برچسب: should

Should colleges and universities bring back SATs and ACTs?

Credit: ShutterStock

When the Covid-19 pandemic seriously disrupted the ability of students to take SATs and ACTs, many colleges and universities, including the University of California and California State University systems, either made standardized tests optional or dropped the requirement for admissions. Now, Dartmouth is the first to say that either SATs or ACTs will be required again for fall 2024 applicants, and a few other universities, including Harvard, are following this path.

Even before the pandemic, equity concerns were often cited as reasons these tests should not be required; both the UC and Cal State systems have maintained that they will continue to be SAT- and ACT-free.

To learn what university students think about the potential return of standardized testing, EdSource’s California Student Journalism Corps asked them the following questions at seven California colleges and universities:

“While UC and Cal State have said there are no plans to change their test-free policy, in place since 2020, do you think standardized tests such as these should return? Why or why not?”

Below are their responses.

(Click on the names or images below to read what each person had to say.)

Alex Soriano opposes the return of standardized tests, suggesting that there should be “more holistic ways” to evaluate students equitably. However, he is unsure of what an alternative might look like.

“In my opinion, based on evaluating different skills … I feel like (the test) doesn’t really evaluate knowledge on the same level,” he said. “I think bringing back standardized tests would bring back [equity] issues.”

To showcase the disparity of standardized test scores, Soriano references EdGap.org. The website features a map that displays the median household income of neighborhoods and the average SAT and ACT scores in those areas. The map indicates that high-income areas exhibit well-performing test scores in comparison to those from low-income areas.

“Coming from the upper-middle-class area of San Diego, my area was super high (in SAT and ACT scores), and it made sense,” Soriano said. “A lot of my friends could afford to pay for the extra tutoring; they could pay for a counselor that can come in and work on standardized test prep, and not everybody is able to afford those services.”

By Jazlyn Dieguez

“I think they should (return) just because I think it’s a good (performance assessment) other than grades for colleges because some high schools inflate their GPAs,” Rodriguez said. “It’s kind of a middle ground.”

After taking the SAT exam once, Rodriguez was satisfied with the “OK” score he received since he wasn’t planning to apply to any universities with a high SAT requirement. Instead, he opted to attend Modesto Junior College and has since transferred to San Diego State University.

“It’s weird because I know some people are not great test-takers and some students haven’t had the luxury of being in certain classes or receiving tutoring,” he said. “Some people were spending crazy amounts of money to have a good SAT and ACT score. I wasn’t one of those guys, I was just happy with whatever I got.”

By Jazlyn Dieguez

“No, I do not believe standardized testing should be reinstated,” Kattaa said. “The SATs are a disadvantage for most college applicants.”

Kattaa believes that “a student’s GPA, extracurriculars, admission essays, and letters of recommendation speak more (about) a student’s academic and personal achievements. They are more than just one test.”

Kattaa also believes that the absence of required standardized tests has increased diversity on college campuses.

By Aya Mikbel

“I believe that standardized tests such as these should not return due to the amount of pressure it puts onto students and the possible disadvantage regarding admission status,” Naseer said. However, she sees the advantage of the tests being provided “for those who want to show more dedication.”

She understands that colleges and universities are looking for “well-rounded students; academics certainly play a greater role when applying to college.”

But Naseer is concerned that when students don’t have high scores, “It may cause them to be looked down upon, (and) there are other factors such as general academics or volunteer service that should be prioritized as well.”

Naseer continued, “As a student who didn’t take these tests, I feel that doing so allowed me to focus and improve on other areas of my studies/experience.”

By Aya Mikbel

“No, I don’t think these tests should be brought back,” Garcia said. “I think there should be a different type of examination process. I didn’t take the ACT or SAT and got in (to UCLA). I think they don’t really evaluate the student as a whole.”

Garcia added that she thinks the tests don’t “give a very good evaluation of students, academically speaking.”

By Delilah Brumer

“We got rid of the SAT and ACT requirements a few years ago, and I honestly think that it’s more fair for people to not have (these tests) as a requirement,” Wolin said.

Wolin said she was able to get SAT tutoring, but it was expensive for her family, and she’s “very aware that not everyone can afford that.”

