اینترنت

برچسب: New

  • Q&A: How new wellness coaches expand mental health support in California schools

    Q&A: How new wellness coaches expand mental health support in California schools


    Credit: Alison Yin/EdSource

    Early this year, the California Department of Health Care Access and Information introduced the new Certified Wellness Coach program, aimed at improving the state’s inadequate capacity to support growing behavioral and mental health needs in California’s youth. 

    The program is part of the historic five-year, $4.6 billion state-funded Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative, of which the Department received $278 million to recruit, train and certify a diverse slate of mental health support personnel, or certified wellness coaches, in schools and community-based organizations across the state. 

    Dr. Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of behavioral health for HCAI.
    Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of the California Department of Health Care Access and Information.

    According to Sharmil Shah, assistant deputy director of the California Department of Health Care Access and Information, certified wellness coaches work under a care team of licensed clinicians and professionals in pre-K, K-12 and post-secondary school settings. Most coaches have relevant associate or bachelor’s degrees in social work and human services and are trained in nonclinical behavioral health support. 

    Shah says the program strives to become a long-term response to a long-term crisis in California — that rates of anxiety and depression among the state’s children shot up by 70% between 2017 and 2022, and that following the COVID-19 pandemic, many adolescents experienced serious psychological distress and reported a 20% increase in suicides. 

    As part of a five-year initiative’s broader push to redefine student success, the program builds on research that behavioral interventions also improve academic performance and attendance in schools. In fact, anxiety, depression and mental health are the top health-related drivers of absenteeism since the onset of the pandemic, according to the Los Angeles Trust for Children’s Health. Simply put, students who feel better do better in school. 

    EdSource interviewed Shah about the new wellness coach program. Her remarks have been edited for length and clarity. 

    Describe the Certified Wellness Coach program. What can young people expect from the new wellness coaches?

    Certified wellness coaches are meant to be an additional, trusted adult on a school campus — whether it’s an elementary school, middle school, high school or a college campus. This is a person that young people can turn to in times of need. Coaches would offer preventive and early intervention services and are intended to support a child or even a 25-year-old before a severe behavioral health need arises. 

    Some of the things that a parent or a child might see are classroom-level presentations, supporting school counselors with [mental health] screenings, individual and small group check-ins, wellness education and referrals to advanced behavioral health providers in times of crisis, among many other services. 

    What are the two types of wellness coaches, and how are their roles different?

    There is a Certified Wellness Coach 1 and Certified Wellness Coach II. The Certified Wellness Coach 1 offers entry-level behavioral health supports, such as structured curriculum, to small groups or classrooms, which are focused on wellness promotion and education, mental health literacy — understanding the language of mental health — and life skills. They also support screenings for young people, connect them to behavioral health resources and professionals. If it becomes apparent that someone has a more significant need for behavioral health services, they’ll do a warm hand-off to a higher level of care.

    The Certified Wellness Coach II provides a little more in-depth prevention and early intervention support to children and youth. They provide structured curriculum for groups or classrooms that’s focused on enhancing awareness of common behavioral health conditions like depression, anxiety. The Certified Wellness Coach II can help young people overcome maladaptive thinking patterns, distraction strategies and emotional regulations, and are able to do higher level interventions than a Certified Wellness Coach 1. 

    To support a mental health screening, a Certified Wellness Coach 1 can give the child some information about it, but they won’t administer the questions. The Certified Wellness Coach II can actually facilitate a screening process, be in the room and get everything set up, but they must still all be under the guidance of a school counselor who has qualifications to administer the screening and ask the questions, for example. 

    Why was it important to implement the program at all levels of schooling — from early education to community college? 

    It’s essential for children and youth to get help earlier on in the continuum of care, especially before a crisis arises. We believe that by supporting them at a younger age, we can provide them with the tools and skills to support their behavioral health and build resilience as they age. Wellness coaches can support youth through all the different changes, not only as related to age, but to life in general. We start at a very young age and then continue to an age where they can actually remember and hold onto the skills that they’ve learned. 

    How did the pandemic shape your vision for the program?

    For students, we saw increased levels of anxiety, depression, social isolation, a disruption in their education, economic difficulties, and, of course, a lot of loss and grief. Children and adolescents lost family members who did not survive the pandemic. From research, we knew that there was already a youth mental health crisis in the state of California. The pandemic exacerbated it.

    One system alone cannot address these challenges, but the school system is where all the kids are. There’s just not enough school personnel to address the need across the state. Through the development of this workforce, we hope that we can complement the incredible work that the educators are already doing by being a partner in their students’ health. Our wellness coaches can focus on social isolation, anxiety, feelings of sadness, and feeling connected and able to talk to somebody. 

    In a 2022 survey, about 55% of teachers said they would retire earlier than planned due to burnout from the pandemic. Could wellness coaches help relieve some of that ongoing burnout?

    I was a PTA president, and I was in those environments in which I saw that there’s a child in the classroom that clearly looks like they need behavioral health services, and the teacher is spending maybe 90% of his or her time on that student, and the rest of the [students] are just kind of running around in circles. The current counselor-to-student ratio in California is about 1 to 464. It’s impossible, and it’s nearly double the recommended ratio. As the staff that spends the most time with students, the burden of supporting student behavioral health often falls on the teacher. That’s just not sustainable. That’s not helpful for the teachers, and they can’t do their job. By adding additional behavioral health professionals on campus, like wellness coaches, we can hopefully alleviate some of that burden and allow teachers to focus on the academic success of their students. 

    How will certified wellness coaches serve youth from multilingual or multicultural backgrounds? Will coaches reflect the demographics and experiences of their school’s student body?

    Equity and effective access to care is a cornerstone of our programs. We have been recruiting diverse candidates to become wellness coaches and making sure that we adequately address cultural responsiveness and humility as part of their training. We have done very extensive marketing and outreach campaigns that use a variety of channels and messaging to get to as many populations as we can, including underserved and underrepresented communities. 

