Students at a National TRIO Day Celebration at Cal Poly Pomona.
Courtesy of Laura E. Ayon
Around California this summer, low-income and first-generation students are staying in college dorms for the first time. High schoolersare camping beside the Klamath River. Undergraduates are presenting research at a symposium for budding scholars in Long Beach.
All are part of federally funded TRIO programs — like Upward Bound and McNair Scholars —based on California campuses, from rural Columbia College neighboring Yosemite National Park to private four-year institutions in Los Angeles like the University of Southern California. TRIO reaches children as young as middle school, preparing them to enroll in college and providing mentorship, academic advice and research opportunities when they do. In California, the programs served over 100,000 participants in the 2023-24 academic year.
“I really don’t think I could have made it through City College [of San Francisco] without them,” said Ekaterini Stamatakos, 22, a psychology major and TRIO student who earned anassociate degree and then transferred to UCLA, where she will start her junior yearthis year. “I think these kinds of programs really go beyond whatever they might say on their profiles or the paragraphs that they have on their webpages — it really does make such an impact on students’ lives.”
But hanging over TRIO programs like Talent Search and Student Support Services is a Trump administration proposal to eliminate them. If Congress enacts that plan, all TRIO Student Support Services — such as tutoring in reading, help with college applications and workshops in financial literacy — would be defunded starting in fiscal year 2026. Their funding is uncertain until Congress finalizes the appropriations bill later this year.
TRIO, whose name derives from an original group of three programs but now includes eight, has largely prevailed in past funding battles. With an annual budget now exceeding $1 billion, it continues to garner significant bipartisan support. But a White House budget request released in the spring argues that TRIO programs, rooted in 1960s anti-poverty policy, are now “a relic of the past.”
“Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,” the budget request says. Colleges “should be using their own resources to engage with K-12 schools in their communities to recruit students, and then once those students are on campus, aid in their success through to graduation.”
The threat has mobilized TRIO supporters to redouble a public awareness campaign aimed at persuading lawmakers to maintain the programs. In California, there were about 450 TRIO programs in the 2023-24 academic year, an EdSource analysis of federal data shows, with most of that funding flowing to programs housed at more than 100 colleges and universities.
TRIO programs based on California campuses like Sonoma State University, Cal Poly Pomona and UC Daviseachreceive millions of dollars annually and are funded to serve thousands of participants per campus, the analysis shows. Smaller TRIO programs, many at community colleges, may work with dozens or hundreds of students on a budget of less than $300,000.
At Cal Poly Humboldt, high school students and rising college freshmen this summer read an August Wilson play before venturing on a field trip to see it performed live at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival. At Cal Poly Pomona, peer coaches prepare presentations for fellow students on such topics as artificial intelligence and summer internships. At Columbia College, a community college 50 miles northeast of Modesto, a TRIO director said she’s worked with everyone from 14-year-olds in dual enrollment programs to 72-year-olds advancing toward master’s degrees.
Decades of consensus meets partisan divides
Studies generally suggest TRIO has a positive effect on academic outcomes, such as enrolling in college or completing a degree. Supporters also tout the success of alumni — some of whom have goneon to become lawmakers, astronauts, and in many cases, leaders of local TRIO programs themselves — as evidence of a positive impact on families and communities.
“I have alumni whose kids are now in college and thriving, or have graduated college,” said Rafael Topete, who leads the TRIO Student Support Services Program at Cal State Long Beach.
But this is not the first time TRIO programs have faced Republican-led challenges. Under President Ronald Reagan, TRIO advocates blocked an attempt to halve the program’s budget. Bipartisan support again thwarted a bid to eliminate TRIO funding during the Clinton administration.
TRIO’s criticspoint to a U.S. Department of Education-sponsored 2009 study finding that Upward Bound did not have a statistically significant impact on overall postsecondary enrollment. (The Council for Opportunity in Education, which advocates for TRIO and other college access programs, later sponsored a rebuttal study, which found Upward Bound had a strong positive impact on students.)
Tworecent U.S. Government Accountability Office reports argue that the federal Department of Education could improve how it evaluates TRIO. The department has said further steps to verify data depend on the agency having adequate staff.
Educational Talent Search and Cal-SOAP students at Cal State Long Beach attend a workshop to help rising seniors get ready for college applications and financial aid. (Courtesy of Jesus Maldonado)
Education Secretary Linda McMahon this spring resurrected such accountability arguments to justify defunding the programs. “I just think that we aren’t able to see the effectiveness across the board that we would normally look to see with our federal spending,” McMahon said at a June budget hearing.
People who work for TRIO programs object to those criticisms. In interviews, many named by memory the metrics they report as a condition of receiving federal funding, like high school graduation rates and college enrollment statistics. “Every year, we report data to verify we are doing what we said we would do,” said Kathy Kailikole, who has had a 30-year career in TRIO programs and currently works at San Diego State University.
There are signs that TRIO remains a point of agreement in a Congress more often divided along party lines. Federal funding for TRIO has climbed from $838 million in 2014 to almost $1.2 billion in 2023. And of the 130 members in the Congressional TRIO Caucus, 26 are Republicans. U.S. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine and U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho are among the Republicans who have vocally questioned cuts to TRIO.
Today’s bitter ideological divides may test that consensus.
In May, three Upward Bound grantees outside California received notice from the Department of Education that their funding would not be continued due to conflicts with Trump administration priorities, said Kimberly Jones, president of the Council for Opportunity in Education.
A copy of one such cancellation letter provided to EdSource by Jones said the grants “violate the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law; conflict with the Department’s policy of prioritizing merit, fairness, and excellence in education; undermine the well-being of the students these programs are intended to help; or constitute an inappropriate use of federal funds.”
Overcoming distance and doubt in rural California
Jen Dyke directs the Upward Bound program at Cal Poly Humboldt where, years ago, she was once a student. Today, she travels hundreds of miles to recruit students from rural Hayfork, South Fork and Hoopa. It’s a region where rural schools often contend with high teacher turnover rates, low math test scores and an uncertain economic outlook, Dyke and her colleagues said.
“Timber is already gone. Fishing is already gone. Tourism is now something that is not super strong because of wildfires,” Dyke said during a lull in Upward Bound’s summer academy, which brings 27 high school-age students on campus to take classes and live in dorms. “So these areas that we serve are, once again, facing dismal futures if we also cut TRIO.”
Cal Poly Humboldt’s TRIO initiatives are among dozens of TRIO programs in California — and more than 500 in the U.S.— that reach participants in predominantly rural communities and remote towns, an EdSource review of federal data found.
Rose Sita Francia, who directs another Cal Poly Humboldt TRIO program called Talent Search, tries to expose students as early as sixth grade to careers that give them a reason to consider postsecondary education. The first step, she said, is to put college on the map for them — literally.
“Many students don’t know where Arcata is, where Cal Poly Humboldt is located,” she said. “And so we have teachers ask us regularly, ‘Will you show us some geography of college-going, and will you talk to us about trade school options as well?’”
Associate degree students at Columbia College tour a Humboldt County forest while on a trip to visit Sonoma State University and Cal Poly Humboldt on Sept. 17, 2024. (Courtesy of Anneka Rogers Whitmer)
Anneka Rogers Whitmer oversees TRIO programs housed at Columbia College, more than an hour’s drive from the two nearest four-year universities, Stanislaus State University and UC Merced. The college’s Educational Opportunity Center serves more than 1,000 people across five counties with just two staff members, who visit places like prisons and social service agencies. The TRIO staff have had to overcome distrust of college degrees, Whitmer said, by offering advice on how to apply for financial aid and where to find vocational training.
“We’re an education desert, no doubt,” she said, “but we just have to think more creatively about how we’re going to reach the folks.”
Ekaterini “Kat” Stamatakos and Ghislaine Maze pose for a photo at the City College of San Francisco commencement ceremony in May 2025. (Courtesy of Ghislaine Maze)
‘It’s easy for students to get lost or discouraged’
The program Ghislaine Maze coordinates at City College of San Francisco may be called the TRIO Writing Success Project, but it does much more than provide writing workshops and embedded tutors in English classes.
“So many students are trying to figure things out on their own, on the fly, with just a few hours on campus,” said Maze, whose program is funded to serve 310 students on a budget of roughly $485,000 a year. “It’s easy for students to get lost or discouraged.”
Tight campus budgets may leave other academic advisers on campus so overbooked that students struggle to get appointments, she said. A trusted TRIO mentor can help navigate financial aid and plan a student’s academic schedule. “That’s where a program like ours kind of fits in,” Maze said.
Before Ekaterini Stamatakos got to City College, she attended four high schools. She thinks she must have missed hundreds of days of school in that time, a consequence of housing instability. She struggled academically, but finished at a credit recovery school.
Stamatakos, who goes by Kat, was retaking an English class at City College when a tutor from the TRIO Writing Success Project explained that it provided feedback on writing assignments, mentorship and a place to hang out at the library, complete with snacks. “This is perfect,” Stamatakos thought. “I’m just going to basically live there.”
With assistance from a writing tutor, Stamatakos earned an ‘A’ in the course. “I don’t think I ever imagined that I would get an ‘A’ after my years of failing classes,” she said.
Since November 2022, the Fresno Teachers Association and Fresno Unified School District have negotiated contract terms without avail, even going before the Public Employment Relations Board and declaring an impasse on issues.
The union’s proposal includes requests for pay raises, lifetime benefits, better working conditions for teachers, plus multi-million dollar investments for students, such as free laundry service as well as clothes and school supplies for students in need. Such student investments, which also include proposals for free universal after-school programs and district-sponsored food pantries, reflect FTA’s vision of ways to address students’ social-emotional needs.