“While I did have a leg up, I know that it wasn’t fair to everyone,” Wolin said. “I think abolishing that requirement was a step in the right direction. I wish I had a better solution for a replacement, but I don’t. At least now, I know they’re focusing on a more holistic approach, which I think is more fair.”

By Delilah Brumer

“I think it depends on the college,” Bar said. “For a school like Cal Poly, where a majority of what they are going to take into account is your GPA and test scores, it is different from a private college where they are going to take a more holistic approach.”

As a student who participated in examinations for his admission into Cal Poly, Bar said that he believed the university could benefit from reinstating test scores in exams, to add more depth to applications.

“Right now, Cal Poly doesn’t use essays, so all the application really consists of is biographical information and GPA,” Bar said. “I think there should be another component, like SATs or ACT scores. I think for a school that requires just such minimal information about the applicants, they should require it.”

By Arabel Meyer

“They should be test-free because it makes admissions more equal, and all higher SAT scores usually come with higher preparation,” Martinez said.

Martinez said she hopes UCs and CSUs would not require test scores because she finds inequality when colleges use standardized test scores for admissions. The SAT takes preparation and financial resources that not all students can access, according to Martinez.

“I came from a low-income community and rural community,” she said. “There was no such thing as SAT prep.”

Martinez only realized the importance of SAT preparation when her peers began to discuss private tutoring and other resources they had access to. She hopes that remaining test-free will provide greater opportunities for students, regardless of their financial position.

By Kelcie Lee

“Having it is a good idea,” Chiu said. “However, the SAT, when you take it, you can learn how to get a good score. So in a way, it’s almost rigged.”

She had mixed feelings when it comes to the SAT and ACT; she understands the purposes of assessing students, but also acknowledged flaws of using standardized tests for admissions.

“Even if you do get a good score, it doesn’t necessarily mean you’re meant to go to one of these top schools.”

She believes a better option would involve the UCs making their own test that is “more knowledge-based,” as opposed to the memorization involved in prepping for the SAT.

“Ultimately, it’s a weird in-between of whether you should have it or not,” Chiu said.

By Kelcie Lee

“I personally think the tests aren’t necessary or helpful. I don’t think they are proof of intelligence.”

Williams transferred from Berkeley City College to Sonoma State in 2023. She did not have to take a standardized test to get admitted.

“I know people in my life that have told me about their experiences, and that they felt that the test was not concrete proof of whether or not they are intelligent.”

By Ally Valiente

Bernales said that he does not support standardized tests making a return because “the tests favor those that have access to more resources.”

He is dissatisfied with the inequity. “Families with money can get tutors to help educate their kids to do better and can afford for them to take it multiple times to improve, while some families may not be able to afford it,” Bernales said.

“Along with that,” he continued, “the [high] school’s funding also can affect the results of the test since a better funded school tends to have higher scores.”

By Ally Valiente

“No, because I think a lot of people just aren’t good test takers, and a lot of it’s just really generalized knowledge,” Mlouk said.

Mlouk said she did not get a good score on the SAT, but she had a high GPA, which helped her.

“I consider (myself) a pretty smart person, but the test does not reflect that at all,” she said.

Mlouk said standardized tests like the SAT and ACT aren’t helpful for people who are not good test takers.

“It would limit their chances even though they could excel at that school,” Mlouk said.

By Ashley Bolter

Source link

03/06/2025
Community college faculty should all be allowed to work full time
Students at Fresno City College

Credit: Ashleigh Panoo/EdSource

When most people think of part-time employment in the public sector, they assume that it (1) could be a steppingstone to a full-time job; (2) pays less than full-time, chiefly because it involves fewer hours of work; (3) is voluntary, and (4) is primarily meant to supplement a family’s income.

When it comes to California’s 36,000 part-time community college professors, the facts defy all four assumptions.

Unlike workers in other professions, part-time college instructors, regardless of length of service and/or quality of performance, will not be promoted to full-time unless they are lucky enough to secure an increasingly scarce full-time position teaching on the tenure track. Part-time instructors, many who work for decades off the tenure track, have been called “apprentices to nowhere.”

Over the last five decades, colleges have gravitated toward part-time instructors for the flexibility of their semester-length agreements with no obligation to rehire, and their lower expense. For example, while all full-time instructors receive state-paid health insurance, only about 10% (3,742) of the state’s part-timers do.