    We also selected our employer support grant awardees, mostly schools and some community-based organizations, based on geographic spread, to make sure that all 58 counties were represented and could hire coaches. And then we also provided special consideration to Title 1 [low income] schools, organizations whose staff speak multiple languages, and organizations that support Medi-Cal students. And then we had two scholarship cycles to support students who wanted to become wellness coaches. We [will support] their tuition and living expenses, especially for those who came from different backgrounds or didn’t have a lot of resources.

    We are also partnering with California community colleges, which offer resources and support for underserved and underrepresented populations to enter the wellness coach system. What we found in our research is that 65% of their students were classified as economically disadvantaged. So we’re already addressing those groups. 

    And as part of our certification requirements, we’re focusing on specific degrees such as social work, human services and addiction studies, which already include cultural responsiveness and cultural humility as part of their key learning outcomes. What we’ve heard anecdotally from a lot of young people is that, “I don’t see myself in the people that are helping me or serving me,” and we want them to feel safe and comfortable with the person that they’re talking to. 

    Where are you in the rollout of the program?

    In February 2024, we launched the certification program for wellness coaches. As of Sept. 17, we have certified 383 coaches, and that number is steadily growing. We’ve done so much outreach and engagement and social media blips and radio ads, because we need to be able to reach the young people where they are. As of August, the Department executed 64 21-month grant awards of $125 million to employer support grants for schools and community-based organizations to hire wellness coaches. That will fund the placement of more than 1,500 certified wellness coaches between this school year and next school year. And then, also, in August, we awarded 99 individuals with scholarships totaling about $2.8 million for those pursuing degrees with which they apply to become a certified wellness coach. 

    How can the program address broader post-pandemic issues such as chronic absenteeism and declining school enrollment?

    We’re hoping that wellness coaches will strengthen young people by providing them with a safe place to share their fears and teaching them the skills necessary to cope with life’s challenges. We believe that equipping them with these skills will decrease absenteeism, help them focus on their schoolwork and also be able to have them integrate themselves into the school environment. Young people with behavioral health conditions are sometimes isolated, bullied, made fun of and may not even like school as a result of all of those things that are going on. If they have a safe place, a safe adult, a safe person that they can talk to about some of the feelings they have, they will be happy to come back to school, look at it as a place of learning and a place to make friends. 

    What kind of challenges do you foresee in keeping the program running and successful?

    Sustainability. Everything runs on the mighty dollar. We are in the final years of the [Children and Youth Behavioral Health Initiative] right now, and we can use those funds to sustain the program for probably another year or two. We are actively partnering with the Department of Health Care Services, and other state departments, to make certified wellness coaches’ services billable through Medi-Cal [and commercial insurance], which will support sustainable financing in our schools [beyond the five-year initiative].

    Extensive research has demonstrated that students who feel like they belong in schools perform better in the classroom and have better rates of attendance. This not only benefits the student, but it also potentially benefits the schools in retaining coaches, as school finances are based in-part on school attendance.

    What kind of feedback have you received about the program?

    I had a student who said, “I didn’t really feel like there were a lot of places to go to, even though they had help available. I didn’t trust people to confide in.” You never want people to feel like they have nowhere to go or that they’re alone. This was a student who would then become a wellness coach. Another student who became a wellness coach said that she didn’t feel there was enough support when kids needed help where she lived. She said, “If I’m struggling, I want to know there’s someone there for me if I genuinely need it.” She said she’s had really hard days, but being able to open up and talk about it makes the world seem a little more colorful. It makes her feel lighter on her feet. 

    We had some parents indicate that wellness coaches are a great way to give back to the community, because they’re giving back to our future, our children. It’s helping them be productive members of society and be the best version of themselves.

    This story was updated for clarity.





    Source link

  • Heather Cox Richardson: The New Pope’s Clash with MAGA

    Heather Cox Richardson: The New Pope’s Clash with MAGA


    Heather Cox Richardson recounts the important exchanges between the new Pope, Leo XIV, and JD Vance, on the subject of immigrants. Vance, a convert to Catholicism, described Catholic doctrine and was quickly rebuffed at the time both by Pope Francis and by the future Pope. So, JD Vance has the dubious distinction of being rebuffed by two Popes!

    She writes:

    Today, on the second day of the papal conclave, the cardinal electors—133 members of the College of Cardinals who were under the age of 80 when Pope Francis died on April 21—elected a new pope. They chose 69-year-old Cardinal Robert Prevost, who was born in Chicago, thus making him the first pope chosen from the United States. But he spent much of his ministry in Peru and became a citizen of Peru in 2015, making him the first pope from Peru, as well.

    New popes choose a papal name to signify the direction of their papacy, and Prevost has chosen to be known as Pope Leo XIV. This is an important nod to Pope Leo XIII, who led the church from 1878 to 1903 and was the father of modern Catholic social teaching. He called for the church to address social and economic issues, and emphasized the dignity of individuals, the common good, community, and taking care of marginalized individuals.

    In the midst of the Gilded Age, Leo XIII defended the rights of workers and said that the church had not just the duty to speak about justice and fairness, but also the responsibility to make sure that such equities were accomplished. In his famous 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, translated as “Of New Things,” Leo XIII rejected both socialism and unregulated capitalism, and called for the state to protect the rights of individuals.

    Prevost’s choice of the name Leo invokes the principles of both Leo XIII and his predecessor, Pope Francis. In his own lifetime he has aligned himself with many of Francis’s social reforms, and his election appears to be a rejection of hard-line right-wing Catholics in the U.S. and elsewhere who have used their religion to support far-right politics.

    In the U.S., Vice-President J.D. Vance is one of those hard-line right-wing Catholics. Shortly after taking office in January, Vance began to talk of the concept of ordo amoris, or “order of love,” articulated by Catholic St. Augustine, claiming it justified the MAGA emphasis on family and tribalism and suggesting it justified the mass expulsion of migrants.

    Vance told Sean Hannity of the Fox News Channel, “[Y]ou love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country, and then, after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world. A lot of the far left has completely inverted that.” When right-wing influencer Jack Posobiec, who is Catholic, posted Vance’s interview approvingly, Vance added: “Just google ‘ordo amoris.’ Aside from that, the idea that there isn’t a hierarchy of obligations violates basic common sense.”

