robert E. Coyle U.S. Courthouse in Fresno in front of presiding Judge Kirk E. Sheriff. Miller declined to comment on the case, deferring to her attorney.

    In turn, the district has dropped the claims it made against Garrett. In a letter recommending Garrett’s termination on April 14, 2023, Zav Dadabhoy, then-interim president of Bakersfield College, stated that the board should consider Garrett’s “immoral conduct, unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, evident unfitness for service.”

    The district will distribute $2.2 million for “alleged general and emotional distress damages” through an annuity and another $154,520 for back pay and medical benefits. The settlement outlines that neither the district nor Garrett are admitting to any wrongdoing or liability. 

    Garrett, 46, was a vocal critic of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies that were being rolled out in the Kern Community College District. He claimed the district was supporting “highly partisan propaganda.” He wrote a piece in 2023 on a site called Minding the Campus that criticized the administration for turning Bakersfield College into what he called “a place of implicit bias and microaggression training; racial quotas and affirmative action preferences; racially segregated programming emphasizing ethno-nationalist rhetoric.”

    Garrett said that he ultimately decided to settle because the case was draining him financially. He was also concerned that the college district would continue to appeal and prolong the case, even if he initially won.

    Despite the settlement, both sides — Garrett and spokespersons for the community college district — still do not agree on the details of the dispute.

    According to the district, the dispute stemmed from Garrett’s “unprofessional” conduct toward other faculty and students, according to a statement issued by the district shortly after the settlement.

    “The dispute with Matthew Garrett was a disciplinary matter due to his disruptive actions on campus, none of which concerned freedom of speech,” read the district statement.

    Garrett counters that the problems started because the district violated his First Amendment rights and retaliated against him for criticizing an administration that he claims inappropriately promoted a “one-sided partisan political agenda” focused on “social justice.” He disputes the list of charges that the district made in its recommendation to terminate him, which include “baseless attacks” on the district and his colleagues. 

    “I’m tired of this lie,” Garrett told EdSource.  “All I asked is, ‘Why is money going here?’”

    Disputing Garrett’s claim about the violation of his free speech rights, the district said in its statement to the media after the settlement, “Kern Community College District unequivocally supports the right for our students and faculty to share their views and opinions on campus and elsewhere.”

    Free speech in academia

    Garrett’s case attracted the attention of free speech advocates nationwide, especially those who believe college campuses are suppressing conservative viewpoints. 

    Garrett’s attorney Arthur Willner said he took on the case because he believes free speech is under assault on college campuses nationally. He is a partner with Leader Berkon Colao & Silverstein, a part of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) network, a free speech advocacy group.

    “When you start restricting faculty and students, it not only punishes the speaker, but it also cheats the students in the classroom, who might hear a nice robust debate that interests them,” Wilner said.

    Courts tend to interpret free speech broadly for professors, because they are expected to “speak out and take controversial positions,” stated David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that promotes freedom of expression. He declined to take a position on Garrett’s case, but noted that colleges and universities are a “unique kind of workplace,” compared with other positions in government, such as in a planning or park department.

    “The concept of what is ‘duly disruptive’ is different than it is in other settings,” he said, adding that being offended or not liking what a professor has to say is generally not enough to justify cracking down on speech.

    Even untruths can be considered protected speech, Loy said, because the government is not a referee in the debate over what is or is not true. He said it would require “extreme circumstances” for an academic to lose their position by making outrageously false and defamatory statements, such as falsely claiming that a department chair is kidnapping children and stealing from the budget.

    The controversy

    The controversy began with a debate in the op-ed pages of The Bakersfield Californian that led to a public presentation Garrett made at Bakersfield College. The debate spilled over onto a local radio show hosted by conservative Terry Maxwell.  

    Miller introduced Garrett in 2019 when he gave the presentation called “A Tale of Two Protests” that contrasted how the Bakersfield College administration responded to two incidents on campus. The first involved chalkings that referred to Christopher Columbus as a “murderer” and “genocidal maniac.” In the other, stickers with phrases such as “never apologize for being white” and “smash cultural Marxism” were placed on bulletin boards, primarily those of Chicano studies-related events. The stickers were created by the Hundred Handers and promoted on a Telegram social media channel by a leader who was jailed earlier this year in the United Kingdom for “inciting racial hatred” with stickering campaigns, according to the BBC.