Part-time instructor salaries are not pro-rated based on a typical full-time salary; instead, they are a separate scale which amounts to about 50-60% of the full-time instructor rate. To be clear, this doesn’t mean they receive 50-60% of the income of a full-time instructor: California law caps part-time faculty workload at no more than 67% of full-time. This workload cap, when combined with the discounted rate of pay, means that the average California part-time instructor teaching at 60% of full-time receives about $20,000 while the average annual income for full-time instructors is in excess of $100,000 a year.

Surveys conducted by the American Federation of Teachers in 2020 and 2022 found that roughly 25% of part-time community college faculty nationwide were below the federal poverty line.

With no natural transition from part-time to full-time, this two-tier workplace takes on features of a caste system, especially as both full-time and part-time instructors satisfy the same credential requirements, award grades and credits that have the same value, and have the same tuition charged for their courses.

While California college instructors are represented by faculty unions (primarily the California Federation of Teachers or the California Teachers Association), the priority of those unions would seem to be tenured faculty, as evidenced by the differences in the collectively bargained working conditions.

In the case of workload, for example, while part-time instructors are barred from teaching full-time, full-time instructors may elect to teach overtime, often called course overloads, for additional income. Full-time instructors displace part-time jobs whenever they do. In fact, full-timers generally get to choose their courses, including overloads, before part-timers are assigned courses.

A bill being considered at present in the California Legislature is Assembly Bill 2277. It would raise the current part-time workload restriction from 67% to 85% of full time, which, in theory, could enable some part-timers to teach more classes and earn more income. But if passed, AB 2277 would hardly solve the problem for part-time instructors.

To make a more meaningful improvement, AB 2277 could be amended in two ways, neither of which make an impact on the state budget:
- Remove the artificial workload cap outright, thereby enabling part-time instructors the opportunity to work up to 100% of full time when work is available.
- Impose a ban on full-time tenure-track instructors from teaching overtime (overloads).
One possible source of opposition to these changes could be California’s faculty unions, which are dominated by full-timers. While supportive of earlier attempts at raising the cap to 85% (e.g., AB 897 in 2020, AB 375 in 2021, and AB 1856 in 2022) — neither union has shown a willingness to support elimination of the cap outright or curbing full-time overloads.

In 2008, AB 591 adjusted the cap from 60% to the current 67%, but the first iteration of that bill proposed outright elimination of the cap (as does our suggested amendment), which was opposed by the CFT (see the April 16, 2007 legislative digest and commentary assembled in a California Part-Time Faculty Association (CPFA) report).

Another source of opposition could be those full-time instructors accustomed to teaching overtime/overloads; they could oppose losing that option, which underscores the conflict of interest in a two-tier workplace when more for one tier means less for the other.

Gov. Gavin Newsom acknowledged that California “community colleges could not operate without part-time faculty” who “do not receive the same salary or benefits as their full-time colleagues” in his Oct. 8, 2021 veto of AB 375 based on budgetary concerns — the fear that the state’s 36,000 part-time instructors would suddenly qualify for health care. (That fear has since been addressed by a 400% increase in the state’s contribution to the Part-time Faculty Health Insurance Program from an annual $490,000 to $200 million.) In the meantime, part-time faculty continue to be barred from working full time.

Faculty unions and lawmakers should take a step toward abolishing California’s faculty involuntary part-time work restriction by allowing them to work full time and protecting their jobs. An amended version of AB 2277 is a no-cost way of doing so.

•••

Alexis Moore taught visual art at colleges and universities for over three decades and served on the executive board of the Pasadena City College Faculty Association of the California Community College Independents (CCCI).

Jack Longmate has long served on the Steering Committee of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and taught for over 28 years at Olympic College in Bremerton, Washington, where his ending annual salary was about $20,000 for teaching at 55% of an annual full-time teaching load.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the authors. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.
Source link
02/06/2025
Charter schools should be encouraged to offer flexibility for diverse student needs

Courtesy: Connecting Waters Charter Schools

When education policy and funding decisions are enacted into law, it is critical that they be made through the lens of what is best for students. California leads the nation in supporting a wide range of innovative education options that have the potential to accommodate the needs and challenges of a very diverse student population.