    On February 10, Pope Francis responded in a letter to American bishops. He corrected Vance’s assertion as a false interpretation of Catholic theology. “Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity,” he wrote. “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups…. The true ordo amoristhat must be promoted is that which we discover by…meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

    “[W]orrying about personal, community or national identity, apart from these considerations, easily introduces an ideological criterion that distorts social life and imposes the will of the strongest as the criterion of truth,” Pope Francis wrote. He acknowledged “the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival,” but defended the fundamental dignity of every human being and the fundamental rights of migrants, noting that the “rightly formed conscience” would disagree with any program that “identifies the illegal status of some migrants with criminality.” He continued: “I exhort all the faithful of the Catholic Church, and all men and women of good will, not to give in to narratives that discriminate against and cause unnecessary suffering to our migrant and refugee brothers and sisters.”

    The next day, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who said he was “a lifelong Catholic,” told reporters at the White House, “I’ve got harsh words for the Pope…. He ought to fix the Catholic Church and concentrate on his work and leave border enforcement to us.”

    Cardinal Prevost was close to Pope Francis, and during this controversy he posted on X after Vance’s assertion but before Pope Francis’s answer: “JD Vance is wrong: Jesus doesn’t ask us to rank our love for others.” After the pope published his letter, Prevost reposted it with the comment: “Pope Francis’ letter, JD Vance’s ‘ordo amoris’ and what the Gospel asks of all of us on immigration.”

    On April 14, Prevost reposted: “As Trump & [Salvadoran president Nayib] Bukele use Oval to [laugh at] Feds’ illicit deportation of a US resident [Kilmar Abrego Garcia], once an undoc[ument]ed Salvadorean himself, [Bishop Evelio Menjivar] asks, ‘Do you not see the suffering? Is your conscience not disturbed? How can you stay quiet?’”

    The new Pope Leo XIV greeted the world today in Italian and Spanish as he thanked Pope Francis and the other cardinals, and called for the church to “be a missionary Church, building bridges, dialogue, always open to receiving with open arms for everyone…, open to all, to all who need our charity, our presence, dialogue, love…, especially to those who are suffering.”

    As an American-born pope in the model of Pope Francis, Pope Leo XIV might be able to appeal to American far-right Catholics and bring them back into the fold. But today, MAGAs responded to the new pope with fury. Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer, who is close to Trump, called Pope Leo “another Marxist puppet in the Vatican.” Influencer Charlie Kirk suggested he was an “[o]pen borders globalist installed to counter Trump.”

    In the U.S., President Donald Trump, who said he would like to be pope and then posted a picture of himself dressed as a pope on May 2, prompting an angry backlash against those who thought it was disrespectful, posted on social media that the election of the first pope from the United States was “a Great Honor for our Country” and that he looks forward to meeting him. ‘It will be a very meaningful moment!” he added.



    Source link

  • Campaign for College Opportunity’s new president on tackling the transfer process 

    Campaign for College Opportunity’s new president on tackling the transfer process 


    Jessie Ryan, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity

    Courtesy of the Campaign for College Opportunity

    One of California’s top higher education advocacy groups, the Campaign for College Opportunity, has a new leader.

    Jessie Ryan, who took over as president of the organization on July 1, has worked at the campaign for 19 years, most recently as an executive vice president. 

    Under Ryan’s predecessor, Michele Siqueiros, the campaign sponsored legislation making it easier for community college students to skip remedial math and English classes and enroll immediately in transfer-level courses. The organization has also advocated for reforming the state’s financial aid program and backed legislation intended to make it easier for students to transfer from a community college to a four-year university. 

    Ryan, who is a product of the Los Rios Community College District and San Francisco State University, recently spoke with EdSource about her priorities and how she plans to build on the campaign’s work around remedial education, improving transfer and expanding financial aid, among other topics.

    The following conversation has been edited for clarity and length.

    What are your main priorities as the campaign’s new president?

    I’d love to share with you a little bit about my journey because I think it connects to my priorities as well. 

    I was raised by a single mother who always dreamed of going to college, and she did not succeed in reaching her college dream. We moved around a lot and struggled with homelessness and food insecurity. She really instilled in me from the time I was 4 or 5 years old that a college education was going to be my pathway out of poverty. 

    When I went to a community college, I had no clue as to how to access financial aid, how to develop an education plan so that I could transfer — all of these key things that would be building blocks to lifetime success. And just by luck, I ended up finding a counselor who really changed my life. Because of her, instead of going into remedial math, I had access to statistics. Because of her, I got an education plan to transfer and worked 35 hours a week and went to three campuses simultaneously to transfer. 

    When I did transfer, my mother became homeless again, and I was faced with this question of, do I drop out? And I did not have an associate’s degree to show for my work because the requirements to transfer did not align with the requirements to get an associate’s degree.

    And years later, I would find out that these were the experiences of millions of community college students across the state. Students being put into remedial sequences from which they could never recover based on one high-stakes test. Or having to repeat coursework because the requirements to transfer didn’t align with the requirements to get an associate degree, and sometimes dropping out and having nothing to show for their work.

    Those have been two of the bedrock policies that we have worked on at the campaign over the years, alongside a host of other issues. The campaign is going to continue to be at the forefront of policy transformation. 

    The Campaign for College Opportunity previously sponsored Assembly Bill 705 and co-sponsored Assembly Bill 1705, bills meant to make it easier for community college students to skip remedial math and English classes and access transfer-level coursework right away. How do you assess the implementation of those bills, and do you expect there could be additional legislation?

    We are not currently looking at additional legislation, but I wouldn’t say it is off the table, should it be necessary moving forward. AB 705 was one of most significant equity levers in ensuring that students are completing college-level math and English, accessing college-level math and English. There is significant data that has supported why this reform was necessary. But despite that, what we have marveled at is the level of continued opposition. 