While pay increases may be attainable, the district insists that demands centered around student support do not belong in the contract language, but can be areas for collaboration and implementation with individual schools, notably the district’s community schools.
Now less than a month remains before the union’s Sept. 29 deadline to reach an agreement ahead of an Oct. 18 strike vote. The union and district are still at an impasse following a July 24 state mediation that didn’t reach a breakthrough in negotiations. Informal meetings and fact-finding sessions with a neutral third party are seemingly the last hope for bridging the gap between the two.
If there’s no compromise and a strike is called, Fresno Unified has a plan: Pay thousands of substitute teachers $500 each day of the strike.
“We are committed to keeping our schools open, safe and entirely available for the critical learning of our kids,” Superintendent Bob Nelson told families in a back-to-school message addressing the possible strike. “After the pandemic school closure, we know our kids can’t afford to lose any more learning time, and we’ll ensure that doesn’t happen.”
But is that feasible, considering the costs to the district, the uncertainty of how long a strike will last and the number of subs that are needed?
Increased sub pay would be offset by not paying striking teachers
A $500 daily pay rate is much more than subs usually make. Currently, substitute teachers within Fresno Unified are paid around $200 a day. The increased pay is necessary to recruit subs to work during a strike, Nelson explained in a late August interview with EdSource.
And the costs to the district will balance out because the district won’t be paying teachers while they are on strike. Many of the Fresno Unified teachers average daily pay of $490, according to district spokesperson Nikki Henry.
“That’s not the point,” said Manuel Bonilla, the teachers union president. “The point is, you’re willingly spending $2 million a day (for 4,000 subs) in order to avoid being a leader and coming to the table and actually addressing issues that your teachers feel are important to the sacrifice of students.”
Nelson disagrees, stating that Fresno Unified and the Fresno Teachers Association have continued to meet.
So even as Nelson said he is doing his “absolute best” to avoid a strike, Fresno Unified must also do “whatever it takes in order to not tell families they can’t send their kids to school again.”
“Post-pandemic, we can’t shut our schools to the kids that we serve,” Nelson said.
The last time Fresno Unified teachers went on strike was in 1978, 45 years ago. Then, the district also offered substitute teachers a higher rate during the strike. But even with increased pay for subs, the district was unable to cover all the classrooms, retired teacher Barbara Mendes recalls. The district placed administrators in the classrooms and sometimes combined classes.
“We talked to them about that (in 1978): You won’t give us a pay raise, but you’ll give them (substitute teachers) a pay raise?’” Mendes said, echoing the union’s current leadership. “It doesn’t make any sense.”
Mendes, 84, was the FTA representative for Lane Elementary and had been teaching for only three years when she and others went on strike in 1978.
Still, Mendes said she understands and doesn’t doubt the district’s determination to keep schools open.
“So they have to do what they can,” she said.
Does Fresno Unified have enough subs if about 4,000 strike?
Bonilla said the Fresno Teachers Association hopes that all educators who belong to the union join the picket line if the strike happens.
That’s around 4,000 educators who could strike.
FTA represents about 90% of the district’s more than 3,900 teachers as well as nurses, social workers and other professionals, totaling about 4,000 educators.
Other employees across the district could also strike.
In 1978, some administrators and employees working in the district office, including Mendes’ husband, Larry Mendes, joined the strike in support of the teachers they’d worked with.
In early August, at least 1,000 out of 1,100 FTA members who responded to a poll indicated their willingness to strike.
“Just a poll,” Bonilla noted, “but it gives a sense of where people are.”
Right now, the district has around 1,600 subs ready to work.
But having enough subs is a lingering concern for Fresno Unified, Nelson admitted, especially because it’s difficult to estimate the number of subs needed.
Since the $500-a-day plan went public in August, many retirees have expressed their intent to sub during a strike, Nelson said.
He also expects the $500 pay rate will draw subs from neighboring school districts, such as Clovis and Sanger, as well as from across the Central San Joaquin Valley.
Even if the more than 1,600 current subs, retirees and subs from other districts can’t cover the number of striking educators, the district has a backup plan.
In 2017, when Fresno teachers voted to strike but didn’t, then-new Superintendent Nelson worked with the Fresno County Office of Education to get subs certified. He said the district would adopt a similar process this time if the strike happens.
Subs must still meet district requirements
Bonilla questioned the district’s ability to complete the necessary background checks and requirements for possibly thousands of substitute teachers to be in the classroom by the time of a strike.
In fact, he said he wouldn’t send his own kids, ages 11, 9 and 5, to school during a strike.
“I would not feel safe sending my kid into a space where I don’t know who they are,” Bonilla said. “I would do everything in my power, as a parent, prior to a strike and during a strike, to put pressure on district leadership to say, ‘Get this back in order so, that way, my kid can go back to the classroom with their teacher, somebody that I know and trust.’”
To become a substitute teacher with Fresno Unified, individuals need a teaching credential or substitute teaching permit and must apply for the position, complete an interview, be fingerprinted and participate in mandatory training.
Even if the district is able to staff schools with qualified subs, Bonilla said, students will be learning from a packet, assuming that most subs won’t have the credentials to teach in the class they’re assigned to.
“It’s not someone who’s been prepared to teach,” he said. “It’s somebody who’s essentially there to babysit kids.”
Nelson acknowledged that some families may not send their kids to school because of the strike, but he said the district cannot be unprepared and will not close schools again.
“We cannot go to a place where our schools are not open, safe and available for learning,” he said. “That’s not OK. We are just getting back on track.”
Prior to the pandemic, the school district was making academic gains faster than the state even though Fresno Unified students were further behind, Nelson said.
Based on the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress, or CAASPP tests, the percentage of students statewide meeting or exceeding standards increased from 44% to 50.87% in English language arts and from 33.66% to 39.73% in math from 2015 to 2019.
The percentage of Fresno Unified students meeting or exceeding standards, from 2015 to 2019, went from 27% to 38% in English and 18% to 29.85% in math.
Whereas the state improved by 6.87 points in English and 6.07 in math, Fresno Unified improved more – by 11 points in English and 11.85 in math.
“We are back on that trajectory two years after the pandemic,” Nelson said. “Any thought of taking that trajectory again in a negative direction by forcing kids out of school is not on the list of available choices for us. It’s just not. So whatever we need to do to keep schools open, we will.”
Still, Fresno Unified has not yet reached the state percentages of students meeting standards. And because of the pandemic, students statewide, including those in Fresno Unified, experienced learning loss that dropped test scores, in some cases to lower rates than prior to the pandemic. In 2022, CAASPP tests showed 47.06% and 33.38 % of students statewide met or exceeded English standards and math standards, respectively. In Fresno Unified, tests showed 32.24% and 20.82% met or exceeded English and math standards, respectively.
But public data doesn’t yet show whether Fresno Unified’s students are again improving faster, as they were before the pandemic.
‘We’re still trying’
Even as both sides are hopeful that a strike can be averted, teachers say they are frustrated by the district’s plan.
Bonilla, the teachers union president, said the district’s plan doesn’t address the issues head-on.
“It’s never about facing the reality that there are issues we need to address,” he said.
Such frustrations could inevitably lead to the strike and to even more educators striking, Mendes warned.
“The more upset teachers get,” Mendes said, “the more likely they are to strike.”
District leaders say they are frustrated as well.
Nelson said that although the district intends to avoid the strike, it’s difficult to negotiate with FTA’s “last, best and final” offer while still having ongoing talks about issues.
“You can either say, ‘This is our plan: Take it or leave it’ or you can say, ‘We want to have informal conversations with you about all that stuff,’” Nelson said. “But you can’t say ‘take it or leave it’ and then insist upon informal conversation.”
Nelson’s view of the union’s final offer is “disingenuous,” Bonilla said.
“Never once did we say take it or leave it,” he said. “What we said was, ‘These are the ways in which our educators feel we can improve this district. If you have other ideas, then bring those to the table so we can discuss.
“He’s never negotiated. He’s never brought an idea back to the table.’”
Nevertheless, because the union issued its final offer in May, Nelson said it leaves the district to continue to go through the state mediation process.
“We’re still trying,” he said. “We just don’t see eye-to-eye. It’s just that simple.”
So what’s next?
Both parties now await the outcome of last week’s fact-finding sessions, in which a recommendation report could either push the union and school district closer to a resolution or further apart.
“We started the week with two full days of mediation and had hope that we might be able to reach an agreement, but unfortunately that was unsuccessful,” Nelson informed families in a September 8 message about the sessions.
Following the failed mediation attempts of the fact-finding stage, FTA and Fresno Unified made presentations before a neutral third party.
Based on the presentations and on discussions during the sessions, the fact finder will make a recommendation in a report.
If the union and district still don’t agree on a contract 10 days following the fact-finding report, the district must release that report to the public, leaving the district with the option to impose a contract and allowing the union to vote to strike.
EdSource reporter Daniel J. Willis contributed to this report.
Many come under supervision of their county Department of Children and Family Services after a reported allegation of child neglect or maltreatment, including physical abuse, sexual abuse, exploitation or emotional abuse; for others, it happens when a parent voluntarily requests support, often due to a child’s behavioral challenges.
Children in an out-of-home placement in the child welfare system have access to particular educational rights. This is meant to ensure stability for them during a time of uncertainty.
A child under the supervision of the Department of Children and Family Services often comes into contact with multiple individuals. Depending on the details of their case, this could include social workers, child advocates, police officers, detectives, attorneys, judges and others. If they are removed from their home, they might be placed in foster care. While not all youth in the child welfare system are in foster care, all foster youth are in the child welfare system.
“When these rights were established, the purpose was to keep children in some kind of consistency, some kind of security, or something that felt just familiar to them,” said Jessica Gonzalez, youth justice program manager at CASA/LA, a national organization of court-appointed special advocates for youth in the child welfare system. CASA volunteers are sometimes appointed as educational rights holders for children. Even when they are not, they often advocate for education rights to be enforced, Gonzalez said.