Among the most innovative education models are flex-based, personalized-learning public charter schools, which are mistakenly referred to as nonclassroom-based schools. These 300-plus public charter schools have become recognized as leaders in providing flexible and tailored education for hundreds of thousands of students in California for whom a traditional classroom-only model is not a good match. The term “nonclassroom” is a misnomer as the majority of these schools have classroom facilities where students can learn in-person several days a week.

There are many reasons why some students do better in a nontraditional education model. Students who were bullied at their previous school, have physical or mental health challenges or have learning disabilities often thrive in a flexible learning environment. Some are foster youth, unhoused, teen parents, or at risk of dropping out of school. Others have simply fallen behind in meeting grade-level standards because they needed a model that better accommodates their individual needs. Others thrive working independently and want to participate in the real-world learning and internships that the schools offer.

APLUS+ member schools, comprising about one-third of the flex-based schools in California, serve a diverse student population: 57% of students enrolled are economically disadvantaged and nearly 15% are students with special needs. Many of these students enroll with APLUS+ member schools for academic recovery to get back on track or simply because their life circumstances and challenges are better served through a more flexible and personalized approach to learning. For example, most students who enroll in Learn4Life, an APLUS+ member school, are 17 or older, lack more than 50 credits, and are reading at a fifth grade level. These students graduate from high school, and 41% pursue post-secondary education within two years.

Flex-based public schools are tuition-free and are open to any student in the state who wants to have an individualized education plan that is tailored for their needs and goals. These schools employ credentialed teachers, abide by student teacher ratios and administer the state’s standardized CAASPP/Smarter Balanced tests. They also administer internal assessments, which showed that in the 2023-24 school year, a high percentage of students who newly enrolled in APLUS+ member schools were significantly below grade level standards in their previous schools.

Hundreds of thousands of students across the state are thriving at their flex-based schools. Unfortunately, two bad actor organizations operating within this sector have cast a shadow on the charter school sector. As a result of these two bad actor organizations, the California State Legislature recently commissioned the Legislative Analyst Office and the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team to issue a report with recommendations to improve and streamline the process in which nonclassroom-based charter schools are funded and held accountable.

The report rightfully acknowledged that the term “nonclassroom-based instruction” is a misnomer, given the diversity of innovative models within the sector and that a significant percentage of these schools operate one or more facilities used for in-person instruction.

One of the report’s recommendations was to change the definition of “nonclassroom-based instruction” so that more schools within this segment would qualify for facility subsidies and funding for after-school and expanded learning programs that are currently unavailable to them. While on the surface, reclassification may appear beneficial to students, the opposite is true as it would eliminate the flexibility that accommodates students for whom a classroom-only model is not a good match.

State education policies should be changed to allow public charter schools with flex-based hybrid programs that operate facilities for instruction to qualify for funding for facilities and after-school programs. Policies should also be changed to allow more students at traditional schools to take part in flexible independent study programs so that they too can benefit from a more tailored and adaptable education program. This change in thinking — and state policy — would allow more students, such as those who have health issues, special needs, or are accelerated learners, to participate in independent study programs.

Technology and the pandemic have impacted traditional views of teaching and revealed that the future of education must be rooted in flexibility. As the Legislature considers potential reforms in the future, they should prioritize the needs of our diverse student population and allow high-quality schools to offer flexible education models.

•••

Jeff Rice is founder/director of the Association of Personalized Learning Schools and Services (APLUS+), a membership association supporting schools that provide a flex-based 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.

Source link

27/05/2025
There’s a more equitable way to grade; districts should invest in it

Credit: Allison Shelley / EDUimage

Grading in most classrooms remains tied to rubrics devised by individual teachers and rooted in century-old practices. Recently, amid a broader national trend, grading systems in schools have come under increased scrutiny as educators and policymakers debate the best ways to support students. This movement further gained traction during the Covid-19 pandemic as educators tried new grading approaches to help students.

Traditional grading systems assess students through tests, homework and projects combined into a single class grade and other more subjective factors, such as behavior, attendance and classroom participation.

Standards-based grading, however, measures academic achievement without considering these subjective metrics. Standards-based grading measures academic achievement against specific content standards, offering students multiple opportunities to demonstrate knowledge. It still involves assigning grades, but these grades are based on students’ mastery of the content, making the process more transparent and individualized.