    We’ve been really lucky to have, through former (California Community Colleges) Chancellor Eloy Oakley and now Chancellor Sonya Christian, champions who are committed to this issue. But it has been a fight year after year, more recently with the pandemic. A lot of people want to say that because of the pandemic, students are less prepared than ever before. And yet what we have seen from the most recent data is that students who access transfer-level math and English have done as well as in the prior years or even slightly better. 

    I think that the next iteration of this work is going to be, how do we implement equitable access to college-level math and English for our STEM (science, technology, engineering and math) students and for our ESL (English as a second language) students? Because those are the last two pieces of 705 and 1705 that need to be addressed and built out. The chancellor’s office is already talking with us at the campaign about helping to guide what the successful ESL implementation would look like for our multilingual learners.

    Where I think there’s potential for additional legislation and potential for additional budget investment is around co-requisite. Students who take co-requisite courses alongside transfer-level math and English succeed at higher rates. And so I think where we are is, how do we analyze evidence-based high quality co-requisite and resource it at scale? Because then it allows us to celebrate not just a 100% access to transfer-level math and English, but stronger throughput, stronger completion rates.

    Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 1291 to create a pilot program in which students seeking to transfer to UCLA will get priority admission if they complete an associate degree for transfer starting in 2026-27. The campaign at the time said it appreciated the legislation but called it only a first step. Do you have plans to try to further improve transfer to the University of California?

    We have over the years struggled with the reality that UC, while they’ve made some significant progress in meeting the needs of transfer students, can and should do more. They have had transfer admission guarantees, but they’re not at all campuses. And for community college students who are trying to prepare, they want to be able to use the associate degree for transfer, not just for admissions consideration, but for an admissions guarantee, if not to the campus of choice, to the system at large. 

    With 1291, the original bill was not a pilot. But it was amended to a pilot in the final stages of the legislative cycle. It is a first step. I appreciate that it’s a first step and that UCLA would be an important campus. 

    But at the end of the day, that pilot should be used to take the associate degree for transfer to scale. It should not live in isolation. How do we make sure that with UCLA’s new leadership, this is prioritized in such a way that sets it up for success and applicability for other campuses across the state? I hope that that will be the case. 

    Lawmakers and advocacy groups for years have said they want to reform the Cal Grant to make it simpler and make more students eligible for aid, but it hasn’t happened yet because of the state’s fiscal woes. Is Cal Grant reform still a goal of the campaign?

    We’ve been in touch, me and the new head of the California Student Aid Commission, Daisy Gonzales. She brought together a small group of partners to talk about how we can begin looking ahead to do what we need to so that we don’t find ourselves in this position again. Recognizing that there’s not going to be the kind of funding we need to actualize the Cal Grant Equity Framework this year, how do we start thinking about alternative funding sources and a multi-year approach that might allow us to take on pieces of the Cal Grant Equity Framework until we get to a place of full funding?

    What kinds of alternate funding have been discussed?

    We’re very early in conversations about alternative funding sources, but right now I’m encouraged because Daisy and the California Student Aid Commission are saying we need to think big. Is there the possibility of going after new dollars? Could we even be talking about seeing if there could be a tax that would be able to fund the kind of financial aid that would drastically expand access for students across the state? 

    But they’re early conversations. Nothing is moving yet. What I will say, though, is, for me, having done this work for nearly 20 years, sometimes the greatest innovation comes at a moment of desperation. Or a moment of budget malaise. And so instead of just standing on the sidelines, I really think there is power in folks in the education equity community, our higher ed institutional partners and our Student Aid Commission saying, ‘Here are the suite of options that we’re looking at,’ recognizing that this is going to take a few years to be able to see into fruition.

    Do you have any specific goals or priorities related to the California State University system?

    At the CSU system, we are seeing that there have been some really strong practices adopted around inclusive hiring, cluster hiring to ensure that faculty and leadership reflect the diversity of the state. There has been some really good work that has happened to support Black learner excellence and innovation. I would say an example of that right now is what we’re seeing with Sac State developing the first Black Honors College in the nation and what is going to be the house to a dedicated $2 million fund to support Black learner success systemwide. We want to really work with the system and accelerate those efforts because I think the challenge here is we know that some campuses have done well and others have not. And really the key to equity moving forward is going to be to ensure that all CSU campuses offer the same type of quality experience for our Black and Latinx students that some leaders on campuses are prioritizing. I think it becomes even more important that we elevate those high-impact practices like cluster hiring and dedicating funding to ensure welcoming campuses right now than ever before, because students and families are questioning the value of college. 

    In response to the Supreme Court ban on race-conscious admissions, California people have said, ‘Well, we’ve had Proposition 209 for quite some time. So does this really affect us?’ But the reality is we have seen that there is a chilling effect often after these types of decisions. Students and families are questioning the value of college. Students and families are wondering whether or not college is affordable, accessible, worth enrolling in at this time. And so I do believe that given the size, the significance of the CSU system, we have a huge opportunity to say we’re going to do more than ever before in the Graduation Initiative, to make sure that those gains are actually resulting in not just real number gains for all student populations and racial and ethnic subgroups, but closing of equity gaps.





    Source link

  • College is one of life’s ‘biggest investments.’ A new report asks — is it worth it?

    College is one of life’s ‘biggest investments.’ A new report asks — is it worth it?


    Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

    A new report released by the College Futures Foundation finds that while a large majority of California college programs allow graduates to recoup the costs of their postsecondary education in five years or less, a handful leave recent graduates earning less than the typical Californian with only a high school education. 

    The report by researcher Michael Itzkowitz of the HEA Group finds programs that did not result in recent graduates earning more than people with a high school diploma were concentrated at private, for-profit colleges. The paper flags such programs as having no economic return on investment.  

    By contrast, all programs analyzed at the California State University and the University of California had a positive return on investment, measured as the difference between the median graduate’s earnings five years after graduation and the median earnings among Californians aged 25 to 34 with no college education. Less than 1% of programs at both university systems were expected to take more than 10 years to pay off.

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley
    Credit: College Futures Foundation

    Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the president and CEO of the College Futures Foundation and a former chancellor of California Community Colleges, said the report is a response to survey data highlighting increasing skepticism about the value of higher education amid its rising costs. 