A child’s case might also enter the juvenile dependency court. While the primary goal for youth in dependency court is to “preserve the family” by keeping a child either in the home of their parent or a relative, they might be placed in foster care or adopted.
Child welfare cases are complex, and outcomes depend on a multitude of factors, including the caretaking ability of a parent, whether a relative is able to take in the child, if an appeal is filed, and more.
This story includes information on whom the educational rights apply to as well as general insight into some of these rights. Many were implemented with the enactment of AB 490 in 2003 yet remain difficult to understand for many families due to the complexity of the child welfare system.
How many children are in the child welfare system?
This point-in-time count includes those who are under the age of 1 up to age 21 and who have “an open child welfare or probation supervised placement episode” in California’s Child Welfare Services/Case Management System. The count peaked in 2016, with nearly 63,000 open cases. The lowest number of open cases occurred this year.
Allegations of child maltreatment are much higher, however; between April 2022 and April 2023, there were more than 442,000 reported allegations.
Which children in the system have access to particular educational rights?
Youth in the child welfare system and in an out-of-home placement have access to specific educational rights. An out-of-home placement can include foster homes, group homes, shelters and hotels through the Department of Children and Family Services, and other similar placements.
The purpose of these rights is to accommodate the child’s education as much as possible during a time of instability.
What are some of the educational rights for those in the child welfare system?
A child in the welfare system and in an out-of-home placement has access to the following rights, among others:
School stability. This includes the right to remain enrolled at their school of origin, which is the school they were enrolled in at the time their child welfare case began, and the right to be transported to that school.
Enrichment access. Youth have the right to access the same type of enrichment activities as their peers. This can include academic resources and extracurricular activities.
Placement in the least restrictive setting. Students have the right to be placed in the academic setting that’s least restrictive, or least strictly controlled, for them to be able to achieve academic progress and success.
Immediate enrollment. Regardless of whether a student has all the enrollment documents ready, or has had contact with the juvenile justice system, or has any outstanding fees — they have the right to be immediately enrolled in school.
Each of the rights above are nuanced and dependent on each child’s case and the decisions of their educational rights holder.
Additional information for families and children can be found by contacting the county Foster Youth Services Coordinating Program (each county’s contact can be found here) or at the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.
What does it mean to place a child in the ‘least restrictive’ academic setting?
While a least restrictive academic setting depends on age and whether a student has disabilities, it’s often considered the academic environment that’s least strictly controlled.
For a high school student, the least restrictive setting might be a traditional public school where students walk from one classroom to another on their own, with sports and special events such as prom and field trips. A more restrictive academic setting is often a nonpublic school that provides a more strictly controlled environment in an effort to assist students who have specific behavioral, emotional or academic needs.
As Gonzalez described, students are often pushed out to a more restrictive setting if they exhibit ongoing behavioral challenges — which, she says, are often a result of trauma in that child’s life.
But students “have the right to be in a setting they feel safe in, they feel comfortable in, and they’re able to learn in,” Gonzalez said. “And so, if the child has demonstrated that they’re able to do this in a very restrictive setting, we have to give that student the opportunity to then be able to practice those skills in a less restrictive setting.”
Who holds the educational rights for youth in the child welfare system?
Every child has an educational rights holder with decision-making authority regarding their education. A parent often continues having the right to make educational and developmental decisions for their child even if they lose physical custody. Biological parents lose educational decision-making power only if they are explicitly limited or restricted by the juvenile court, if parental rights have been terminated (i.e., the child is up for adoption), or if the child is in a legal guardianship.
Parents “are not always encouraged to continue to be a part of their child’s educational journey, so a lot of times what we do as CASA when we’re appointed to a case is facilitate that engagement with a parent to preserve their involvement in the child’s education,” Gonzalez said.
Most often, organizations like CASA encourage relatives to hold educational rights. This is because once a child welfare case is closed, CASA is no longer the rights holder. Advocating for the biological parents or other relatives to remain as educational rights holders helps provide continuity in the child’s life, according to Gonzalez.
In the absence of parents or relatives, the educational rights holder role is often filled by a court-appointed special advocate, which is where CASA’s name comes from.
The person assigned as the educational rights holder is entitled to have “all of the educational decision-making rights normally held by a parent or guardian,” according to a recent fact sheet compiled by the California Foster Youth Education Task Force.
How are educational decisions made?
All educational decisions should be made with the child’s best interest in mind.
For example, a child can remain in their school of origin if they prefer to. But if they’ve been placed far from that school and they would need to spend hours on the road to reach it, then it may be in their best interest to be enrolled in a new school.
The educational rights holder can request a best-interest determination meeting that would include school district personnel, such as the school psychologist, before finalizing any educational decisions.
How can an educational rights holder avoid roadblocks in advocating for a child?
While educational rights are outlined, the rights holder may experience roadblocks in enforcing them.
For example, information about a child, like academic assessments and individualized education programs, might not have yet been finalized at their school of origin and a new educational rights holder might face pushback from the new school.
In such cases, children, their families and educational rights holders can contact an education attorney through the Educational Advocacy Unit at the Children’s Law Center. If the child is also in the juvenile justice system, they can contact a juvenile resource attorney through the public defender’s office.
A significant barrier is that while foster youth liaisons at schools are designated staff members who support students in the child welfare system, they are often overwhelmed by the number of students they serve.
Gonzalez said, “It’s a lot of just constantly showing up to the school, advocating, contacting, emailing, you know, all of those follow-ups to make sure that we’re getting the right support for each child that we serve.”
California may have low public college tuition costs when compared to other colleges and universities nationally, but it is not enough to prevent students from taking high amounts of student loans.
A new study released exclusively to EdSource from The Century Foundation found Californians have higher average student debt balances, risky graduate school debt, a unique reliance on parent-held debt and significantly high student debt among Black families.
California’s high cost of living makes debt inevitable for many students, but the risk is greater for students from lower-income families and communities of color eager to use education as a ladder into the middle class. Open-ended loans aimed at parents and graduate students are particularly burdensome, including those used to attend for-profit colleges.
Despite having a smaller share of student loan borrowers when compared with other states, California’s borrowers are in the top third among states, with an average of $37,400 owed, according to national data from June 2022. That figure includes all borrowers, regardless of whether they attended college in California. The state ranks 16th out of 50 states and the District of Columbia for borrowers with high balances. This is despite having the fourth-lowest rate of student borrowers.
“One of California’s great successes is in college affordability and the fact that so many students go through college without debt,” said Peter Granville, a fellow at the foundation studying federal and state policy efforts to improve college affordability and author of the study. “Unfortunately, the Californians who do borrow take out some of the most risky debt around.” The foundation is a progressive, independent think tank that researches and promotes policy change to foster equity.
Besides the impact on individuals, student loan debt has become a larger problem for the American economy. Nationally, the current student loan debt totals $1.77 trillion.
“Student debt is something that is different from what it was 10 or 20 years ago,” U.S. Undersecretary of Education James Kvaal told higher education reporters earlier this month at UC Riverside. “People are borrowing more. They’re struggling more with those loans. It’s not just a problem for the 43 million Americans with student loan debt when they cannot afford to buy a house, start a new business or save for their own children or their retirement. It’s a problem for their families. It’s a problem for their communities. It’s a problem for our economy. It’s a fundamental crisis that we have to address in our country. We have to change how we’re financing higher education.”
Loan repayments restarting in October
With the Supreme Court rejecting President Joe Biden’s attempt to forgive $20,000 in loans for millions of borrowers, many are preparing to restart repayments in October. The situation underscores a larger student loan crisis in California and across the country. Millions of people, including those who never graduated from college and parents, are carrying student loan debt that they cannot afford and realistically may not ever pay back.
“Californians really struggle with repayment,” Granville said. “The state economy demands a college education, and I believe that demand drives up borrowing.”
And the situation is worse for graduates and families that borrow from the federal Parent PLUS and Grad PLUS loan programs that allow parents to borrow on behalf of their college students and graduate students to afford higher degrees, Granville said, adding that both programs offer high-interest, uncapped loans.
“These loans are probably the worst things to dangle in front of families with real genuine fears of being left behind economically,” he said. “But that leads to high balances that are difficult to manage.”
Graduate loan debt is larger in California than in the rest of the country, the study found. The state’s average annual Grad Plus loan is 25% higher than the rest of the country. In-state graduate students borrow on average $28,300 in loans each year compared with $22,400 nationally.
California places a premium on higher education in the state, Granville said. The average California worker with a graduate degree earns $108,500 – a 50% increase above the average income for bachelor’s degree holders.
The state also sees a disproportionate share of Black students borrowing student loans. In the 2015-16 academic year, 28% of Black in-state undergraduates borrowed loans compared with 21% of all undergraduates. At the graduate level, 81% of Black Californians took out student loans compared to 51% of all other graduate students.
“High borrowing among Black students in California locks in inequality that can last long into repayment,” Granville said. “Despite having a college degree and living in a higher income state, Black borrowers in California actually show worse financial security.”
Black women undergraduates borrow at the highest rates in any one year, with 31% taking loans in 2015-16 compared with 21% of all undergraduates, according to the study.
Granville said the data reflects the racial wealth gap.
“Black families have fewer financial resources than white families,” he said. “That leads to it being a lot harder to ask a Black family to self-finance education without debt. Homeownership also matters. You can take out a home equity loan for a much lower rate than a Parent Plus loan, for example.”
Latinos follow Black borrowers but with not as high graduate loan debt at 62%. But Latino families also have concerning trends. The majority of Latino borrowers in California don’t have a college degree, while only one-quarter of white borrowers don’t. The report explains that this could be due to a greater share of Latinos leaving college before they earn a degree or higher shares of parents borrowing on behalf of their children.