For example, when a friend of mine was in a math class that used standards-based grading, he was assessed on specific learning targets, like solving quadratic equations, without considering participation or behavior. In a traditional grading system, his final grade comprises quizzes, tests, homework, participation and behavior. As such, a poor test score early in the semester could significantly impact his final grade. On the other hand, in standards-based grading, he had multiple opportunities to retake tests and demonstrate improved understanding, so his final grade reflected his highest mastery level. Traditional grading boosted his grade with attendance and participation points, even if he didn’t fully understand the material. Standards-based grading showed his actual academic achievement.

While there isn’t any national data, individual states across the U.S. have begun to adopt standards-based grading. A 2021 statewide survey in Wyoming revealed that over 63% of middle schools and 35% of high schools had either started or fully implemented standards-based grading. In Delaware and Mississippi, schools have actively worked to support the use of high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials in K-12 classrooms.

Districts in California, including Lindsay Unified District in Tulare County, moved towards standards-based grading systems. High schools in Oakland are also transitioning to a more objective assessment system, emphasizing a gradual and inclusive approach to grading reform.

In my district, Dublin Unified, individual teachers instituted standards-based grading on a trial basis, but nine months ago, the district discontinued its standards-based grading system, impacting almost 13,000 students.

However, despite an overwhelming 85% of the student body voting in favor of standards-based grading practices, the school board discontinued the practice districtwide, preventing teachers from using any form of standards-based grading.

The rationale behind the board’s decision was simple: Trustees believed that standards-based grading decreased academic rigor and harmed students’ chances of success beyond high school by introducing a new grading system. Their concerns, primarily driven by parental pressure, focused on how the grades of high-performing students could fluctuate because of the introduction of a new grading system.

I acknowledge that standards-based grading was a new concept and could pose a risk to the perception of the academic achievement of high school students. (I was sympathetic, too; I am all too familiar with the competitive nature of high school.)

But I think the concerns about standards-based grading hindering academic progress are misguided. For traditionally high-performing students, this grading system allows these students, like all others, to focus on mastering concepts and skills. Instead of promoting memorization to pass tests, students are assessed on their ability to understand concepts, allowing the performance of these students to remain strong even under this new system. If anything, standards-based grading boosts academic performance, evidenced by a study that found that students in schools using standards-based grading were nearly twice as likely to score proficient on state assessments compared with those in traditional grading systems.

Our district’s push to switch to a standards-based grading system ultimately collapsed through misinformation and a lack of teacher training. This perceived lack of support made teachers feel they had to choose between supporting individual student needs and maintaining academic rigor, even though that wasn’t necessary.

Had our district provided more support for parents and teachers, we could have developed effective curriculums that help students and maintain rigor. Larkspur’s multi-year transparent process with teacher training and parent seminars allowed a smooth transition from traditional to standards-based grading. Similarly, in New York City, districts successfully shifted to the new system after training teachers and having town halls with parents.

The transition to standards-based grading or similar systems requires a shift in grading practices and a cultural and perceptual shift in how we view education and student success. It demands robust teacher training, practical communication with parents and students, and a collective commitment to redefining academic achievement. We must provide teachers, students,and parents with the necessary resources to succeed in these new grading paradigms. If we truly want to make education more equitable, districts must put their money where their mouths are and fully support our educators in this significant shift.

I hope the adults responsible for decisions regarding our schools and education can set aside partisanship and genuinely reassess grading practices. Because equity has never been, nor will it ever be, the enemy of achievement.

•••

Aakrisht Mehra just completed his junior year in the Dublin Unified School District.

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

26/05/2025
Should California’s college systems be merged into one university?

California State University, Dominguez Hills in Carson.

Credit: Stephinie Phan / EdSource

To better help students access and complete college, California should consider a major — and highly controversial — overhaul of its Master Plan for Higher Education that merges the state’s three public higher education systems into one mega-university, researchers argued Monday.

The bold proposal, detailed in a report from California Competes, a nonprofit research organization, suggests that the 10-campus University of California, the 23-campus California State University, and the state’s system of 116 community colleges be combined into a single California University that could accommodate a wide array of degree- and certificate-seeking students.