    “Paying for a higher education is, in many ways, one of the biggest investments that a student or their family is going to make in their life, second probably only to a mortgage,” he said. “If you think about it, people get a lot more information about other investments that they’re going to make, or other indebtedness they’re getting into, than they do when they invest in an institution of higher education. So we want to make sure that there’s greater transparency and more information for the student and their families when they’re investing in higher education.”

    Oakley said the report is not a judgment on whether a particular academic program should be offered as a result of its economic payoff. Rather, he said the report aims to help Californians to think of a college or university’s value less in terms of its acceptance rate and more in terms of its potential for increasing graduates’ economic mobility.

    Defining ‘return on investment’ 

    The report, “California College Programs That Pay,” analyzes data from the U.S. Department of Education’s College Scorecard to understand the earnings of roughly 260,000 people who graduated from undergraduate certificate, associate and bachelor’s degree programs in California with support from a federal loan or grant.

    Looking at 2,695 programs across 324 institutions, Itzkowitz compared students’ out-of-pocket costs for a credential to the additional money they earn as a result of completing it.

    To judge how much a postsecondary program costs, the study uses colleges’ self-reported data on how much students are responsible for paying after deducting grants and scholarships. That figure includes not just tuition, but also fees, books, supplies and other living costs. This net cost is used to calculate a price-to-earnings premium, a measure of how many years it will take to recoup the cost of a credential. 

    The study makes a couple of simplifying assumptions to calculate that premium. 

    The first is that students will take one year to earn a certificate, two for an associate degree and four for a bachelor’s degree. Those assumptions are not true for many students in practice. For example, only about 36% of Cal State first-year students who started in 2019 completed their degrees in four years. In cases where finishing a program over an extended period of time would be more expensive, the study could underestimate students’ actual costs.

    A second assumption is that every program offered by a given institution cost the same, since cost breakdowns for given fields of study were not available. 

    Finally, the study universe is limited to students who graduated, not those who started a program but didn’t finish it. Previous research suggests students who start a college program but don’t receive a credential tend to earn less than graduates, Itzkowitz said, and are more likely to struggle to pay down debt.

    Report highlights

    Across all programs included in the study, Itzkowitz calculated that 88% prepared graduates to earn back the costs of their credential in five years or less. Median earnings five years after graduation were at least $10,000 more than those of a typical high school graduate for the vast majority of programs, too.

    But 12% of programs left graduates taking five years or longer to recover out-of-pocket costs and, of those, 112 were flagged as having no economic return on investment.

    The report also notes differences across education sectors. Itzkowitz found that 17% of programs offered by for-profit schools had no return on investment, compared with only 1.2% and 1.3% of majors and credentials at nonprofit and public institutions, respectively. 

    One way for-profit institutions differed from their nonprofit and public peers is that the for-profit institutions offered the most undergraduate certificates in the state — and a larger share of those programs resulted in no economic payoff. Two fields, cosmetology and somatic bodywork, stood out as having the most programs with no measured return on investment.

    Still, many programs showed returns even at a one-year time horizon. The report calculated that almost half of programs at public institutions allowed graduates to recoup the costs of their credential within a year. Among private, nonprofit institutions, 7% of programs positioned graduates to earn back their costs within that period. Thirteen percent of for-profit institutions met the same criteria.

    Oakley said that he hopes the report inspires more research into whether higher-earning programs are attracting students of color, where high-return programs are located regionally and how to replicate programs giving the best economic payoff.

    “There are a lot of programs within our public institutions that provide a good return on investment,” he said. “What surprises me is that when we ask those institutions why, they don’t necessarily know why.”

    Other approaches to measuring the value of college

    While the College Futures Foundation report focuses on graduates’ earnings in the five years after they graduate, other recent research has sought to project college-goers’ earnings over a longer time horizon.

    For example, a 2019 report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce ranked 4,500 colleges by calculating their projected returns 40 years after enrollment. That analysis estimates the net present value of a student’s potential future earnings — that is, it balances the costs of paying for a college education today against the potential for higher earnings over time.

    The Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity in May released a study framing return on investment in terms of how much college increases a student’s lifetime earnings after subtracting the costs of college. Rather than compare college-goers to the median high school graduate, that study estimates what college-goers would have earned had they not pursued higher education. It also takes into account colleges’ actual completion rates, a step that acknowledges the risk to students that start a program but don’t finish it. 

    EdSource receives funding from several foundations, including the College Futures Foundation. EdSource maintains sole editorial control over the content of its coverage.





    Source link

  • New York: State Education Commissioner Blasts Governor Hochul!

    New York: State Education Commissioner Blasts Governor Hochul!


    Dr. Betty Rosa has a long career in education as a teacher, principal, District Supervisor, Chair of the New State Regents and now the New York Commissioner of Education, selected by the Regents. She believes strongly that all schools should meet state standards, including the politically powerful yeshivas run by ultra-Orthodox Jews. They are politically powerful because they vote as a bloc. Presently they are loyal to Trump because of his commitment to giving taxpayer dollars to religious schools. At the state level, the yeshivas want to be free of the state requirement that they teach their students in English.

    The Hasidic community was eager to persuade legislators to lower the standards for their schools. The State Education Department demanded that they comply with state law and provide a “substantially equivalent” education to their students. They prefer to teach in Hebrew or Yiddish or both. Yesterday the New York Times reported that Hochul was going along with the Hasidim. Terrible! She wants to run again, and she wants their support in 2026.

    State Commissioner of Education Dr. Betty Rosa wrote the following letter to Governor Hochul:

    Governor Hochul – you and legislative leaders have sold out children attending private schools in a most cynical manner- to curry favor with religious sects for purely political reasons.

    The deficiencies in these schools are well documented by the State Education Department and in the media – most notably the New York Times. I know you are well aware of those findings.