Granville said the state should examine whether all California families are “being potentially set up to fail.”
“Lawmakers should be looking at the colleges within California and asking, are colleges passing on high costs to students knowing that they can take out this uncapped loan debt?” he said. “I worry about how some loans are being sold to students by their colleges. Unless families are getting wise counsel, they may be unknowingly signing up for a pretty tough repayment experience.”
The racial wealth gap, along with California’s cost of living, makes it particularly challenging for Californians to pay their student debt, Granville said.
Repaying more than $200,000
In many ways, Richelle Brooks is a college success story. She’s also an outlier in the student debt crisis.
Credit: Courtesy of Richelle Brooks
Richelle Brooks
A first-generation college student, Brooks earned an associate degree from El Camino College, then went on to earn a bachelor’s and master’s degree from Cal State Dominguez Hills. She graduated with her doctorate in 2018 from Cal State Los Angeles.
Now, as a Los Angeles-area high school principal, she mentors and educates low-income students and students of color. She’s also facing more than $237,000 of student loan debt. The mom of three can’t fathom repaying it all, even with her $120,000 annual salary.
Enrolling in community colleges even after graduating with her doctorate, as well as the three-year pandemic pause, allowed her to put off making payments. But that could be coming to an end.
Brooks, who advocates for student loan forgiveness, participates in one of the federal government’s income-driven repayment plans, which slowly escalates her monthly payments based on her income as a high school principal. Her first payment, which restarts in October, is for $700. But by June 2024 it will increase to $2,600 a month.
“I ran the numbers,” Brooks, 36, said. “It’ll be cheaper to stay in school the rest of my life than to pay that $200,000.” (Federal loan repayments pause while a person is enrolled in school.)
About $33,000 of Brooks’ debt is just from interest that accumulated over the years. But because of the interest, Brooks said that her ability to pay off the debt “doesn’t exist.”
“On paper, it sounds like I make a lot of money,” she said. “But they’re not taking into consideration that I live in LA and I have three kids.”
Brook’s partner is a military veteran and teacher. He doesn’t have student loans because of his military service, but the couple found they’re unable to purchase a home for their family because of Brook’s debt-to-income ratio, a situation that affects many student borrowers. Brooks also supports her mother, who lives with the family after facing homelessness.
California’s high cost of living makes it difficult for young people coming out of college without significant family resources to accumulate assets like a home, especially if they have student loan debt. In California, 78% of Black households with student debt and 74% of Latino households with student debt have less than $50,000 in savings and investments, compared with 57% of white households with student loans, according to The Century Foundation.
In addition to her work as a principal, Brooks said she’s taken on other jobs to make ends meet, including driving Uber, and that’s before the loan repayments begin.
“Whatever it takes to make sure my kids have what they need and the bills are paid,” she said.
Brooks’ two oldest children are in high school and affording college is a common discussion in their home.
“I do not foresee a way for me to pay off my debt and figure out a way to pay my kids’ college, and I do not want them to go into debt,” she said. “I talked to my daughter about joining the military, but it’s kind of terrifying too because she’s a little Black girl. … So I’m trying to figure it out.”
As an educator, Brooks could apply for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, which she is considering once again. The program typically forgives the debt of people who work for a government or nonprofit employer, such as teachers, first responders and nurses. But forgiveness isn’t granted until after the borrower makes 120 or 10 years of payments.
Restarting repayments
Although Brooks’ debt amounts are larger than the average of most borrowers, her struggle to repay her college loans is common.
“In the popular imagination, there is this idea that student debt is a young people issue,” said Thomas Gokey, an organizer and co-founder of The Debt Collective, a union of advocates for publicly funded college, universal health care and guaranteed housing. “The truth is that the debt just doesn’t go away.”
People age, have children, grandchildren, and careers decades removed from graduation, and the “debt is still there,” Gokey said, adding that for many people, the monthly payments don’t cover the interest.
Some people have fully paid back their principle multiple times over, with the outstanding balance higher than the original balance. Other people may fall on hard times and can’t make payments, which leads to massive penalties, he said, referring to one case where a borrower defaulted on her student loan during the 2008 financial crisis and saw a $10,000 penalty added to her balance.
For undergraduates, even when their financial aid forms say they have $0 in expected family contributions, the cost of college attendance and tuition has increased to the point where aid doesn’t cover everything, he said. “The only option is Parent Plus loans to fill the gap. It’s just astonishing that a lot of parents will be paying off the loans for a longer period of time than they lived with or raised the children that they got the loan for.”
Granville said many, trying to get ahead, take on more loans after undergraduate loans.
“Students often turn to graduate education when they’re struggling with their undergraduate loans,” he said. “They may see the next degree as the thing that will give them the earning power to handle the debt that they have struggled with already.”
There is a misperception that a graduate degree means a person will be “really successful” and “make a lot of money,” Gokey said. “And that’s just not true if you’re a social worker,” he added, as an example of a lower salary job.
According to The Century Foundation’s data, a social worker with a bachelor’s degree earns on average $34,183 one year after completing their program, but has an average $15,599 in student loans. A social worker with a master’s degree earns an average of $54,223 one year after completing their program, but has on average nearly $80,000 in student loans. Licensed clinical social workers in California are required by the state to have a master’s degree in social work.
Gokey said that there’s no way to “financial literacy yourself” out of student loan debt.
Options and fixes
Although interest rates restarted in September and repayments resume in October, the federal government is giving borrowers a one-year grace period as it attempts to fix the loan system and offer solutions that significantly lower monthly payments.
“We really inherited a student loan system that was broken,” Kvaal said. “Before the student loan pause, we had a million students a year defaulting on their student loans.”
Kvaal said those defaults weren’t from people running from their responsibilities, but borrowers struggling with payments. Many of them were first-generation or students of color, he said.
Institution name
Type
Stafford (undergraduate)
Parent PLUS
Grad PLUS
Academy of Art University
For-profit
37%
30%
42%
Advanced Career Institute
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Allan Hancock College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Alliant International University-San Diego
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
American Academy of Dramatic Arts-Los Angeles
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
American Career College-Los Angeles
For-profit
34%
21%
n/a
American Career College-Ontario
For-profit
37%
32%
n/a
American College of Healthcare and Technology
For-profit
51%
n/a
n/a
American River College
Public
44%
n/a
n/a
Angeles Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Antelope Valley College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Antioch University-Los Angeles
Non-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Art Center College of Design
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Asher College
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Ashford University
For-profit
46%
37%
44%
Associated Technical College-Los Angeles
For-profit
49%
n/a
n/a
Associated Technical College-San Diego
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Avalon School of Cosmetology-Alameda
For-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Aveda Institute-Los Angeles
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Azusa Pacific University
Non-profit
25%
16%
42%
Bakersfield College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Bard College – MAT Program CA
Non-profit
24%
17%
n/a
Bellus Academy-Chula Vista
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Bellus Academy-El Cajon
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Bellus Academy-Poway
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Berkeley City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Bethel Seminary-San Diego
Non-profit
18%
22%
36%
Biola University
Non-profit
20%
22%
32%
Blake Austin College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Brandman University
Non-profit
31%
n/a
39%
Brownson Technical School
For-profit
17%
n/a
n/a
Butte College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Cabrillo College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
California Aeronautical University
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
California Baptist University
Non-profit
31%
30%
43%
California Career Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
California College of the Arts
Non-profit
26%
32%
47%
California College San Diego
Non-profit
44%
n/a
n/a
California Hair Design Academy
For-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
California Healing Arts College
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
California Institute of Integral Studies
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
California Institute of the Arts
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
California Lutheran University
Non-profit
22%
26%
n/a
California Nurses Educational Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
California Polytechnic State University-San Luis Obispo
Public
12%
14%
24%
California State Polytechnic University-Pomona
Public
21%
22%
38%
California State University Maritime Academy
Public
17%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Bakersfield
Public
29%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Channel Islands
Public
22%
17%
n/a
California State University-Chico
Public
23%
22%
n/a
California State University-Dominguez Hills
Public
27%
n/a
32%
California State University-East Bay
Public
25%
22%
35%
California State University-Fresno
Public
24%
n/a
34%
California State University-Fullerton
Public
20%
27%
29%
California State University-Long Beach
Public
20%
22%
37%
California State University-Los Angeles
Public
23%
n/a
37%
California State University-Monterey Bay
Public
24%
17%
37%
California State University-Northridge
Public
22%
17%
37%
California State University-Sacramento
Public
24%
20%
36%
California State University-San Bernardino
Public
27%
22%
40%
California State University-San Marcos
Public
23%
n/a
n/a
California State University-Stanislaus
Public
23%
17%
36%
California Western School of Law
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Cambridge Junior College-Yuba City
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Career Academy of Beauty
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Career Care Institute
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Career Networks Institute
For-profit
33%
n/a
n/a
Carrington College-Sacramento
For-profit
37%
20%
n/a
Casa Loma College-Van Nuys
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
CBD College
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Central Coast College
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Cerritos College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
CET-San Diego
Non-profit
40%
n/a
n/a
Chabot College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Chamberlain University-California
For-profit
26%
24%
30%
Chapman University
Non-profit
20%
18%
n/a
Charles R Drew University of Medicine and Science
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Cinta Aveda Institute
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Citrus College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
City College of San Francisco
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Claremont Graduate University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Coastline Community College
Public
43%
n/a
n/a
Cogswell University of Silicon Valley
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
College of Marin
Public
51%
n/a
n/a
College of the Canyons
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
College of the Redwoods
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
College of the Sequoias
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
College of the Siskiyous
Public
45%
n/a
n/a
Columbia College – Los Alamitos
Non-profit
39%
n/a
38%
Columbia College Hollywood
Non-profit
39%
32%
n/a
Concorde Career College-Garden Grove
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-North Hollywood
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-San Bernardino
For-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
Concorde Career College-San Diego
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Concordia University-Irvine
Non-profit