    Garrett defended the free speech of both incidents, but decried the administration for making a campuswide announcement that characterized the latter as “hate speech.” Garrett argued that the stickers may be a protest against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives on campus.

    “I am neither endorsing the sticker campaign’s methods nor its messages, but I am asking that we take them seriously,” he wrote in his op-ed in The Bakersfield Californian. “Does our community’s college devote disproportionate attention and resources to certain groups at the expense of others? Does that marginalize some students? To what extent is that appropriate?” 

    Garrett, a white man, is a vocal critic of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, particularly those aimed at specific racial groups on campus. For instance, he calls Umoja — a program that offers courses and club activities aimed at improving the success of African American students throughout California community colleges — a “racially segregated class” that he told EdSource should produce data to show that it is not a “crutch” that actually undermines students’ self-sufficiency.

    Professors Andrew Bond and Oliver Rosales, Garrett’s colleagues at Bakersfield College, took issue with some of the claims in Garrett’s September 2019 presentation, which they said were repeated on Terry Maxwell’s radio show. The professors filed a complaint against Garrett with the college’s human resources department, claiming that he acted unprofessionally by accusing them of financial impropriety. The district said it hired an independent investigator who corroborated those charges against Garrett.

    Garrett said the district mischaracterized him. He said he was not accusing the college or any professor of anything illegal; he was just criticizing the college’s affiliations with what he called “partisan” groups. Garrett characterized a noncredit course covering the history of Cesar Chavez and the United Farmworker Movement in Kern County, which was created by Rosales, as “partisan indoctrination.”

    Paige Atkinson, then a journalism student at Bakersfield College, weighed in through a piece that ran in The Bakersfield Californian and a local site called South Kern Sol. In the piece, she praised college staff for “protecting its minority students by alerting them to the vandalism — even if it means ruffling the feathers of apologists on campus.” The piece criticized Garrett as one of those apologists. Atkinson said that the Hundred Handers was not simply a “conservative” group exercising its right to free speech, as Garrett wrote, but a “blatantly hateful” group that promoted “white supremacy and the inevitable violence it brings.”

    Garrett responded, calling South Kern Sol a “propaganda site” for the United Farm Workers and activist Dolores Huerta. He said the publication was partisan and that it was inappropriate for the Kern Community College District to donate to them. He accused Atkinson, then editor-in-chief of Bakersfield College’s student paper, of writing a “hit piece” on him in coordination with the district.

    “I said, ‘Why is the college paying for this smear piece?’” Garrett said, in an interview with EdSource.

    District spokesperson Norma Rojas said Bakersfield College faculty and programs sometimes obtain grants, which may be maintained in district accounts but will not commingle with other district or college funds. Grant funds donated to South Kern Sol came from a student journalism grant from the Virginia and Alfred Harrell Foundation in partnership with California Humanities and administered through the Bakersfield College Foundation, Rojas said in a statement. 

    The district denied that it otherwise had a relationship with South Kern Sol “outside of their traditional outreach to a wide variety of local media to inform of news and happenings,” according to a recent statement from the district. 

    John Harte, a retired professor of journalism at Bakersfield College, praised his former student, Atkinson, and defended her against Garrett’s charge that she had coordinated her piece with district leadership — which would be considered a serious breach of journalism ethics.

    The conflict widened beyond the topic of campus protest to include more students and many more professors. Garrett founded the Renegade Institute for Liberty (RIFL), a group of faculty members that aimed to promote “open discourse of diverse political ideas with an emphasis on American ideals and western historical values.” The group’s posts on Facebook became a lightning rod for criticism — and the subject of the recommendation to terminate Garrett by then-interim President Dadabhoy.

    That recommendation said that Garrett, as faculty lead of RIFL, failed to restrict its “baseless attacks” on the district and colleagues. It took issue with one Facebook post that called the “chronic mismanagement” of a local bond measure a “consistent embarrassment” for the college and another post that said the college’s curriculum committee were giving away the equivalent of participation trophies by approving Rosales’ course that covered farmworker history.

