In this post, Peter Greene continues his coverage of a teacher in West Ada, Idaho, who got into trouble for putting up a poster that showed different colored hands in the air and said “Everyone is Welcome Here.” District leaders said the poster was unwelcome because it violated federal guidelines that banished DEI, and had to be removed. Some didn’t object to the sentiment but objected to the portrayal of nonwhite hands.
Greene wrote:
Sarah Inama has put her poster up in a new classroom.
Inama, you may recall, is the 6th grade world history teacher told by her district bosses at West Ada School District that her “Everyone Is Welcome Here” poster, complete with hands of many human shades, would not be tolerated in the district. (I’ve been following this here, here, and here). West Ada is the largest district in Idaho, but their treatment of Inama has been spectacularly awful, both from an Awful Display of Racism standpoint, a Grotesque Mistreatment of Staff standpoint, and a Boneheaded PR Management standpoint.
Inama went to local news and the story blew up, delivering the shame that West Ada so richly deserved. We know a lot more thanks to some stellar reporting by Carly Flandro and the folks at Idaho Ed News, who FOIAed 1200 emails surrounding this and showcasing the board’s stumbling response. You should read the resulting stories (here and here).
The day after Inama was on the Today show, the district issued a memo entitled “Ensuring a Consistent and Supportive Learning Environment.” They decided to go with sports analogies. The Chief Academic Officer is a like a referee who enforces rules “to ensure a fair and level playing field.” And there’s this howler–
If one player decided to wear a different uniform, use a different-sized ball, or ignore the rules, the game would lose its structure, creating confusion and imbalance.
Then a report from BoiseDev that the Board of Trustees is considering making every teacher put up an “Everyone is welcome” poster– just without those multi-colored hands. Responding to BoiseDev, a district spokesperson explained:
Regarding the Everyone is Welcome Here posters, the district determined that while the phrase itself is broadly positive, certain design elements have been associated over time with political entities and initiatives that are now subject to federal restriction.
Inama told Idaho EdNews, “That’s appeasing not a political view, but a bigoted view that shouldn’t even be considered by a public school district.”
Inama was told the poster was divisive, that it was “not neutral,” that the problem was not the message, but the hands of v arious skin tones. Teachers shouldn’t have political stuff in the classroom. Inama nails the issue here
“I really still don’t understand how it’s a political statement,” she said. “I don’t think the classroom is a place for anyone to push a personal agenda or political agenda of any kind, but we are responsible for first making sure that our students are able to learn in our classroom.”
Some parents and students showed up at school to make chalk drawings in support. And yet many folks within and outside the district saw this as a divisive issue. How could anyone do that? Meet district parent Brittany Bieghler, who was dropping her kids off the day that parents were chalking the “Everyone is welcome here” message on the sidewalks.
“The ‘Everyone is Welcome’ slogan is one filled with marxism and DEI, there is no need for those statements because anyone with a brain knows that everyone is welcome to attend school, so there is no need to have it posted, written or worn on school grounds,” she wrote. “My family and I relocated here from a state that did not align with our beliefs and we expected it to be different here, but it seems as time goes by, its becoming more like our former state, which is extremely disheartening.”
“Anyone with a brain” might begin to suspect that everyone is not welcome here under these circumstances. And the school board itself couldn’t decide what to respond, drafting an assortment of emails that tried to show conciliation to those that were defiant and defensive, including one complaining in MAGA-esque tones that Inama was naughty for going to “new media.”
Imana resigned from her position, and by June the word was out that she was a new hire at Boise Schools. She told Idaho Ed News,
I’m so grateful to be able to work within a district that knows the beauty of inclusion and diversity and doesn’t for a second consider it an opinion but embraces it. As an educator, it’s an amazing feeling to know your (district’s) officials, board, and administrators fully uphold the fundamentals of public education and (have) the dignity to proudly support them. I really feel at home knowing we are truly all on the same team … and that’s a team that is rooting on all of our students.
Damned straight. And just last week, as reported by KTVB news, Inama posted video of herself putting up an “Everyone is welcome here” poster in her new classroom.
So the story ends well for Inama, and that’s a great thing. This is the sort of boneheaded administrative foolishness that can drive teachers out of the profession. The unfortunate part of the story is that up the road in West Ada schools, the administration, board and a non-zero number of parents think that challenging racism is bad and saying that students of all races are welcome in school is just one person’s opinion that shouldn’t be expressed openly in a school. Shame on West Ada.
Cybercharters have a terrible track record. They have registered many financial scandals. Some of their leaders have gone to jail for embezzlement and fraud. The biggest fraud in the nation was perpetrated by a cybercharter chain in California that collected $80-200 million from the state without providing the services that were advertised. The biggest academic evaluation of cybercharters concluded that their students don’t gain ground; in fact, they lose ground compared to their peers in public schools or in brick-and-mortar charter schools.