    As a former superintendent of schools and college president I encountered the deficiencies in yeshiva education first hand as we sought to help orthodox students achieve college degrees following “education” at a variety of yeshivas and seminaries. The yeshiva graduates were often illiterate, and could not demonstrate basic knowledge and skills let alone do college level studies. How could you allow this to continue?

    Your failure to protect these children demonstrates lack of leadership and unwillingness to defend the basic rights of children to standards based educational opportunities that prepare them for life.

    And then you have the audacity to pretend what you’ve done is just another option when it is a sham that will allow educational neglect to continue.

    I have a long history of public service and educational leadership that put the interests of students first.

    As a lifelong activist Democrat I am disgusted that you would not demonstrate principled leadership to stop this travesty.

    Your attempt to appease the religious leaders who threaten your electoral success will almost certainly fail – and in the process you have alienated a significant number of us who would otherwise have voted for you once again.

    Shame on you Governor.

    Bravo, Dr. Rosa!



    Source link

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

    New math placement rules undermine preparation of community college STEM majors


    Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimages

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    •••

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

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





    Source link

  • New York: Orthodox Jewish Schools Hope to Evade the Law and Collect Public Money

    New York: Orthodox Jewish Schools Hope to Evade the Law and Collect Public Money


    New York State law requires private and religious schools to offer an education that is substantially equivalent to what is offered at secular public schools. Some Orthodox Jewish schools refuse to comply. Repeated inspections have found that the recalcitrant Yeshivas do not teach English and do not teach math and science in English.

    Dr. Betty Rosa, an experienced educator and New York State Commissioner of Education, has insisted that Yeshivas comply with the law. She fears that their students are graduating from high school without the language skills required for higher education and the workplace.

    The Hasidim are a tight-knit group that often votes as a bloc to enhance their political power. They vote for whoever promises to support their interests. Both parties compete for their endorsement.

    Eliza Shapiro and Benjamin Oreskes reported the story in the New York Times:

    New York lawmakers are considering a measure that would dramatically weaken their oversight over religious schools, potentially a major victory for the state’s Hasidic Jewish community.

    The proposal, which could become part of a state budget deal, has raised profound concern among education experts, including the state education commissioner, Betty Rosa, who said in an interview that such changes amount to a “travesty” for children who attend religious schools that do not offer a basic secular education.

    “We would be truly compromising the future of these young people,” by weakening the law, Ms. Rosa said. “As the architect of education in this system, how could I possibly support that decision,” she added.

    Gov. Kathy Hochul on Monday announced a $254 billion budget agreement but acknowledged many of the particulars are still being hashed out.

    Behind the scenes, a major sticking point appears to be whether the governor and the Legislature will agree to the changes on private school oversight, according to several people with direct knowledge of the negotiations, which may include a delay in any potential consequences for private schools that receive enormous sums of taxpayer dollars but sometimes flout state education law by not offering basic education in English or math.

    The state is also considering lowering the standards that a school would have to meet in order to demonstrate that it is following the law.

    Though the potential changes in state education law would technically apply to all private schools, they are chiefly relevant to Hasidic schools, which largely conduct religious lessons in Yiddish and Hebrew in their all-boys schools, known as yeshivas.

    The potential deal is the result of years of lobbying by Hasidic leaders and their political representatives…

    The Hasidic community has long seen government oversight of their schools as an existential threat, and it has emerged as their top political issue in recent years.

    It has taken on fresh urgency in recent months, as the state education department, led by Ms. Rosa, has moved for the first time to enforce the law, after years of deliberation and delay….

    There is little dispute, even among Hasidic leaders, that many yeshivas across the lower Hudson Valley and parts of Brooklyn are failing to provide an adequate secular education. Some religious leaders have boasted about their refusal to comply with the law and have barred families from having English books in their homes.

    Mayor Eric Adams’s administration, which has been closely aligned with the Hasidic community, found in 2023 that 18 Brooklyn yeshivas were not complying with state law, a finding that was backed up by state education officials.

    A 2022 New York Times investigation found that scores of all-boys yeshivas collected about $1 billion in government funding over a four-year period but failed to provide a basic education, and that teachers in some of the schools used corporal punishment.

    It is clear why Hasidic leaders, who are deeply skeptical of any government oversight, would want to weaken and delay consequences for the schools they help run.

    It is less obvious why elected officials would concede to those demands during this particular budget season. There is widespread speculation in Albany that Ms. Hochul, facing what may be a tough re-election fight next year, is hoping to curry favor from Hasidic officials, who could improve her chances with an endorsement….

    Hasidic voters are increasingly conservative and tend to favor Republicans in general election contests.…

    New York’s state education law related to private schools, which is known as the substantial equivalency law, has been on the books for more than a century.

    It was an obscure, uncontroversial rule up until a few years ago, when graduates of Hasidic yeshivas who said they were denied a basic education filed a complaint with the state, claiming that their education left them unprepared to navigate the secular world and find decent jobs.

     



    Source link

  • New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more

    New law moves toward better translation of special ed documents, but families want more


    A special education class at Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland.

    Alison Yin / EdSource

    California schools will soon have a template for special education programs translated into 10 languages in addition to English.

    Advocates and parents of children with disabilities who speak languages other than English say it is a tiny step forward, but there is still work to be done to fix long waits and faulty translations experienced by many families statewide.

    “Ultimately, if parents can’t receive translated documents, they can’t meaningfully engage in their child’s education,” said Joanna French, senior director of research and policy strategies at Innovate Public Schools, an organization that works with parents to advocate for high-quality education. “They can’t provide informed consent. They can’t ask questions or push back on the services that are being proposed.”

    A bill introduced last year by state Sen. Anthony Portantino, D-Burbank, would have required school districts, charter schools and county offices of education to translate individualized education program (IEP) documents within 30 days. But the bill stalled in the Senate Appropriations Committee, where lawmakers decide whether the state has enough money to pay for legislation. This spring, the bill was revived, and Portantino revised it to require the California Department of Education (CDE) to create guidelines suggesting, rather than mandating, timelines for translation and how to identify quality translators and interpreters. But that version, too, was eventually scrapped. 