22%
27%
27%
Contra Costa College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Cosumnes River College
Public
45%
n/a
n/a
Cuesta College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
Culinary Institute of America at Greystone
Non-profit
24%
33%
n/a
Cypress College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
De Anza College
Public
34%
n/a
n/a
Design’s School of Cosmetology
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
DeVry University-California
For-profit
42%
29%
40%
Diablo Valley College
Public
27%
n/a
n/a
Diversified Vocational College
For-profit
51%
n/a
n/a
Dominican University of California
Non-profit
20%
n/a
37%
East Los Angeles College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
Empire College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Feather River Community College District
Public
41%
n/a
n/a
Federico Beauty Institute
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
FIDM-Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising-Los Angeles
For-profit
30%
32%
n/a
Fielding Graduate University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Folsom Lake College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Foothill College
Public
35%
n/a
n/a
Fremont College
For-profit
43%
n/a
n/a
Fresno City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Fresno Pacific University
Non-profit
28%
n/a
38%
Fuller Theological Seminary
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Fullerton College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Glendale Career College
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Glendale Community College
Public
27%
n/a
n/a
Golden Gate University-San Francisco
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Golden West College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Grossmont College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
Gurnick Academy of Medical Arts
For-profit
25%
n/a
n/a
Harvey Mudd College
Non-profit
8%
n/a
n/a
High Desert Medical College
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Holy Names University
Non-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Homestead Schools
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Hope International University
Non-profit
30%
n/a
n/a
Humboldt State University
Public
29%
22%
37%
Humphreys University-Stockton and Modesto Campuses
Non-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Hussian College-Los Angeles
For-profit
53%
n/a
n/a
Institute for Business and Technology
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Institute of Culinary Education
For-profit
19%
n/a
n/a
Institute of Technology
For-profit
43%
n/a
n/a
InterCoast Colleges-Santa Ana
For-profit
40%
n/a
n/a
International School of Beauty Inc
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
International School of Cosmetology
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Irvine Valley College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
John F. Kennedy University
Non-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
La Sierra University
Non-profit
33%
27%
n/a
Laguna College of Art and Design
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Laney College
Public
47%
n/a
n/a
Laurus College
For-profit
53%
n/a
n/a
Life Chiropractic College West
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Life Pacific University
Non-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Loma Linda University
Non-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Long Beach City College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Center
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Film School
For-profit
47%
37%
n/a
Los Angeles Mission College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Pierce College
Public
40%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Southwest College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Trade Technical College
Public
39%
n/a
n/a
Los Angeles Valley College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Loyola Marymount University
Non-profit
17%
24%
n/a
Lu Ross Academy
For-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
Make-up Designory
For-profit
19%
22%
n/a
Marshall B Ketchum University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
Marymount California University
Non-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
Mayfield College
For-profit
39%
n/a
n/a
Mendocino College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Menlo College
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Merritt College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Miami Ad School-San Francisco
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey
Non-profit
14%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute of Cosmetology-Fairfield
For-profit
49%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Fresno
For-profit
46%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Palm Desert
For-profit
45%
n/a
n/a
Milan Institute-Visalia
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Mills College
Non-profit
26%
n/a
n/a
MiraCosta College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Moler Barber College
For-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Monterey Peninsula College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Moorpark College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Moreno Valley College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Mount Saint Mary’s University
Non-profit
28%
17%
n/a
Mt San Antonio College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
MTI College
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Musicians Institute
For-profit
35%
32%
n/a
National Career College
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
National Holistic Institute
For-profit
28%
n/a
n/a
National University
Non-profit
32%
n/a
39%
New York Film Academy
For-profit
35%
n/a
n/a
North Adrian’s College of Beauty Inc
For-profit
46%
n/a
n/a
Northcentral University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
North-West College-Pomona
For-profit
24%
n/a
n/a
North-West College-Van Nuys
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
North-West College-West Covina
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Notre Dame de Namur University
Non-profit
26%
32%
47%
NTMA Training Centers of Southern California
Non-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Occidental College
Non-profit
14%
n/a
n/a
Orange Coast College
Public
29%
n/a
n/a
Otis College of Art and Design
Non-profit
27%
32%
n/a
Pacific College
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Pacific College of Health and Science
For-profit
42%
n/a
47%
Pacific Oaks College
Non-profit
30%
n/a
n/a
Pacific Union College
Non-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Pacifica Graduate Institute
For-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Palo Alto University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Palomar College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Palomar Institute of Cosmetology
For-profit
22%
n/a
n/a
Pasadena City College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-East Bay
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Fresno
For-profit
41%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Modesto
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Pasadena
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Sacramento
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Sherman Oaks
For-profit
27%
n/a
n/a
Paul Mitchell the School-Temecula
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
Pepperdine University
Non-profit
20%
22%
39%
Pima Medical Institute-Chula Vista
For-profit
29%
20%
n/a
Pitzer College
Non-profit
17%
n/a
n/a
Platt College-Los Angeles
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Point Loma Nazarene University
Non-profit
19%
27%
n/a
Premiere Career College
For-profit
29%
n/a
n/a
Reedley College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Relay Graduate School of Education – California
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Riverside City College
Public
34%
n/a
n/a
Sacramento City College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Saddleback College
Public
30%
n/a
n/a
SAE Expression College
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Saint Mary’s College of California
Non-profit
19%
37%
32%
Salon Success Academy-Corona
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Salon Success Academy-Upland
For-profit
36%
n/a
n/a
Samuel Merritt University
Non-profit
8%
n/a
36%
San Diego Christian College
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
San Diego City College
Public
41%
n/a
n/a
San Diego Mesa College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
San Diego Miramar College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
San Diego State University
Public
21%
16%
38%
San Francisco Art Institute
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
San Francisco Institute of Esthetics & Cosmetology Inc
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
San Francisco State University
Public
24%
22%
35%
San Joaquin Delta College
Public
46%
n/a
n/a
San Joaquin Valley College-Visalia
For-profit
42%
22%
n/a
San Jose City College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
San Jose State University
Public
18%
14%
33%
Santa Ana College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara Business College-Bakersfield
For-profit
45%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara Business College-Santa Maria
For-profit
34%
n/a
n/a
Santa Barbara City College
Public
36%
n/a
n/a
Santa Clara University
Non-profit
9%
27%
n/a
Santa Monica College
Public
33%
n/a
n/a
Santa Rosa Junior College
Public
31%
n/a
n/a
Saybrook University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
37%
Shasta College
Public
39%
n/a
n/a
Sierra College
Public
40%
n/a
n/a
Simpson University
Non-profit
20%
n/a
n/a
Solano Community College
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
Sonoma State University
Public
21%
14%
37%
South Baylo University
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
South Coast College
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Southern California Health Institute
For-profit
39%
n/a
n/a
Southern California Institute of Technology
For-profit
23%
n/a
n/a
Southern California University of Health Sciences
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
47%
Southwestern College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Southwestern Law School
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Spartan College of Aeronautics & Technology
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
Stanbridge University
For-profit
20%
n/a
n/a
Stanford University
Non-profit
12%
n/a
17%
SUM Bible College and Theological Seminary
Non-profit
47%
n/a
n/a
Summit College
For-profit
37%
n/a
n/a
The Chicago School of Professional Psychology at Anaheim
Non-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
The Master’s University and Seminary
Non-profit
12%
n/a
n/a
Thomas Jefferson School of Law
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Touro University California
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Touro University Worldwide
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
Trident University International
For-profit
32%
n/a
33%
Trinity Law School
Non-profit
31%
n/a
38%
UEI College-Fresno
For-profit
50%
37%
n/a
UEI College-Gardena
For-profit
46%
22%
n/a
United Education Institute-Huntington Park Campus
For-profit
45%
37%
n/a
United States University
For-profit
42%
n/a
n/a
Unitek College
For-profit
21%
17%
n/a
Universal Technical Institute of California Inc
For-profit
37%
22%
n/a
Universal Technical Institute of Northern California Inc
For-profit
38%
22%
n/a
University of Antelope Valley
For-profit
31%
n/a
n/a
University of California-Berkeley
Public
13%
14%
30%
University of California-Davis
Public
12%
13%
37%
University of California-Hastings College of Law
Public
n/a
n/a
n/a
University of California-Irvine
Public
15%
14%
37%
University of California-Los Angeles
Public
15%
18%
33%
University of California-Merced
Public
20%
18%
n/a
University of California-Riverside
Public
22%
19%
n/a
University of California-San Diego
Public
13%
12%
31%
University of California-San Francisco
Public
n/a
n/a
32%
University of California-Santa Barbara
Public
16%
19%
28%
University of California-Santa Cruz
Public
20%
18%
32%
University of La Verne
Non-profit
30%
27%
41%
University of Phoenix-California
For-profit
43%
35%
42%
University of Redlands
Non-profit
27%
27%
38%
University of San Diego
Non-profit
16%
24%
n/a
University of San Francisco
Non-profit
19%
22%
41%
University of Southern California
Non-profit
16%
25%
n/a
University of St. Augustine for Health Sciences
For-profit
n/a
n/a
32%
University of the Pacific
Non-profit
19%
22%
n/a
Vanguard University of Southern California
Non-profit
26%
27%
n/a
Ventura College
Public
37%
n/a
n/a
Victor Valley College
Public
46%
n/a
n/a
West Coast Ultrasound Institute
For-profit
32%
n/a
n/a
West Coast University-Los Angeles
For-profit
25%
30%
32%
West Hills College-Coalinga
Public
47%
n/a
n/a
West Hills College-Lemoore
Public
42%
n/a
n/a
West Los Angeles College
Public
32%
n/a
n/a
Western University of Health Sciences
Non-profit
n/a
n/a
n/a
Westmont College
Non-profit
12%
n/a
n/a
Whittier College
Non-profit
29%
32%
n/a
William Jessup University
Non-profit
24%
n/a
n/a
Woodbury University
Non-profit
37%
27%
n/a
Source: College Scorecard
One fix the department has worked on is the loan forgiveness program for borrowers working in public service, which would help educators like Brooks. Prior to the pandemic, even people who were eligible for forgiveness were denied, Kvaal said, which is why fewer than 7,000 people saw forgiveness. Since the Biden Administration announced changes to the program, so far up to 660,000 people have had their loans forgiven through public service.