Pennsylvania is the jackpot for online charter operators. The rules are minimal as is accountability for results.
Commonwealth Charter Academy, Pa’s largest cyber charter school, has stopped providing detailed financial statements to the school’s board of trustees for their monthly board meetings, ending a transparency policy that has been in place at the school for more than a decade.
Those reports have typically included detailed information about hundreds of specific transactions, including the names of individual businesses and the amount of money spent the previous month. CCA previously provided these financial statements upon request to members of the public who attended its board meetings, along with the trustees.
The reports will still be available to board members but the public will now have to file a records request for the reports, according to Tim Eller, a spokesperson for CCA. Eller said the change was made to enhance the school’s cybersecurity.
During the board’s Wednesday meeting, Faith Russo, the school’s chief business officer, announced CCA was providing the board with a new report that would be more limited in scope.
“So this basically summarizes the information that we have already previously provided to you,” Russo said.
The new report includes only seven lines of detail about the total amount spent for payroll, general fund cash disbursements, employee retirement, employer paid health insurance, total capital project disbursements, general fund cash transfers and capital fund cash transfers.
In June, by contrast, CCA provided details of more than 1,000 individual financial transactions. The report provided the check number, the names of the vendors, the date of the purchases and the amount of the transactions. The largest single recipients of payments in June were Phillips Managed Support Services, $3.1 million, and Quandel Construction, $1.7 million. Although many of the transactions were for thousands of dollars, some of the transactions were for small amounts, such as a $46 payment to a fertilizer company and a $70 payment to an IT security company.
The detailed report redacted the names of around 130 parents of students who receive $550 per month to serve as “family mentors.” Family mentors serve as a personal concierge to help new students adapt to CCA in their first year. The report also redacted the names of dozens of parents who received a $300 reimbursement for students who participated in extracurricular activities.
Eller, CCA’s spokesperson, said the school has received malicious phishing attempts from scammers who have impersonated vendors that are listed on the school’s detailed financial reports. The financials reports will now be made available to board members on a more secure platform, Eller said.
“This change enhances cybersecurity and safeguards the school’s sensitive financial information against potential cyber and financial threats,” Eller said.
The reports will no longer be available to the public at the start of each board meeting, Eller said, because the school needs more time to redact the reports than it did in years past because the school has grown so large and its financial reports more complicated.Eller doesn’t believe the school has ever made a mistake in redacting its previous reports but said the school will need more time to do this in the future.
The decreased transparency comes as lawmakers in Harrisburg have been debating changes to how cyber charter schools are regulated. The Democratically controlled House passed a number of reforms in June including the establishment of a special council that would help set transparency requirements for cyber charter schools. The House’s reforms have yet to be taken up by the Republican-controlled Senate and it’s unclear if any reforms are part of the active budget negotiations.
Russo said during Wednesday’s meeting that CCA will still provide its trustees with a copy of the detailed financial report but not as part of the packet it makes readily available to the public.
“The detail has been provided to the board prior to this meeting,” Russo said. “So you still received the laundry list of all the disbursements, but this is a more summarized version for the board packet.”
When PennLive requested a copy of the detailed report that was provided to trustees before the meetings, CCA’s board secretary said PennLive would now have to seek the information through a public records request, a process that often takes a month or longer. PennLive filed a public records request for the information immediately but did not receive the records before publication.
The school’s detailed financial report has been provided in board packets since at least December of 2013–the oldest board packet in PennLive’s possession.
“This illustrates how Harrisburg allows cyber charter schools to play by their own rules,” Spicka said. “The time is now for Senate Republicans to step up and demand accountability from the cyber charter industry. They have a responsibility to ensure that all public schools are transparent in how they spend Pennsylvanians’ property tax dollars.”
PBS ran an important segment on Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy’s decision to cancel $500 million in grants to study mNRA vaccine grants. These are the vaccines that broke the COVID pandemic.
PBS interviewed scientists about this surprise decision. If you would like to see the interviews, open the link.
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s decision to cancel nearly half a billion dollars in federal funding for mRNA vaccine development has left many public health experts and scientists stunned.
mRNA technology was central in the battle against COVID and can be developed more quickly than traditional vaccines. But anti-vaccine communities and skeptics don’t trust its safety.
Geoff Bennett spoke with Michael Osterholm, director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, about the latest in mRNA vaccine research and the implications of Kennedy’s move.
“I can say unequivocally that this was the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body,” Osterholm said.