    Conflict over diversity, equity and inclusion

    The implementation of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives has divided faculty and staff at Kern Community College District, particularly its largest campus in Bakersfield, where Garrett worked, according to a workplace survey conducted last spring.

    One Bakersfield College faculty member quoted anonymously in the survey called diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives “an ideological religion” and complained that the debate over DEI has “led to a social and political divide that is disrupting the ability of employees to collaborate.”

    In a lengthier version of the survey, another college faculty member praised the district’s leadership for understanding the value of diversity, equity and inclusion but noted that there is “significant” opposition to DEI, especially in the faculty ranks. This faculty member pointed to Garrett and RIFL as a source of discord on campus and for promoting “agenda, politics and hate” on every college committee and that they had “successfully halted almost all inclusive and equity based work on this campus.”

    The Kern Community College District pointed to Garrett’s public accusations as a cause of internal strife in the district.

    “Garrett’s pursuit of notoriety devolved the sincere efforts by the District and the community to create an environment where students can thrive into an environment of hostility and anger,” the district’s statement after the lawsuit said. 

    Harte agreed and said that he’s happy to see Garrett go.

    “I think Garrett’s settlement and his resignation in the long-run is best for the students,” Harte said. “He is really divisive.”

    Garrett pointed to the workplace survey as evidence that district leadership is to blame for that dysfunction. The word “retaliation” came up in 75 out of 423 employee surveys. “Social and political agendas” came up in 131 surveys.

    “It’s not just ‘crazy disgruntled Matt Garrett’,” Garrett said.

    The Kern Community College District’s new chancellor, Steven Bloomberg, said in a statement to EdSource that he has begun addressing the concerns outlined in the workplace survey, such as creating a leadership development program for supervisors.

    “We have heard the concerns from faculty and staff and are actively working to address them,” Bloomberg wrote. “I am committed to fostering a culture of continuous improvement.”

    The settlement doesn’t mean that Garrett has stopped criticizing the Kern Community College District. Since the settlement was announced, he has spoken out, through his personal Facebook page, against the contract renewal of the vice chancellor of human resources, who he claims targeted him and is responsible for the district’s poor workplace climate. Both he and RIFL have posted about the board members who voted to dismiss him, demanding accountability.

    “I didn’t want to be an activist,” Garrett said. “But I’m going to keep pointing out the problems.”

    Disclosure: Emma Gallegos was an independent freelancer who wrote pieces for South Kern Sol between 2017 and 2019.





    Source link

  • Community college students far from a four-year university are less likely to transfer, study says

    Community college students far from a four-year university are less likely to transfer, study says


    Madera Community College is in the rural Central Valley. Fresno State, about 22 miles away, is the closest four-year public university.

    Credit: Ashleigh Panoo / EdSource

    Why is it harder for community college students studying far from four-year universities to transfer? 

    The answer to that question — which is at the heart of a new study previewed at a webinar last week — could influence state higher education officials’ thinking on proposals to expand bachelor’s degree offerings at community colleges.

    Most community colleges in California are within a 25-mile drive of the nearest California State University or University of California campus, according to the study by the RP Group, the independent nonprofit that conducts research for California’s system of 116 community colleges. But among the 29 colleges that are not, a research team led by Darla Cooper and Daisy Segovia found lower rates of transfer from two-year to four-year institutions.

    Gaps were most visible across the seven community colleges located the farthest from public universities. Colleges at least 87 miles from the nearest UC or CSU had a 28% transfer rate, researchers said, lagging colleges within a 25-mile drive by 8 percentage points. 

    The study noted a smaller gap between a middle tier of community colleges located closer to four-year institutions and those within a 25-mile commute. A third of students at community colleges 27 to 78 miles from a California university transferred compared to 36% of those attending a campus where a four-year institution was 25 miles away or less.

    “We need to bring the education to where the students are and not force the students to go to where the education is,” said Cooper, RP Group’s executive director. 