The Biden administration’s new repayment plan can also significantly cut loan payments or reduce them to $0, Kvaal said, adding that, so far, 4 million people have enrolled in the plan.
Kvaal said the administration is looking at other options.
“The president has asked us to offer loan forgiveness to as many people as possible and as quickly as possible,” Kvaal said. “We’re telling students it’s time for them to repay. At the same time, we’re doing everything we can to reform the student loan program to make sure that students have access to the loan forgiveness that they have earned … and that people are taking advantage of the most affordable payment plan that has ever been created.”
Kvaal said the Education Department is also looking into the amount of debt that comes out of for-profit programs, online graduate programs and the Parent Plus loan program.
Granville, from The Century Foundation, also has national recommendations. For example, Congress should lower the interest rate on student loans. According to The Debt Collective, Congress sets the interest rates for federal student loans. Those rates are tied to the 10-year Treasury note. Because the Federal Reserve has recently been increasing rates, the treasury bond rate has increased and so has the rate for new student loans.
The current fixed rates for new undergraduate loans are at 5.5%, for graduate, 7.05% for professional unsubsidized loans, and 8.05% for Parent Plus and Grad Plus loans.
At the state and local level, Granville said that loan counseling needs to significantly change. Much of the responsibility for understanding student loans is often put on 18- and 19-year-olds, who may be the first in their families to go to college, Granville said.
“The first answer is more grant aid for students so that we can reach a debt-free financing system, not just because it helps students as individuals, but because it helps the state,” he said. “We also haven’t done a great job setting up students for success despite all of their own personal investment in education. We can rectify that situation through more generous repayment plans, but we also need to make sure that we’re giving students high-quality options so they don’t need as much debt in the first place.”
For Brooks, the high school principal with student debt, the ultimate solution is free education.
“If you go to college, you’re stricken with debt,” Brooks said. “If you don’t go to college, then you don’t have a livable wage or enough money to survive. You have to do something.”
And college tuition in California, prior to the mid-1980’s was free, she said.
“I’m of the mindset that education is a public good and it serves everyone to have a highly educated populace,” Brooks said. “It should be free altogether.”
The graduation stage at all California State University (CSU) campuses are vibrant tableaus of dreams achieved. Each cap and gown tell a unique tale of persistence, ambition, and hope. But beneath the prestige and pride lies a sobering reality. For many students, obtaining a diploma also means accumulating debt.
The CSU’s recent decision to increase tuition by 34% over five years, at an annual rate of 6%, might intensify these disparities, potentially impacting the trajectory of many students’ dreams and futures.
While the CSU cites fiscal imperatives for the increase, it’s crucial to consider its effects on students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds. Higher education, once the beacon of hope and socio-economic mobility, is slowly being priced out of reach for many. Making this path more expensive threatens to sideline those who are meant to benefit from it the most.
The data doesn’t lie, so let’s dive into it. Our recent collaborative report with The Institute for College Access and Success (TICAS) on the CSU system illuminates disturbing trends. While the CSU’s efforts to boost graduation rates are commendable, the cost of these achievements disproportionately impacts students from racially marginalized communities. We found that from the academic year 2021-22 a disconcerting 63% of Black bachelor’s degree recipients are grappling with student debt. In contrast, only about a third of their white and Asian peers face similar financial burdens. Moreover, only 48% of Black students secure their degree within six years. As these stats indicate, the increase in tuition could threaten the very essence of CSU, known for its diversity and inclusivity.
The data tells a story that reaches far beyond mere statistics. Picture the path of a first-generation college student from a marginalized background. They step onto campus, buoyed by dreams and shouldering the weight of their family’s expectations. As they navigate the academic world, they confront both systemic obstacles and personal challenges.
Yet, as graduation draws near, a looming debt casts a shadow over their achievements. Each loan statement they receive isn’t merely an invoice; it’s a stark reminder of the price of ambition, of wanting to change your life for the better. These are dreams recalibrated or paused, not because of a lack of drive, capability, passion, or talent but for the sake of survival. Thus, the narrative shifts from higher education being a bridge to dreams to a poignant query: Is the investment truly worth its promise?
Add to this the ramifications of the CSU’s recent decision. Annual tuition increases totaling 34% can lead to longer work hours, fewer academic credits, or even postponed semesters. Each subsequent loan statement, irrespective of graduation status, serves as a somber reminder of the tangible costs of dreams and the yearning for a brighter future. Such decisions don’t just delay dreams; they risk derailing them.
At this defining moment, the CSU must introspectively reassess its foundational principles. The recent tuition hike decision has resonated like an unsettling alarm throughout the CSU community. While certain factions might view this as a necessary step to counteract fiscal deficits, for many students, it’s an added layer to an already challenging academic climb. To paint a clearer picture, on most campuses, our most economically disadvantaged students would need to clock in twenty or even upwards of thirty hours of paid work a week, in certain regions, just to afford the cost of attendance.
Beyond individual concerns, society must recognize wider ramifications. Those students we’re most committed to elevating may increasingly feel academia’s gates slowly creaking shut. If financial burdens eclipse the dream of higher education, the entire society loses out. We risk sidelining tomorrow’s innovators, thinkers, leaders, and agents of societal change. The budding poet, poised to inspire an era, might remain silent; the aspiring scientist, on the brink of groundbreaking discoveries might opt for more immediate financial gains by taking a job instead. The community advocates, starting their journey in student leadership and deeply attuned to their community’s historical narratives, might never fully realize their potential to uplift and lead.
This is a rallying cry for unity. As the CSU system charts its course, it is vital that policymakers, educators, students, and the wider community actively participate in this critical dialogue. We must also confront the sobering truth that members of our community will disproportionately bear the inequitable burden of a college degree. It’s crucial that we safeguard against making the pursuit of dreams financially untenable. After all, dreams cultivated within the halls of academia should ignite, illuminate, and elevate – not ensnare.
•••
Dominic Quan Treseler is president of the Cal State Student Association and a political science major at San Jose State University.
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.
Credit: Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for American Education
For folks in the literacy world, the bitter fight over California’s math framework sounded eerily familiar. On one side, proponents of the framework argued that students need to learn to love math, see themselves as math people and grapple with math concepts. On the other, traditionalists argued that the framework spends too much time on unproven, poorly researched ideas that fail to equip students with the foundational knowledge they need to learn more complex math.
For good measure, there’s even a popular Stanford professor, Jo Boaler, who’s been tagged as the Lucy Calkins of math and whose research has become a lightning rod for criticism from math researchers and educators nationally. Sounds just like the reading wars and the fight between balanced literacy and phonics, doesn’t it?
For those talking about the new “math wars” and calling for a “science of math,” that’s where the similarities end. Yes, there are serious differences between the two sides of the California framework debate on how to teach math in the elementary grades, when students should take algebra and the importance of calculus. But unlike reading, these pedagogical differences are far from being resolved.
That’s because the “science of reading” didn’t happen overnight. It was a multidecade movement engaging every sector of our education system including research, media, advocacy, state and local policy and business to tackle an issue — early literacy — that was broadly understood by the public.
One could argue that the math crisis is far more severe with overall results far behind English and enormous achievement gaps. It is also just as consequential for students, given the connection between early math proficiency and access to higher-level math coursework, post-secondary education and technical careers. To get the attention that math deserves, advocates should learn from the multiyear, multifaceted strategy that’s driven the science of reading movement.
The first step is articulating how poor math instruction affects a child’s life and harms the most vulnerable students, especially students with dyscalculia, a condition that makes it hard to do math. For years, reading advocates have hammered away at the connection between third grade reading results and the school-to-prison pipeline. Meanwhile, dyslexia advocates showed how poor reading instruction harmed children with reading difficulties. Their efforts expanded public consciousness and led to massive philanthropic and government investments in reading research.
For years, ways to teach reading with names like “explicit direct instruction,” “whole language and “balanced literacy” fought it out, creating dissension and confusion down to the classroom level. Over the last decade, stunning advances in neuroscience have resolved most of these conflicts. We now know that learning to read is a complex neurological process marked by explicit sequential stages of learning and interlocking skill development. Approaches like early phonics instruction work for the bulk of students, especially kids with reading difficulties like dyslexia while other popular methods like whole language don’t.
Unfortunately, when it comes to research, math is where reading was 20 years ago, with a similarly animating set of conflicts like the recent California Framework fight pitting “problem-based learning” against procedural knowledge such as memorizing multiplication tables. As we did with reading, we should heavily invest in the neuroscience research that can definitively answer what works in the classroom and what doesn’t.
Simultaneously, we should build the understanding and the will of state and local policymakers and community leaders about the math crisis, its implications for students and the importance of investing in high-quality math instruction from the earliest grades. This means that school districts shouldn’t wait two years for the state to publish a list of approved materials. Most math curricula in California classrooms are low quality and almost 10 years old. Districts should use the flexibility provided by state law to purchase a new highly rated math curriculum and provide ongoing professional learning and coaching for teachers, especially elementary teachers who are often math averse.