U.S. children’s health in decline
As the Trump administration works to reimagine public health through its “Make America Healthy Again” initiative, a new study paints a stark picture of the challenges facing the nation’s kids.
The health of American children has significantly worsened across several key indicators since 2007, according to a recent study published in JAMA.
Laura Meckler of the Washington Post visited Arizona to learn about the effects of an expansive program of charter schools and vouchers. Arizona voted overwhelmingly against vouchers in a state referendum in 2018. Vouchers lost by 65-35%. The rightwing legislature and Governor Douglas Ducey, encouraged by billionaire Charles Koch, ignored the views of the electorate and enacted a large voucher program.
Now the state underwrites the tuition of kids who were already in private schools, many of whom come from affluent families. Voucher schools admit the students they want and exclude those they don’t want.
Arizona’s charter sector includes for-profit charters and charters run by entrepreneurs and grifters. It has experienced numerous scandals.
There’s no accountability for voucher schools and minimal accountability for homeschoolers whose parents spend money on sports equipment, ninja warrior training, toys, LEGO sets, and a wide variety of nonacademic stuff.
Vouchers and charters have not produced academic gains. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Arizona is among the lowest-ranking states.
But the biggest consequence of voucher expansion has been the closing of neighborhood public schools. .
Meckler writes:
PHOENIX — The party at John R. Davis Elementary School was in full swing, but at the snow cone station, the school’s librarian was in tears.
Inthe cafeteria, alumni marveled at old photographs on display and shook their heads. On a wall of the library, visitors posted sticky notes to describe their feelings: “Angry,” read a purple square. “Anxious,” said a pink one. “Annoyed.” “Heart broken.” “Bummed.” And more than any other word: “Sad.”
Ten days later, John R. Davis Elementary School would close — not just for the summer, but for good.
Now, as the new school year begins, the Roosevelt Elementary School District opens with just 13 schools. That’s almost a third fewer than it had last spring, a response to enrollment declines as the state offers unprecedented taxpayer funding for alternatives to public school.
The party gave the community a few hours to celebrate the school’s 43 years — to say goodbye.
“It’s a grieving process for me,” Antionette Nuanez, the librarian, told a pair of Davis graduates who dropped by the party. Everyone at the party, it seemed, was feeling the loss — loss of tradition, of community, of simply having a school in walking distance. Nuanez, in particular, was overcome with the emotion of it all: “It’s like a death,” she said.
Perhaps more than any other state, Arizona has embraced market competition as a central tenet of its K-12 education system, offering parents an extraordinary opportunity to choose and shape their children’s education using tax dollars, and developing a national reputation as the Wild West of schooling.
The state has supported a robustcharter school system, tax money for home schooling and expansive private school vouchers, which are available to all families regardless of income. Nearly 89,000 students receive Empowerment Scholarship Accounts, a form of vouchers, state data show; a second voucher program awarded nearly 62,000 tax-supported private school scholarships in 2024, though some students received more than one. More than 232,000 students attend charter schools.
Together, these programs help explain why just 75 percent of Arizona children attended public schools in 2021, the most recent year for which data is available. That’s one of the lowest rates in the country.
Supporters of school choice say families are turning to alternatives because public schools are not serving their children well. It’s only right, they argue, that tax dollars follow children towhatever educational setting their families choose.
Critics complain that vouchers eat up state funding, benefit families who can afford private school on their own, disrupt communities and send tax dollars to schools that face little accountability. Unlike public schools, private schools don’t have to administer state tests. They can pick and choose their students, while public schools must educate everyone.
The modern school choice movement began in 1990 with a small voucher program in Milwaukee and has grown into a central plank of the Republican education agenda, with programs now operating in more than half the states. In 2022, Arizona created the first universal program — open to all, not just low-income families. Since then, about a dozen conservative states have adopted universal or near-universal programs. And in July, President Donald Trump signed into law the first federal voucher program, which will require states to opt in, at an estimated cost of $26 billion over the next decade.
Some stateprograms have now grown so large that spillover effects on public schools are coming into view. In Ohio, the legislature agreed toincrease voucher spending to $1.3 billion by 2027, up from just over $1 billion in 2025, while traditional public schools, which serve far more children, were given a smaller increase — and less than what public education advocates say had been promised under a multiyear agreement to ramp up school spending. In Florida, which has a $4 billion voucher program, public schools districts are seeing enrollment declines, meaning less money from the state and, in many cases, budget cuts.
The ramifications for public education have been particularly clear in Arizona, offering an early picture of K-12 education under the Republican vision of maximum school choice, or what proponents call education freedom. Here, public schools are starting to close.
The challenge: more competition for the same number of students. For the past 15 years, the state’s school-age population has remained steady, though the overall population has grown, said Rick Brammer, principal manager of Applied Economics, a consulting firm that has analyzed enrollment trends, demographic data and the effects of school choice programs in dozens of Arizona school districts.