    Proximity to a four-year public university is far from the only factor related to community college transfer rates. RP Group’s own research has identified lots of practices common among students who continue on to four-year institutions, like completing transferable math and English courses in their first year, visiting an academic adviser and getting involved in student programs like Umoja and Puente, said Cooper and Segovia, a senior researcher at RP Group. 

    Money is a consideration, too: California community college students interviewed in 2019 cited the cost of a university education as a top hurdle to continuing their education. 

    The new study examining the role of distance in transfer rates comes at a time when concerns over regional worker shortages in fields like education and nursing have stoked debate about how to make bachelor’s degrees more accessible to students who might fill those labor gaps.  

    California’s overall higher education plan, first released in 1960, left bachelor’s degrees as the purview of four-year universities. But state lawmakers in recent years have relaxed that constraint. In 2021, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill allowing community colleges to add up to 30 baccalaureate degree programs annually, leading to dozens of new offerings. The California Community Colleges website now lists 45 approved bachelor’s degree programs.

    Still, state law places significant checks on which baccalaureate degrees community colleges can green-light. Colleges can’t start a four-year degree if CSU or UC already offers it and must consult with university officials before proposed degrees move forward. CSU and UC can object to proposals they believe duplicate existing university degrees — rules that apply even in rural areas not served by a Cal State or UC campus. 

    That framework has at times put the community colleges at odds with colleagues at four-year institutions. The board of governors for the statewide community college system last year approved a program over CSU’s formal objections. 

    A measure that would have further blurred the boundaries between two- and four-year institutions fell short in the 2024 legislative session. Newsom in September vetoed a bill that would have permitted 15 community colleges to offer bachelor’s degrees in nursing, opening the door for community colleges to create degree programs already offered at CSU.

    Researchers probe ‘university education deserts’

    The RP Group’s work builds on previous studies exploring what researchers call “education deserts,” places that either had no college or university or that only had a community college. A 2016 research brief for the American Council on Education reported that such communities tended to have lower college attainment compared with the rest of the country. 

    The RP Group study — “Exploring Geographic Isolation as a Barrier to Equitable Transfer Outcomes” — followed first-time college students enrolled at a community college between 2012 and 2017 who intended to transfer to a four-year institution. It used data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office to measure those students’ outcomes after six years. Driving distances were measured from campus to campus. 

    Researchers excluded Calbright, an online community college, as well as a newer community college and a college focused on students learning technical trades. That left 113 community colleges covering more than a million students in the study sample.

    The analysis defined three categories of community colleges by their proximity to a public university in California. Researchers dubbed the first two groups – Tier 1 schools, which were at least 87 miles away, and Tier 2 schools, which were 27 to 78 miles away – to be colleges located in “university education deserts.” A third group of community colleges within 25 miles of a university were not considered deserts.

    Comparing the three categories revealed demographic trends. Tier 1 and Tier 2 colleges tended to serve a higher percentage of Latino students, first generation students and low income students than colleges not located in university education deserts.   

    Researchers also observed disparities by comparing the transfer rates of students at Tier 1 institutions to students who were not in a university education desert but who shared the same race and ethnicity. For example, 20% of Black students attending a Tier 1 college — those that were the farthest from a public four-year in California– transferred, compared with 33% of those attending a college in the category closest to a university.

    “It’s an equity issue,” Cooper said. “We wanted to see if there were any particular groups that were being disadvantaged by their location in the state.”

    The RP Group’s study also reported that students at Tier 1 colleges who succeeded in transferring more often left California altogether to do so. Across all three proximity-to-university tiers, a plurality of transfer students landed at a Cal State campus. But 38% of Tier 1 college students transferred out of state for a four-year degree compared to only 16% of students not in a university education desert.

    Future research – and possible solutions

    Segovia said future research could take into account not only community colleges’ proximity to public universities in California, but also their distance to nonprofit universities and out-of-state institutions.

    Looking across state lines could explain some of the variation researchers observed in transfer rates among the community colleges that are the farthest from a public university in California. 

    College of the Siskiyous, which is roughly 200 miles from Cal Poly Humboldt but only 70 miles from Southern Oregon University, had a 32% rate of transfer, Segovia said, beating out some community colleges located closer to in-state four-year schools. 