As we improve our knowledge of the neuroscience of math, state and local leaders shouldn’t sit on their hands. They should build capacity in state and local agencies by creating math departments that rival the size and influence of their literacy departments, hiring senior math administrators and building a cadre of math coaches so that best practices are quickly disseminated to districts and schools. Using current research, they should regularly revisit their math standards to establish a balance between procedural knowledge and problem-based learning. They should adopt the most vigorous quality metrics for math curriculum and intervention materials and require they are up to date, eliminating lags longer than three years between online updates and district adoptions.
It may be a few years before we have a “science of math” as impactful as the “science of reading.” But with the right focus, research, investments and infrastructure, California can get there with just as many lifelong benefits for our students.
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.
Two students in a combined second- and third-grade class read together.
Credit: Allison Shelley for American Education
English learners need foundational skills like phonics and vocabulary in addition to instruction in speaking and understanding English and connections to their home languages.
Those are two agreements laid out in a new joint statement Tuesday authored by two organizations, one that advocates for English learners and the other for the “science of reading.” The organizations, the National Committee for Effective Literacy and The Reading League, had previously appeared to have deep differences about how to teach reading.
The authors hope that the statement dispels the idea that English learners do not need to be taught foundational skills, while also pushing policymakers and curriculum publishers to fully incorporate English learners’ needs.
“I hope we stop hearing so much about the science of reading being bad for English learners and emergent bilinguals. And I hope that it helps move those who are working to build the knowledge in the science of reading to think of English learners or emergent bilinguals in Chapter 1 rather than Chapter 34,” said Kari Kurto, national science of reading project director at The Reading League.
“We came together with a common goal: to develop proficient readers and writers in English and, we hope, in other languages,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, which advocates for English learners in California, and a member of the National Committee for Effective Literacy. “I think we both kind of learned that we had more in common than we didn’t.”
Several contributors said they hope the statement could help California move past roadblocks to adopt a comprehensive literacy plan to ensure that all children can read by third grade, including important skills for students learning English as a second language.
“We can stop arguing about whether foundational skills are important. We can stop arguing about whether we value bilingualism in and of itself. We can stop bickering and identify what are the challenges out in the field to make these things happen,” said Claude Goldenberg, professor of education emeritus at Stanford University.
Only 42% of California’s third graders can read and write at grade level, according to the state’s latest Smarter Balanced test. The state has faced increased pressure to adopt a plan with a clear focus on reading skills known as “foundational” — phonics (connecting letters to sounds), phonemic awareness (identifying distinct units of sound), fluency, vocabulary and comprehension.
Advocates for English learners had raised concerns that an increased focus on phonics might exclude other critical skills, such as learning to understand and speak the language and connections between English and other languages.
The joint statement makes it clear that English learners need explicit instruction in phonics, vocabulary and comprehension, and that they also need to have instruction in oral language development — learning to speak and understand English — to make sure they understand the words they are learning to sound out.
Not only is understanding meaning important for reading comprehension, but brain research has also shown that it’s needed in order to begin recognizing words. When students sound out a word they know, their brain begins to recognize it for future reading, a process known as “orthographic mapping.” But if a student doesn’t know the meaning of the word they’re sounding out, the brain can’t file away the word as recognizable, Goldenberg said.
In addition, the authors agreed that when possible, students should have access to dual language instruction, in which students learn to read and write in both their home language and English.
“A student’s home language is an asset that should be valued and nurtured,” reads the statement. “Instructional practices in which teachers explicitly encourage students to make connections between their home language and English benefit their language and literacy development.”
“It’s so significant because we have had so many decades of policy and many practices of thinking of English learners, labeling them as deficient in many ways because they don’t know English,” said Magaly Lavadenz, executive director of the Center for Equity for English Learners at Loyola Marymount University.
The statement, which was signed by more than 190 individuals and 80 organizations, is the culmination of months of discussion that began in 2022, after the National Committee for Effective Literacy published a white paper raising concerns and discrediting some practices implemented under the name of the “science of reading.” After many months of discussion, The Reading League and NCEL held a joint summit in Las Vegas in March, where experts from both groups spoke.
At that summit, many people began to realize they agreed on more than they had previously thought, said Kurto. For example, she said, someone who was considered a science of reading expert would say something, and experts on English learners would clap.
“And they were just looking at each other like, ‘Wait, you believe that too?’” Kurto said. “I feel like that happened throughout the room.”
A large part of the statement deals with defining the term “science of reading.”
The statement emphasizes that the term “science of reading” refers to a large body of research on reading and writing, including research on teaching phonics, vocabulary, and other foundational skills, and also on teaching students to read in a second language.
Making sure that the research on how English learners learn to read is included in what is considered “science of reading” is crucial, said Hernandez.
“I think it really points out the research to implementation gap, that when translating knowledge to practice, sometimes there are misconceptions,” Hernandez said. “It identifies practices that are currently implemented in schools under the name of the science of reading that do not align with the research of how English learners and emergent bilingual students learn to read.”
It clarifies that the “science of reading” is not just one curriculum, a “one-size-fits-all” approach, or a focus only on phonics.
“Science of reading is not one size fits all, and it is incumbent on us as professionals to keep those misconceptions at bay and stop perpetuating them and not allow others to perpetuate them,” said Becky Sullivan, director of K-12 English language arts curriculum and instruction for the Sacramento County Office of Education.
California-based contributors to the statement said they hope the state pays attention to it when creating the literacy road map proposed by Gov. Gavin Newsom in his state budget bill.
They also hope it pushes California school districts to fully implement the English Language Arts/English Language Development Framework, which was adopted in 2014 and encourages explicit instruction in foundational skills and oral language development instruction for English learners. But many districts are not following those guidelines, experts said.
State education law requires that English learners receive specific instruction in the English language both within their classes — integrated English language development — and separate from their regular classes — designated English language development.
“We have not fully implemented designated ELD across the state,” said Lavadenz. “We need to do more and better work at the local level in providing designated ELD, because it’s in those spaces where specific attention to literacy development for English learners takes place.”
Kurto said she hopes the agreements in the joint statement will also help classroom teachers, who may have been confused or hesitant because of the perceived differences between experts in the “science of reading” and English learner fields.
“It’s hard enough to be a teacher right now,” Kurto said, “and when you’re hearing voices saying you should not listen to those people or these people, it makes it really hard to do your job.”
Packed crowd anticipates discussion on Orange Unified Parental Notification Policy on Sept. 8, 2023.
Credit: Mallika Seshadri / EdSource
Organizers seeking the ouster of two conservative members of the Orange Unified school board announced last week they had collected more than enough signatures to put the recall to a vote in the next several months.
The effort seeks the recall of board President Rick Ledesma and board member Madison Klovstad Miner, who was elected last November after defeating 22-year incumbent Kathryn A. Moffat by 0.2% — 221 votes out of 61,845 votes cast. Her election was pivotal in establishing a four-member conservative majority that had run on a uniform platform of parental rights. Ledesma and Miner had the financial backing of pro-conservative political action committees, including the Lincoln Club of Orange County, and the support of Jack Hibbs, an influential politically active pastor of Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, an evangelical megachurch.
The new majority’s first action was to fire Gunn Marie Hansen, the district’s popular superintendent, with one day’s notice during the Christmas break, when Hansen was abroad. During the heated four-hour school board meeting, several angry parents vowed a recall election, but it took several months to organize a campaign. Although Hansen was fired without cause, Ledesma later said that under Hansen, the district was “focusing too much on the social politics of education,” and the board planned to revisit policies related to sex education, student equity and ethnic studies.
The recall campaign is also running on a theme of fiscal responsibility, pointing to the cost of terminating Hansen’s contract, which, with vacation and benefits, was $505,000.
Last month, the conservative majority made Orange Unified the sixth California school district to require school officials to adopt a gender notification policy, requiring school officials to tell parents and guardians if their child engages in activities designed for the opposite sex or changes gender pronouns.
Darshan Smaaladen, recall committee co-chair and chief organizer, said the campaign had submitted more than 18,300 signatures — about 5,000 more than the 13,046 required. Organizers had to collect at least 10% of registered voters in the school district.
Smaaladen, a parent of two graduates and one current Orange Unified student, said she was “elated” by the number of signatures collected and “looks forward to more knowledgeable public voting on the issues in future elections.” She said the signature-gathering was done mainly by volunteers attending festivals, stationing outside schools and going door to door. Three hundred volunteer signature collectors signed a code of ethics, committing to acting in good faith and staying true to the campaign message, she said. Some teachers, many of whom live in the district, were among the canvassers.
“The Orange Unified Education Association is happy to see the petitions to be submitted weeks earlier than the deadline, and we see this as a statement of strength and support by the public for this recall,” said union President Greg Goodlander.
Paid solicitors were hired to ensure meeting a Nov. 8 deadline and collected 2,000 signatures, Smaaladen said.
In a lengthy email responding to EdSource’s request for a comment on the recall, district board member Miner wrote, “It’s essential to note that protecting students is my sole purpose, and the radical recall movement has made it clear that their quest for power over the children is nothing more than a strong political maneuver to influence and shape the children of OUSD. This has nothing to do with protecting or educating children.” (Go here for the full response.)
The Orange County Registrar of Voters must now validate the signatures, initially examining a large random sample, then doing a full certification, if needed. The Orange Unified school board must choose a date for the recall vote. Smaaladen said she hopes the board chooses the March state primary election; tying the recall vote to that election will save the district about $1 million from the cost of holding an election on a separate date, she said.