“You’re taking the same size pie and cutting it into more pieces,” Brammer said. “As we’ve created and funded alternatives, we’ve just emptied out school after school from the districts. In a tight nutshell, that’s the whole story.”
After years of promoting “local control” in education, the latest news is full of stories on state intervention in decisions being made by local school boards.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has threatened the Temecula Valley school district with fines for exercising its local control. He disagrees with their decisions on curriculum. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond flew to Southern California to stand at the lectern during a Chino Valley Unified School District board meeting and lambasted the members over their policy change strengthening the rights of parents to be involved when their child is facing mental health challenges.
State Attorney General Rob Bonta has even gone so far as to sue Chino Valley Unified for approving the parental notification policy, with the implicit threat this may extend to other districts that have passed or are considering the same policy.
So much for local control.
With all this state-level attention to local school districts, does it surprise anyone that none of that focus has anything to do with actually improving education?
As we’ve seen in headline after headline, actual education in our state is doing nothing but getting worse. By every objective measure, there is — including NAEP scores, SAT/ACT results, and the state’s own CAASPP/SBAC testing system — our education system is doing worse than ever at its core function: educating our kids.
In 2022, according to the Smarter Balanced testing, less than half of our kids (47%) were proficient in English, and a miserable 28% (fewer than one-third of students) were proficient in math.
Results from the statewide CAASPP/Smarter Balanced standardized tests, which are administered to students in grades 3-8 and 11 each spring. No data available for 2020, when testing was suspended due to the Covid pandemic.
Our educational system is clearly failing our kids.
Meanwhile, districts are spending record amounts of money achieving those dismal results. In 2023-24 our state will spend $127.2 billion on K-12 education, more than any year in history.
Since 2012, when California voters approved Proposition 30 to increase taxes on ourselves to “better fund education,” per-student funding has skyrocketed. Based on school district financial data published by Ed-Data, in 2012 the state provided $8,832 per student. In 2022 that number was $18,827.
That means in the last decade, education spending has grown by almost $10,000 per student, which works out to an annual increase rate of 7.86% per year. During that same period, the state reports inflation averaged 2.97% per year. Education funding has risen at a rate over 2½ times faster than inflation.
This doesn’t include one-time Covid mitigation funding, but does include the extraordinary post-Covid increase in tax revenue. This increase is not expected to continue, meaning districts that used that money to increase spending on ongoing expenses (like pay and benefits) will be facing decisions on what to cut from our kids when the expected “fiscal cliff” arrives.
The California Department of Education appears to have stopped reporting class size data in 2019, but as of then, the average class size in the state was about 26 kids; $20,000 times 26 students equals $520,000 per classroom.
Some may think over a half-million dollars a year per classroom should be adequate to provide kids with a good education, but not the education establishment. In a private business, having revenue rising at rates so far above inflation would result in the sound of champagne corks popping. In education, all we hear are continued complaints about “lack of funding.”
To our education leaders, it’s not about how the money is spent, it’s all about insufficient funding. This is said to us by people who clearly benefit personally from those increases in funding.
If we look at pay and benefits for education employees, the graph looks much more like the trend in revenue than the graph of academic performance.
Data for 2022 is not yet complete, but in 2021 according to public pay data collected by Transparent California, the median total compensation for a K-12 administrator was $167,857, and for the certificated group (primarily teachers), $124,513.
Now, as I said in my EdSource article on respect for teachers, I’m very happy we can afford to pay our education professionals well. But are we getting the results we’re paying for?
The failure of education in our state is a crisis. For our kids and for the future of the state. The need for leadership to focus on improvements is clear.
Why, then, is Superintendent Thurmond not showing up at the lectern of board meetings in failing districts and talking about that?
San Diego Unified recently approved a bonus raise for employees adding tens of millions to future deficits. Funding this will require cuts to programs and services for kids. With only 53% of its kids proficient in English and 41% achieving state standards in math, why did Mr. Thurmond not stand up at their meeting and demand they use their funding to improve education, rather than improving their personal bank accounts?
Los Angeles Unified is spending $18 billion dollars, with similar failing results. Why is Gov. Newsom not threatening them with fines, or having Mr. Bonta file lawsuits for misuse of government funds?
Self-serving actions by politicians calculated to appeal to their base rather than improve government services are common in politics. But this is the education of our kids; shouldn’t that be different?
Why do we accept this? Why do “We the People” not stand up and demand action, from both our local district and our state? An entire generation (and perhaps more) of our kids is at stake. Perhaps that should be more important to our state leadership than grandstanding on political issues that play to their base?