    The researchers also plan to interview students about how proximity to a four-year college has impacted their education. 

    Webinar panelists discussed several barriers preventing community college students who live far from a four-year university from earning bachelor’s degrees — and some strategies that could ease the transition.

    Panelist Joshua Simon, a student at Lemoore College who serves on the board of the West Hills Community College District, said students struggle to finance their bachelor’s degree education, costs exacerbated by a long commute to a four-year university.

    “One of the hardest things is transportation,” he said. “Some students don’t usually drive, or some students don’t have the means of public transportation … so that’s a little bit of a difficulty when it comes to transferring, at least in-state or locally, around that 40-mile range.” 

    Kevin G. Walthers, the president of Allan Hancock College in Santa Maria, said students from his college often don’t get admitted to the nearest Cal State campus, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Those that do, he said, may save money by living at home but find their 70- to 80-mile round trip commute costs $30 a day. 

    Cal State admissions data for fall 2023 shows that 63% of Allan Hancock students who applied to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo were accepted. Of those students, 71% enrolled.

    “If the students are going to finish their degree in two years, and then they can’t afford to leave for Fresno or Northridge or Bakersfield, and they can’t get into Cal Poly, they’re just stuck,” he said. “Given the fact that most of our students are Latino, they’re stuck in a way that is systemically racist. There’s no way around that.”

    Walthers said the lack of bachelor’s degree programs has a simple solution: “Either have the CSU offer services here or allow Allan Hancock College to provide those services.”

    Kate Mahar, the associate vice president of innovation and strategic initiatives at Shasta College, said the school operates several programs with Chico State, about 80 miles south. A dual admission program allows students who apply to Chico State the option to attend Shasta College instead; it also guarantees them a seat at Chico when they’re ready to transfer, so long as they meet eligibility requirements. Students can also receive a Chico State business degree at Shasta College.

    Chico State admitted 87% of Shasta College applicants, according to CSU admissions data for fall 2023. Almost 53% of those students enrolled.

    “They really take it to heart that we are in their service area, even though (some students) are about five hours away from Chico,” she said.





    Source link

  • California climate initiative could unlock new opportunities for community college students

    California climate initiative could unlock new opportunities for community college students


    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.

    •••

    Sonya Christian is the chancellor of the California Community Colleges, the largest system of higher education in the United States.

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link

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

    Financial aid fraud is growing at California’s community colleges


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

    Credit: Barbara Kinney

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Fraud going up

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ‘Nobody’s trained in this’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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





    Source link

  • What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    What to know about changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY

    Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

    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 calculus first 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 was bolstered by 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 skip all 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-heavy model 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 remedial classes 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 meet additional criteria.

    What’s the evidence in favor of overhauling the traditional STEM math prerequisites?

    Supporters of AB 1705 often point to studies that tracked how much better STEM 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 include content 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 scheduled immediately 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 precalculus at 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. 





    Source link

  • Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges

    Educators divided on impact of changes in STEM math placement at California community colleges


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xemfay2L1N4

    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.

    On Tuesday, during an EdSource roundtable, “A new law aims to expand access to STEM. What troubles some educators?” panelists discussed both the potential upsides and their concerns as Assembly Bill 1705 — the 2022 law requiring the changes — is implemented.

    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.





    Source link

  • Myths hold back community college bachelor’s degree programs

    Myths hold back community college bachelor’s degree programs


    Los Angeles City College

    Credit: Larry Gordon / EdSource

    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. 

    Reality: There have been lots of positive outcomes relating to California’s community college bachelor’s degree programs. Once students begin upper-division coursework, 67% graduate within two years and 76% within three years. Nationally, the majority of graduates of community college bachelor’s degree programs are Latino students. In California, distance from a CSU or UC campus can stymie a community college student’s ability to transfer to complete their degree. California’s community colleges play a vital role in providing college and bachelor’s degree access. They also undergo rigorous accreditation to maintain high quality. For example, West Los Angeles College’s dental hygiene program purports a 100% licensing examination pass rate among graduates. 

    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.

    •••

    Cecilia Rios-Aguilar is professor of education and department chair at the School of Education and Information Studies at UCLA.

    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.





    Source link