    The version of the bill that finally did pass the Legislature and was signed by the governor requires a template for IEPs to be translated into the 10 languages most commonly spoken in California other than English. The translated template must be made available online by Jan. 1, 2027. The template, which can be found in this document, includes categories of services, but also has blank space for language adapted to each student.

    “Obviously, whenever you get a partial victory, you take it and you celebrate,” said Portantino. “This is an incremental improvement. Having the template is a good thing. But obviously, these are individualized plans, so my hope is that someone takes up the mantle to get individual plans translated in a more timely manner.”

    Aurora Flores said she has had to wait sometimes six or seven months for special education documents to be translated into Spanish. Her 10-year-old son has Down syndrome and autism and attends school in the Long Beach Unified School District.

    “It’s really sad for us Spanish-speaking parents because the points that you want to clarify, you can’t understand. They just summarize really fast, with an interpreter, but sometimes it’s not a certified person,” said Flores in Spanish.

    Individualized education programs are required for students with disabilities who qualify for special education, and are updated each year or when needs change. Before schools can implement these programs, parents must agree.

    The person most affected by long waits for translations is her son, Flores said, because it takes longer for her to sign off on new services that he needs.

    “When you least expect it, you realize the next IEP meeting is coming up, and you have just received the documents from the last one,” Flores said.

    A spokesperson for Long Beach Unified, Elvia Cano, wrote in an email that the district “is dedicated to ensuring that all families, regardless of their primary language, have timely access to critical educational information, including Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).”

    However, she said getting high-quality translations of special education documents can be challenging.

    “Translating IEPs requires specialized linguistic and technical expertise. Translators must be fluent in the target language and possess a strong understanding of educational terminology. Finding professionals with these qualifications can be challenging, especially for less commonly spoken languages. Additionally, the complexity of IEPs and the volume of translation requests may extend the timeframe for completion,” Cano wrote.

    Portantino said that some felt the previous version of the bill requiring the California Department of Education to create guidelines for translation “was too onerous, too much pressure.” 

    “I think the education community didn’t want to be forced to do things. I think there were districts who felt they don’t have the personnel, and I think CDE felt the overall structure was not in place,” Portantino said. 

    Holly Minear, executive director of student services at the Ventura County Office of Education, said she thinks most school districts and county offices understand the importance of giving families a written translation of IEP documents in a timely manner, but it is sometimes a challenge, especially when the translation is for a language that is not common.

    “I think a lot of districts use internal translators, and if you have someone out sick or on leave, or if districts work with contract agencies, sometimes the timeline is more than 30 days,” Minear said. 

    Minear said the Ventura County Office of Education has two Spanish-English translators on staff, but they use outside agencies for other languages like Farsi and Mixteco, an indigenous language from southern Mexico. She said she thinks the template will help districts and translators do a better job.

    “Although our IEPs differ … I think we use a lot of the same terms, a lot of the same language,” she said. “I’m really looking forward to having it on the template, because if there’s ever a word or phrase you need, it’s there for you, and it’s free.”

    Sara Gomez, who has a 4-year-old with autism who attends preschool in Santa Clara County, said she thinks the law is a good step forward.

    “I think the law is positive, in that it gives a sense of alarm that translations need to be done urgently,” Gomez said. “But we still don’t have a required timeline.”

    Gomez said she has had to wait three or four months for her son’s individualized education program to be translated into Spanish. Gomez, who is from Venezuela, speaks English, but her husband speaks only Spanish.

    She said she has heard of other parents waiting up to a year for translations, leaving them unable to make informed decisions about their children’s education.

    “Even four months for a young child make a big difference,” Gomez said in Spanish. “When they are the youngest is when they need the most help.” 

    Advocates and families said they will keep pushing the state for guidelines about how to access qualified translators and a time limit for translations. 

    “We understand that districts experience challenges in finding qualified translators, especially for less common languages, and turning around documents quickly,” said French, from Innovate Public Schools.

    However, she said, different districts have very different timelines for translations.

    “We don’t believe it should be that inconsistent, if a parent lives in one district versus another,” French said. “There should be equity across the state about what a parent should expect in terms of translated documents.”

    Allegra Cira Fischer, senior policy attorney for the nonprofit organization Disability Rights California, agreed. She said she was dismayed to see that the 30-day timeframe was removed from the bill.

    “Parents tell us that sometimes their student will have a better teacher or a better case manager and they’ll get things in a more timely manner. But parents shouldn’t have to rely on an especially committed teacher or case manager,” Fischer said. “This is a situation that is really untenable and ultimately is harmful to children with disabilities.”





    Source link

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

    California climate initiative could unlock new opportunities for community college students


    Courtesy: California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office

    With each passing year, we learn how a changing climate can affect our lives. For most Californians, two things stand out: bigger, more destructive wildfires and long-term threats to our precious water supply.

    There are proven solutions to these challenges, enabling us to shift to prevention instead of simply responding to growing natural disasters fueled by climate change. The longer we wait to make this change, the greater the consequences and the costs.

    Proposition 4, on the Nov. 5 ballot, represents a strategic investment in California’s environment, its economy and its people. The $10 billion bond measure dedicates $1.5 billion to preventing wildfires and smoke by creating fire breaks near communities, improving forest health to reduce wildfire intensity, supporting specialized firefighting equipment, and deploying early detection and response systems. To protect safe drinking water supplies, it provides $3.8 billion to treat groundwater contaminants, recharge aquifers, rebuild crumbling water infrastructure, and restore watersheds. 

    It also provides an important opportunity for California’s community colleges and the students we serve.

    Proposition 4 will create important jobs in an evolving green economy. The question is how we build the workforce needed to do the work ahead.