•••
Todd Maddison is the director of research for Transparent California, a founding member of the Parent Association advocacy group in San Diego, and a longtime activist in improving K-12 education.
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.
Johann Neem is a professor of history at Western Washington University. He is the author of Democracy’s Schools: The Rise of Public Education in America. His essay appeared originally in Education Week. The question Neem poses is this: Should students be allowed to opt out of any discussion of issues that offend their religion? The Supreme Court said yes. Need questions whether this is possible in a school where parents hold very different views.
He wrote:
On June 27, the Supreme Court released its decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor. The decision has not received the attention it merits. A close reading of the conservative majority’s opinion suggests that the high court is moving toward determining that public schooling violates the First Amendment of the Constitution. The decision could mean the end of public education in America.
The case concerned the Montgomery County, Md., board of education’s decision to integrate LGBTQ+ inclusive readings into its literacy curriculum to further its goal of representing diversity. At first, the district permitted parents to opt out their children, but when that policy became unworkable, it decided that parents would no longer be notified when the books were being used.
In response, several parents sued, arguing that exposing their children to the books threatened their right to raise their children according to their faith.
The U.S. Supreme Court sided with the parents. The court’s majority opinion concluded that exposing students to progressive ideas about marriage and gender placed an unconstitutional burden on parents’ religious liberties. Writing for the court’s six conservative justices, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. argued that the determining precedent is Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), in which the court decided that a law mandating all children attend high school violated the religious liberties of the Amish community.
The majority determined that Yoder, far from an isolated case concerning a discrete community, is a general precedent applicable to all parents. In other words, all parents are Amish now, with the right to require the public schools to protect their children from curricula that burdens their capacity to raise their children according to their faith.
What, then, constitutes a burden on religious freedom? The court first disputed the school board’s claim to be merely exposing students, arguing that the record showed that the school board’s goal was to teach students to support same-sex marriage and gender fluidity.
If the court had stopped there, that would have been one thing, but Alito makes an additional move, arguing that even exposure to ideas that go against parents’ faith could be unconstitutional. The issue is not whether public schools coerce students’ beliefs but whether introducing an idea might undermine parents’ religious freedom. “We reject this chilling vision of the power of the state to strip away the critical right of parents to guide the religious development of their children,” Alito wrote.
In her dissent, signed by the three liberal justices, Justice Sonia Sotomayor responds that the court’s majority decision is untenable. “Given the great diversity of religious beliefs in this country,” she writes, “countless interactions that occur every day in public schools might expose children to messages that conflict with a parent’s religious beliefs.”
Sotomayor predicts the result of the decision will be “chaos for this Nation’s public schools.” “Never, in the context of public schools or elsewhere, has this Court held that mere exposure to concepts inconsistent with one’s religious beliefs could give rise to a First Amendment claim.” Ultimately, Sotomayor concludes, “to presume public schools must be free of all such exposure is to presume public schools out of existence.”
Sotomayor’s objection is ultimately practical: The majority’s opinion is so broad and its criteria so loose that public schools will not be able to function. Instead of elected school boards working things out locally, courts will ultimately adjudicate all curricular decisions at great cost of time and money.
Within the court’s majority opinion, however, lies a deeper threat to the existence of public schools. Because the court determined that exposure to objectionable material violates parents’ rights, policies involving that exposure are subject to “strict scrutiny,” the highest standard of judicial review. This level of judicial review requires that the government must demonstrate that the policy in question both serves an interest of the “highest order” and is “narrowly tailored” to achieve that interest.
The Supreme Court would, no doubt, agree that an educated citizenry is a public interest “of the highest order.” What the court does not address is whether public school systems are “narrowly tailored” to achieve the state’s goals.
Today, elected officials at the state and local levels choose the curricula that their schools will teach. But in effectively determining that any curriculum will violate parents’ rights, the court took a step toward outlawing public schools.
What might the court deem a more “narrowly tailored” policy to achieve the state’s goals of an educated citizenry? Although the court does not say so, the answer may be a private school voucher program in which parents choose schools that fit their faith rather than common schools that serve an entire community.
One cannot exaggerate how dangerous and unhistorical this ruling is. The founding generation considered increasing access to education one of government’s most important functions, enshrining it in the young country’s revolutionary state constitutions. In the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, the federal government even stated that “schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged” and followed through by requiring land be set aside in new territories to generate revenue for public schools.
All this history is at risk of being jettisoned. Instead, the court has determined that the need to protect students from being exposed to ideas hostile to their family’s religious beliefs trumps everything else. Under the court’s new rules, no curriculum could ever be constitutional unless parents are always informed in advance and can protect their children from anything objectionable to their specific religious beliefs.