Located near Disneyland, Orange Unified draws from diverse neighborhoods in five cities plus unincorporated areas of Orange County; half of its 26,000 students are from low-income familes; 57% are Latino and a quarter are white.
According to Ballotpedia, only about 1 in 5 recall campaigns nationally have qualified for the ballot since 2009. Of those, fewer than half have unseated board members.
This effort could gain national attention and draw six-figure contributions on both sides. California Republicans and conservative PACs have targeted school board elections to outflank Democratic majorities in the Legislature, promote school choice, weaken teacher unions and oppose LGBTQ+ education. Democratic donors and the California Teachers Association in turn will weigh whether to encourage this and similar recalls, assuming it qualifies for the ballot, by donating heavily.
“Republicans have been talking about ratcheting up the fight on education policy for a few years. There have been some scattered skirmishes up until now, but this could be the all-out brawl that both sides have been anticipating,” said Dan Schnur, a longtime political observer who teaches political communications at the University of Southern California, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University.
A similar recall campaign is under way to unseat three politically conservative members in Temecula Valley Unified, including board President Joseph Komrosky, whom Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned for denigrating the assassinated gay activist Harvey Milk as a pedophile. On Wednesday, leaders of the League of United Latin American Citizens de Inland Empire and the local branch of the NAACP civil rights group announced they were joining the effort. They have until Dec. 8 to turn in enough signatures to qualify.
Parent Raul Zuniga and his daughter Sandy, a senior at La Habra High in Orange County, receive help with financial aid forms from counselor Rosa Sanchez at a “Cash for College” workshop.
FERMIN LEAL/EDSOURCE TODAY
California is better off when more people have education and training to power our economy and support thriving communities. Financial aid that reduces or fully covers the cost of college or job training is an investment that benefits all of us.
About $550 million in federal and state aid goes unused annually when thousands of eligible California students miss out on financial aid. Many are unaware of financial aid, don’t know how to apply or if they qualify, or fear sharing personal information because of their immigration status.
A new law is helping to ensure that financial aid is not left on the table. Schools must help all high school seniors complete the Free Application for Federal Student Aid or California Dream Act Application unless the student formally opts out. Students submit one of these applications, depending on their residential status, to access the grants, scholarships, work-study opportunities, student loans and other forms of aid available to help finance postsecondary education or training.
Providing support for all students as they complete financial aid applications is an equity-driven game changer. This policy encourages students to plan for and attend college or job training programs and ensures that all students and families can make informed plans and decisions about their life after high school.
Achieving universal participation in this student-centered systemic approach to financial aid requires planning and collaboration among K-12 school leaders, counselors, educators, student groups and community organizations. California’s All in for FAFSA/CA Dream Act campaign supports K-12 education partners as they work to achieve universal FAFSA/CADAA completion. Local progress can be tracked on the state’s Race to Submit dashboard. The data can help target assistance for students who may need extra support and encouragement to complete and submit a financial aid application. It also helps us to identify, learn from and share best practices with schools and districts across the state.
Since universal participation was required, the number of California students applying for financial aid increased significantly. More than 60% of California’s high school seniors submitted financial aid applications by March 2, the deadline for students planning to attend a four-year college. By Sept. 5, the deadline for students heading to community college, the total FAFSA or CADAA completion rate for the class of 2023 climbed to nearly 75%. More than 24,000 financial aid applications were completed this year compared with the same time a year ago.
The progress achieved with California’s universal financial aid requirement is due to the hard work of K-12 district leaders, high school principals, counselors and teachers, California Student Opportunity and Access Program counselors, Cash for College workshop coordinators, community-based organizations, and students and their families. They went all in to help more high school students than ever complete financial aid applications.
In a few months, the U.S. Department of Education will release a revised federal aid application called the Better FAFSA. The good news is that the redesigned application will be easier to complete. The bad news is that the Better FAFSA application window will open two months later than in a typical year. This compressed timeline could most disadvantage students and families who need greater support to complete the aid application — and who have the most to gain from filling out the form.
We will need all hands on deck at the state, district and high school levels to keep making progress and ensure that students don’t lose ground in this inaugural year of the Better FAFSA. The California Student Aid Commission will continue to support K-12 districts and high schools as they work to meet the universal FAFSA or CADAA requirement. We have confidence that with planning, collaboration with partners, clear communication and purpose, California can ensure that all high school seniors complete the FAFSA or CADAA, and California’s vision of increasing access to higher education for all students will become a reality.
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.
One morning, some 20 years ago, I took an anonymous phone call that stunned me. Years had passed since our decadelong federal class action discrimination lawsuit against the CBEST had ended with only partial reforms in 2000. From its origins in 1982, the California Basic Educational Skills Test, which purports to measure the universal reading, writing and math skills needed to perform in all the varied public school jobs requiring credentials, has been controversial for deterring tens of thousands of educators of color from entering the public school workforce. The horrific first-time pass rates — 38% for Blacks; 49% for Latinos, and 53% Asians vs. 80% for whites — improved, but only modestly, after 1995 changes instigated by our lawsuit.
The caller had personal knowledge that a recently deceased former employee of the defendant Commission on Teacher Credentialing had examined the CBEST for her doctoral dissertation and concluded it was racially and culturally biased. The Commission suppressed the study, including when our lawsuit specifically requested such reports. Instead of producing it or making us and our judge aware of it, the commission’s lawyers quietly procured a protective order from a state judge to keep the study out of the federal case.
From its inception, the racial and cultural bias undergirding the CBEST — like the phantom study — has been suppressed, lurking, just beneath the surface. The sickening pass rates — rather than spurring reform — have been used to support the worst kind of circular reasoning: If it’s failing that many people, especially Black and brown people who’ve been subjected to inferior public education in California, the state’s lawyer repeatedly told the court, it must be working.
Federal guidelines dictate that a test and its passing levels should correspond to “normal expectations of proficiency within the workforce.” Yet there has never been evidence that over half of all Black college graduates (or a fifth of whites, for that matter), are graduating lacking basic reading, writing and math skills.
Rather, the CBEST’s passing scores, and to some extent its math content, have always been set arbitrarily high, bent more on failing many to justify itself politically than on fairly assessing educators on the minimum level of basic skills needed for their jobs.
The CBEST ran off track from its inception. Rather than being created by employment-testing experts like a civil service exam, it was a high-profile political showpiece, divorced from critical employment testing standards and processes. When employment tests have a substantial adverse impact on diverse candidates, “job-relatedness” requires that assumptions about what skills are needed must be proven by analyzing each job tested. Likewise, untested desires for high performance on partial job elements must be scrutinized. Insisting that all your players sink 90% of their free throws may sound good, but that unexamined standard would fail legions of hall of famers.
Documents uncovered during the case acknowledged that in 1982, California chose the faster and cheaper development plan from Educational Testing Service that specifically rejected making the test “job-related.” Even so, ETS’s initial validity study undertook the most careful and extensive examination to date of where to establish passing scores, for, as required, “minimally competent” (not high or average-performing) educators. Relying on the professional judgment of some 289 educators and academics, that study recommended relatively modest passing scores. A typical employment exam process would likely have called it a day. Instead, a much smaller, politically appointed advisory board of 11 recommended substantially higher passing scores, which were further one-upped by then-State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig. Spurred on by “campaign promises to raise [teacher] quality,” Honig set yet higher passing scores without regard to job-relatedness. The final effect reduced Black, Latino and Asian first-time pass rates from 63%, 69% and 76% if the 289 ETS panelists had been followed to 38%, 49% and 53%, respectively.
Enter Public Advocates’ litigation 10 years later. The state defendants were blindsided when the courts held the CBEST is an employment exam for public school educators which must be “job-related.” The pre-litigation validity studies admittedly had never taken the essential first step for employment tests — a job analysis of all those educator jobs. When the commission finally attempted one in 1994, its own expert advised that most of the math test — the algebra and geometry portions used since 1982 — was not job-related, that those items should be removed and the test re-scored to pass unfairly failed candidates.
Did the state and the commission acknowledge the harm caused and right the wrong? No. They doubled down on protecting the CBEST and its racially discriminatory failure rates.
The policymakers had their expert “reconsider” and then delete that recommendation. Then, they engineered a revised CBEST that imported the difficulty level and high failure rates for people of color of the prior invalid test by removing much less of the math content than called for, swapping in relatively difficult “lower order” math items and — when test-takers still performed better — raising the math passing score.
In 2000, six judges on a deeply fractured 11-judge federal appellate panel looked the other way and accepted the “revised” CBEST. But state decision-makers don’t have to continue to do so. At its meeting this week, the commission is examining whether to renew the CBEST contract with its vendor. After 40 years, it’s time to retire the CBEST. In a post-George Floyd era of racial reckoning, we should be working to overturn the harms against people of color caused by unnecessary, biased, standardized tests. In 2015, California dropped another discriminatory, misguided “accountability” measure from a bygone era, the High School Exit Exam. The University of California and California State University have dropped the SAT from their admissions processes, and the state has essentially halted community colleges from using questionable exams to place students from marginalized communities in dead-end remedial classes disproportionately. Oregon, the only other state that used the CBEST, phased out administering it years ago, concerned with its redundancy and adverse impacts.
There are more than enough entry requirements to ensure credential candidates possess job-related basic skills. These include requiring a bachelor’s degree, subject matter competency, the California Teaching Performance Assessment, the Reading Instruction Competence Assessment or RICA and, since 2000, transcript reviews of basic skills proficiency as an alternative to the CBEST. It’s time for the credentialing commission and the state to drop the tainted CBEST. It’s also time for some reconciliation. The commission can start by releasing that long-suppressed study of the CBEST’s racial and cultural bias.
•••
John Affeldt is a managing attorney at Public Advocates, a public-interest law firm in San Francisco, where he focuses on educational equity issues.
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.