    California’s Community Colleges are uniquely positioned to ensure Proposition 4 dollars are leveraged to usher in this new workforce. If it passes, students will see new opportunities in career technical education programs that align with industry needs, including:

    • Expansion of clean energy training programs: Proposition 4 could support programs in solar energy installation, wind turbine maintenance and battery storage technology. By equipping students with these skills, community colleges can prepare them for high-demand jobs in the renewable energy sector, which is projected to grow as California expands its clean energy infrastructure.
    • Green construction and sustainable building techniques: The bond could provide resources to expand programs in sustainable construction, teaching students energy-efficient building methods and retrofitting techniques. These skills are crucial as California ramps up efforts to build climate-resilient infrastructure, creating jobs for students in green construction.
    • Water management and conservation technology: As the state faces ongoing water challenges, Proposition 4 could help community colleges develop programs focused on water conservation and management. Students trained in operating water technologies and wastewater treatment would be in high demand across various sectors, especially agriculture and public utilities.
    • Electric vehicle (EV) maintenance and infrastructure: With the rapid shift toward electric vehicles, funding from Proposition 4 could be used to expand EV technology programs, preparing students to service EVs and maintain charging stations. This would align with the state’s push to phase out gasoline-powered vehicles, creating opportunities for students in a growing market.
    • Work-based learning and internships in climate projects: Proposition 4 could enable partnerships between community colleges and green industry employers to provide internships and hands-on experience. Students could work on real-world projects in renewable energy, water management, or green construction, giving them practical skills and a competitive edge in the job market.

    By dedicating at least 40% of its investment to disadvantaged communities, Proposition 4 ensures that these communities must be part of the work ahead, not witnesses to it.

    As an educator, I see opportunity. California’s 116 community colleges are distributed across the state and are deeply embedded in their communities, particularly those in rural areas. When natural disasters strike, these communities find shelter at their community college campuses.  Proposition 4 is a chance for California to build out its climate infrastructure efficiently by leaning on its community colleges in two ways: (1) sites for infrastructure deployment and (2) for workforce development. By expanding access to green job training programs, Proposition 4 will enable Californians from all backgrounds to participate in climate jobs of the future.

    The students in our community colleges today will be the innovators, technicians and leaders of tomorrow. Proposition 4, through its focus on climate resilience, offers the chance to support these students in gaining the skills they need to succeed in an evolving job market while preventing wildfires, providing safe drinking water, protecting California’s iconic natural heritage, and contributing to the state’s clean energy transition. If we invest in them now, we invest in California’s future.

    •••

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

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





    Source link

  • A new path for supporting Black students in higher education

    A new path for supporting Black students in higher education


    National University President Mark D. Milliron, right,,congratulates a graduating student at the university’s 2023 commencement.

    Courtesy: National University

    In the year since the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision to end race-conscious college admissions, the predicted impact has become a troubling reality. Many selective universities are reporting significant decreases in Black student enrollment this fall. This latest development continues a broader trend of declining Black postsecondary enrollment, which since 2010 has fallen at all U.S. colleges by nearly 30%.

    These dire enrollment reports are emerging now as a growing number of states are eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs and services — and just four years after a nationwide reckoning on racial injustice. Whether colleges have become even more exclusive or if Black students are turning away from higher education, the results are the same: Our nation’s colleges and universities are becoming less diverse — and yet another barrier has been erected on the road toward increasing the number of Americans able to go to and graduate from college.

    Despite bleak national trend lines, the state of California has just enacted a creative policy solution that will shine a spotlight on institutions that excel in educating and serving Black students. Senate Bill 1348, also known as the “Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Act,” creates a state-level designation (BSI) to recognize the state’s public and independent colleges and universities where at least 10% or 1,500 students are Black.

    The BSI designation is not just about enrollment numbers. It requires institutions to commit to providing essential services and resources to foster Black students’ academic success and meet their basic needs. For this reason, this proposal is a sound and logical policy prescription for California, which has the country’s fifth-largest population of Black people. It’s also a legislative innovation that other state and national policymakers should consider as American higher education is struggling to close completion and equity gaps and college demographics continue to grow more diverse.

    The BSI concept draws inspiration from the success of historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) — postsecondary institutions established before 1965 with the principal mission of educating African or Black Americans. Today, the nation’s 107 HBCUs have an impressive track record. They have graduated 40% of the nation’s Black engineers, 50% of America’s black lawyers and 80% of Black judges. Perhaps more than any other institution in this country, HBCUs have helped create economic and social mobility for millions of Black Americans. 

    However, most HBCUs are at least 75 years old — the majority were established in the 19th century — and are rarely found outside the South. For newer colleges and universities outside the South that serve diverse populations, a BSI designation would strengthen institutions and communities in multiple ways. It would offer a state seal of approval to institutions that are committed to serving Black students and willing to hold themselves accountable for the results. It also would help policymakers identify colleges and universities to receive targeted financial support and other resources. 

    This shift is particularly relevant given the changing demographics of today’s college students. Nontraditional, working and military students are fast becoming the norm. A third of today’s undergraduates are 25 or older. A quarter of them are raising children. About 40% of full-time students — and three-quarters of part-time students — are working while they’re in school. Because so many students are older, working full-time or raising families, it’s essential that institutions adapt to this new reality by offering flexible schedules, stackable credentials and comprehensive support services. 

    The BSI designation could be a valuable tool for states beyond California. In states with substantial Black populations but few or no HBCUs (California has just one HBCU, Charles R. Drew University of Medicine and Science), it could help increase college access, improve completion rates and build a more skilled and educated workforce to fuel economic growth.

    California’s proposal to recognize Black-serving institutions is a necessary — and long overdue — step toward acknowledging their critical role in reversing the decline in Black student enrollment and increasing access to higher education for historically underserved communities. Just as HBCUs have broadened access to education, California’s Black-serving institutions bill will reward colleges and universities statewide that are doing the vital work of serving the underserved students our economy and society need. 

    By investing in institutions committed to supporting Black students and other underserved groups, states can help foster stronger, more inclusive colleges and universities. Ensuring that more Black learners are on track to access and complete higher education will help California and other states produce the talented and inclusive workforce they need to compete in today’s fast-changing economy.

    •••

    Mark D. Milliron, Ph.D, is president, National University, a nonprofit private university based in San Diego with campuses across California as well as online. Thomas Stewart, Ph.D, is executive vice president and co-chair of the Social Justice, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Council, National University.

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





    Source link