Given this burden, states may be forced to find a more “narrowly tailored” approach to educating citizens. And before we know it, one of America’s greatest successes, one of the most popular American institutions, and one of the few we still share in common, will be gone.
A teacher and students at Aspire Inskeep Academy in Los Angeles.
Courtesy: Aspire Public Schools
In times of crisis, we should be looking for ways to help, not hinder. But in California, the inequities in public school education funding are only deepening the crisis for too many students.
On top of the devastating social-emotional and academic effects of the pandemic, our communities have been dealing with widespread staffing challenges, culture wars and frequent unfair attacks on educators. And in cities across California, projections suggest that public school enrollment will continue to drop — creating a crisis for practically all schools across the state.
Public charter schools face all of these challenges and more. At Aspire Public Schools, a charter school network serving more than 15,000 students in 36 schools across the state, our student population is more than 85% Black and Latino, and the vast majority of our students are experiencing poverty. Yet since the day we were founded, we’ve been forced to get creative with limited resources: Aspire students — like all public charter school students in California — receive less funding than their peers in traditional public schools.
According to new research from the University of Arkansas, the problem remains severe. In the 2019-20 school year, Los Angeles public charter school students received $5,226 less per-pupil funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools. In Oakland, the gap is even larger, at $7,103. This is driven by a lack of public funding. In both cities, public charter schools receive less local, state and federal funding than their counterparts in traditional public schools.
Why? While both public charters and traditional public schools receive the same amount of base funding under California’s Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, that doesn’t mean the total funding is equal. One reason for this is that schools receive additional funding for higher-need student categories and for higher concentrations of students in those categories, known as “concentration grants.” However, charter school concentration grant amounts are capped based on the average student demographics for the district in which they reside. This means that public charters are, in effect, penalized for serving a greater share of high-need students than their district. There are also a number of local, state and federal funding streams that are only accessible to traditional public schools —for instance, voter-approved local funding for operations or capital projects.
I’m not writing this to complain. We are honored to serve our school communities and our wonderful, talented scholars. It’s hard work, but unequal funding makes it harder. The more time we have to spend fighting tooth and nail for basic resources, the less we can spend educating California’s next generation. Our scholars are the same students whom politicians claim to want to support, especially in the wake of the pandemic, but they are consistently left out because they and their families made the choice to attend a public charter school. Elected officials frequently speak about the importance of equity, and we at Aspire couldn’t agree more. But equity means all students getting what they need — and Aspire schools (as well as many other public charter schools) serve large numbers of historically marginalized students.
This challenge is nothing new. If you talk to charter leaders across California, they’ll all tell you a similar story. Due to this systemic funding deficit, we have had no choice but to try to raise philanthropic dollars to fill critical funding gaps. But that is often turned into an attack against us, with critics saying that public charter schools are bankrolled by private investors. That is simply untrue. Trust me — I would love nothing more than to be able to operate our schools without fundraising. But it’s just not an option.
And new challenges often emerge. Just two years ago we made the choice to go to Sacramento to advocate for all public charter students to fight against legislation that would have penalized charter schools — and not traditional public schools — for following the state’s guidelines for quarantining students who were exposed to Covid-19. While we were able to win that fight, it is illustrative of the larger issue: Charter students are treated as less than others.
But here’s the thing: Despite these challenges, charter schools have been able to accomplish so much. According to new research from the CREDO Institute at Stanford University, California charter students have gained the equivalent of 11 days of reading and four days of math compared with similar students in traditional public schools. Black and Latino students and students experiencing poverty had even larger gains. At Aspire specifically, we were proud to have met CREDO’s “gap-busting” criteria in both reading and math, recognizing our ability to reduce opportunity gaps at scale.
So many of our students are carrying so much. They are talented and resilient, and they work hard to achieve their goals. We believe in them, and we tell them that every day.
But this funding gap tells them something different — that because they happen to attend a charter school, they matter less. It’s time that education leaders put childish politics aside and focus on giving all of our kids what they need. They’re all California students. They deserve to be treated as such.
•••
Mala Batra is the chief executive officer at Aspire Public Schools, a charter management organization serving 15,000 TK-12 students across 36 schools in historically underserved communities throughout California.
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.
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.”
Dan Rather and his team at Steady writes fearlessly about the dangers posed by Trump and his unqualified Cabinet.
In this post, he discusses the scandal of appointing Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. Kennedy has no medical or scientific qualifications. He is a lawyer whose head is filled with conspiracy theories. Worse, he has used his position to cancel major scientific studies and fire scientists.
Rather writes:
The last person this country needed to address the many public health issues we face was Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the man Donald Trump chose to helm the Department of Health and Human Services.
Kennedy is an alarmist, a conspiracy theorist, and a disinformation disseminator who is putting American lives at risk. His convenient amnesia and lack of a medical or science background — he is a lawyer by training — has led to confusion, fear, and poorer health outcomes. He has been HHS secretary for only five months.
And this guy’s HHS leads a country that now has the lowest life expectancy and the highest maternal and infant mortality rates among Western countries while offering absurd options to help us. It’s about to get worse.
The budget reconciliation bill that Donald Trump gleefully signed into law on July 4 will drastically and dramatically impact Americans’ health. An estimated 17 million will lose health insurance. Millions more will see their premiums balloon. Hundreds of hospitals and nursing homes will close. The legislation will cause the largest reduction in food assistance ever, disproportionately impacting children. This will result in an estimated 51,000 preventable deaths a year.
Look no further than Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) agenda as one of the main causes of the hard-right shift. MAHA has emphasized real health issues facing Americans, such as chronic disease, obesity, and poor nutrition, but has offered wrong-headed solutions.
Rather than looking for common sense or legislative options, Kennedy has weaponized his fear-based wellness campaign, preying on people’s rightful concerns about their health. He blames corruption in the food industry and gets people to focus on things like removing food dye or the “dangers” of canola oil (it’s safe), rather than address the real culprits: income inequality, lack of access to health care, environmental pollutants, and now the “big, ugly bill” and its anti-health agenda.
Beyond the bill, there are pressing public health crises affecting Americans. The surging measles outbreak that started in Texas could and should have been contained back in January. Yesterday, the CDC confirmed 1,277 cases in 38 states, a 33-year high. Many believe those numbers are low because of underreporting. Remember that in 2000, the World Health Organization declared measles eradicated in the U.S. Now our country is on track to lose that status.
Kennedy initially downplayed the outbreak, saying, “We have measles outbreaks every year.” The U.S. does have measles cases every year, usually fewer than 200, and they are typically attributed to unvaccinated people contracting the disease abroad.
The best defense against this highly contagious and preventable disease is vaccination, according to the American Medical Association (AMA). The MMR vaccine is one of the safest and most beneficial on the market. It is 97% effective and usually lasts a lifetime. Prior to 1963, when the measles vaccine was introduced, the U.S. saw 3 to 4 million cases a year.
Kennedy, a vocal vaccine skeptic, has been lukewarm at best at encouraging people to vaccinate against measles.
At a congressional hearing in May, Kennedy was asked if he would vaccinate his own children against measles. He replied “probably.” Then added, “My opinions about vaccines are irrelevant. I don’t want to seem like I’m being evasive, but I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.” We agree.
His skepticism about vaccines in general, and the MMR vaccine specifically, has led to a drop in immunizations and a prolonging of the current outbreak.
But it’s much more than measles. Last month, in an unprecedented move, Kennedy fired all 17 members of the nonpartisan Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. Formed in 1987, the committee is made up of doctors and public health professionals who help the CDC determine best practices for vaccine usage.
Kennedy quickly replaced eight of the members with unvetted candidates. Several are avowed anti-vaccine advocates. One new member has been on the committee before. During his first tenure, he made 12 conflict-of-interest disclosures, which is curious since Kennedy said he fired the original members because they were “plagued with persistent conflicts of interest.” A review of the committee’s disclosures found few conflicts, and all were communicated.
Kennedy’s distrust of vaccines has international implications. The Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI) is recognized as one of the most successful public-private health alliances ever. GAVI was founded in 2000 by the United States, Great Britain, and the Gates Foundation with the goal of increasing vaccine access around the world. It has been credited with significantly reducing infant and child mortality globally. GAVI delivered 2 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses.
Kennedy has halted America’s financial contribution to GAVI, which accounts for 12% of its funding, because of (his) concerns about vaccine safety and what he calls a “disregard for scientific evidence.” That is rich coming from a non-scientist who disregards anything that does not align with his narrow and unfounded beliefs.
Though a Democrat for most of his life, Kennedy has fully embraced the MAGA strategy of lying with impunity. The list of his lies is long. Here are some highlights:
HHS released a long-awaited MAHA Report in mid-May. The report called for an aggressive assault on chronic disease. But there were two problems. One, several studies cited by the report do not exist; they were simply made up. And others were misrepresented. Oh, and the Trump administration had pulled funding for any of Kennedy’s initiatives.
During an appearance on “The Tucker Carlson Show,” Kennedy mentioned a 1999 CDC study on the correlation (not causation) between the hepatitis B vaccine and autism risk, citing a “1,135% elevated risk of autism” among vaccinated children. The “1,135%” figure has been bouncing around the anti-vax community for years, but it was never actually published in a study. It also ignores the years of research debunking any connection between vaccines and autism. No wonder parents are scared and confused.
Kennedy has claimed that half the population of China has diabetes. Again, a seemingly crazy notion made up out of whole cloth. And it was. According to The Lancet, the actual prevalence is just over 12%.
Kennedy said COVID-19 was a bioweapon developed by China.
While the reckless whims of Donald Trump represent a clear and present danger to every American’s mental health, the dangerous actions of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. risk their physical health. It is a sad day when the person in charge of this nation’s health could also be described as a public menace.
On Oct. 10, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB 447, which authorizes public higher education in California to provide educationally equitable environments that give each Californian, regardless of age, economic circumstance or certain specified characteristics, including mental disability, a reasonable opportunity to develop fully their potential, thereby opening the gates to inclusive higher education settings.
In an increasingly interconnected world, diversity cannot remain a mere buzzword; it is a fundamental prerequisite for progress. Our society’s vibrancy is shaped by the myriad of experiences and backgrounds that its citizens contribute. While the inclusion of students with disabilities in K-12 education has been widely discussed (Agran et al., 2020) and legally mandated (IDEA) to some extent, extending this discussion to higher education is imperative. We need to adopt a more inclusive vision of higher education by wholeheartedly welcoming students with intellectual disabilities into four-year colleges.
Inclusion is both a moral imperative and a powerful catalyst for progress. All individuals deserve the opportunity to access higher education, regardless of their abilities. This is not only about fairness; it is about recognizing the untapped potential of those who have been absent in higher education spaces for too long. When the barriers to educational opportunities are removed, students with intellectual and developmental disabilities can share their creativity, passion and unique perspectives, enriching the entire academic community.
Inclusive education is a win-win situation. Including students with intellectual and developmental disabilities not only transforms their lives, but also the lives of everyone around them. These students bring fresh perspectives, challenge preconceived stereotypes and promote a culture of inclusivity, as depicted powerfully in the film “Rethinking College.”Inclusive education is not about charity; it’s about mutual benefit.
Furthermore, the benefits of inclusive higher education ripple far beyond the campus borders. Graduates with intellectual disabilities stand a greater chance of securing meaningful employment and embracing independent lives, thus alleviating the strain on social support systems. Inclusivity can become the cornerstone for reinforcing our economy and creating a more prosperous society.
Critics may argue that inclusive education is costly and challenging to implement, but the benefits far outweigh the investment. True, universities have to make accommodations for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities so that they receive the support they need to succeed. However, this investment has multiple payoffs in promoting independence for students with disabilities, enriching educational experiences for all students on the campus, and in shaping compassionate, understanding and open-minded graduates who will become tomorrow’s leaders.
Inclusive higher education is not uncharted territory. Over 300 colleges and universities across United States (Pacer) have already taken significant steps in this direction. They have demonstrated that with the right support and a commitment to diversity, students with intellectual or developmental disabilities can perform very well. In fact, according to the Think College Reports for 2020–2021, in federally funded grants supporting these inclusive efforts, 31% of the students were successfully placed in paid employment. Remarkably, of these employed students, 50% had never previously held a paid job before entering the program. However, these endeavors have not been without challenges, and the experiences of these universities can offer valuable insights into the essential elements required for successful inclusion. For example, at San Jose State University, where I am involved in an inclusive college program (SPARTANS OCLS), a survey conducted by researcher Jihyun Lee showed that all faculty members who completed the survey were open to having students with intellectual disabilities in their classes. However, over half of them expressed uncertainty regarding their preparedness to meet the needs of students with intellectual or developmental disabilities. Additionally, we’ve encountered difficulties in recruiting peer mentors for our participants and securing placements in classes aligned with their expressed interests.
Learning from the experiences of the existing program, successful inclusion requires at the minimum:
Access to resources to create accessible campus facilities, develop specialized academic programs, and provide support service.
Training for faculty and staff to understand better the needs and challenges of students with intellectual disabilities.
Peer mentorship programs to facilitate the integration of students with intellectual disabilities into the campus community.
Successful collaboration with universities, parent organizations and government agencies.
On-campus internships for students to gain practical experience, develop vital work and social skills and prepare for their future careers.
It is high time that we recognize the immense potential within every individual and acknowledge that diversity enriches our lives, communities and institutions of higher learning. Inclusive four-year colleges are not just a vision; they are a necessity. Now is the time to take this bold step toward progress, embrace diversity and remove the barriers for students with intellectual disabilities to get into higher education.
●●●
Sudha Krishnan is an assistant professor at San Jose State University, Department of Special Education, Lurie College of Educationand a Public Voice Fellow with the OpEd Project.
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.