Su Jin Jez, author of the report and CEO of California Competes, said merging the systems would eliminate transfer problems and make it easier for students to enter, succeed, and finish college, among other benefits.

“This proposal is intentionally provocative,” Jez said during a webinar Monday. “It’s designed to challenge existing paradigms and spark transformative discourse.” The original version of the report was released in December, but an updated version was published Monday when California Competes also hosted a webinar promoting the report.

Jez acknowledged that it might never come to be. The proposal would likely face challenges from the systems themselves, along with many stakeholders such as unions, faculties, legislators and alumni.

Other experts, reached by EdSource, questioned the proposal’s political feasibility, and one criticized the idea, saying it would not be possible to combine such large and complex institutions.

Jez argued that the original master plan, adopted in 1960, is outdated in part because of the rising costs of college and the changing racial and gender demographics of the state’s college students. Whereas the majority of students were white in 1960, Latinos now make up a majority of college-age individuals in California and a plurality of college students. Women also account for a majority of students in California colleges, a major change since 1960, when male students were the significant majority.

The original master plan said UC was to focus on research and enroll the top academically achieving eighth of high school graduates, while California State University was to consist mostly of undergraduate programs and serve the top third of high school graduates. The state’s community colleges were to offer open-access undergraduate classes, associate degrees for transfer, and vocational training. Those lines have since been blurred to some degree: CSU now offers some doctoral programs, and dozens of community colleges offer at least one bachelor’s degree. But over much of its time, that master plan arrangement was often hailed as a great strength for the state, helping during explosive population growth and supporting key scientific research.

Under the proposed California University, the three segments would be merged into a network of regional campuses — such as California University, San Joaquin Valley, and California University, Los Angeles.

Each regional campus, which would be made up of one or several existing campuses, would offer a full range of programs and degrees, from certificates to doctorates. The LA campus, for example, would likely include the existing UCLA campus as well as the five CSU and many community college campuses in the county. It’s unclear how many regions would be included.

There would be no admission requirements, and transfers would be completely eliminated, as students would be able to move seamlessly through their chosen regional campus.

It would be highly challenging politically to merge the systems, which the report acknowledges. The co-directors of the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, which commissioned the report, urged Jez to “think boldly” in looking for a revised master plan, rather than come up with an immediately pragmatic solution, according to the report’s foreword.

Jez said during Monday’s webinar that she believes there is a “hunger for a new vision for higher ed in our state” and noted that higher education leaders have previously urged changes to the master plan.

Eloy Ortiz Oakley, the former chancellor of the state’s community college system, said in an interview that he agrees with the premise that the master plan is outdated and that he supports some of the report’s ideas, such as creating better coordination between the systems. But he rejected the idea of a single university.

“I could not and would not support it,” said Oakley, who is now CEO of the College Futures Foundation. “There is just no way in my mind that you could form one comprehensive governance entity, given the size and the scope of the three public university systems.”

Hans Johnson, a senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, previously called for modifications to the master plan in a 2010 report he wrote. He suggested at the time that, by 2025, the master plan be updated by setting explicit goals for improving eligibility, completion and transfer rates.

In a recent interview, Johnson said the state has made progress in increasing eligibility for UC and CSU and improving completion rates. He pointed to California residents’ enrollment being up significantly at both systems and noted graduation rates have improved greatly at CSU, particularly four-year rates.

Progress is still needed, though, in transferring more students to UC and CSU, he said. A state audit published last year found that, among students who began college between 2017 and 2019 and intended to transfer, only about 1 in 5 did so within four years. One thing that will be required, he said, is better coordination between the community college system, CSU and UC.

“You could argue that the way to do that is to have one big system, and I think that’s a valid argument,” he said, referring to the California Competes proposal. “Politically, I don’t know how realistic it is.”

The first step to better coordination could be some kind of coordinating council or board — similar to the California Postsecondary Education Commission, which was eliminated in 2011. Proponents say it would benefit the systems to be able to share data and information about their students and use that to strengthen transfers.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal included $5 million in annual funding to “establish a state planning and coordinating body for TK-12 education, higher education, and state economic and labor agencies,” though his revised budget released last week did not include that proposal.

“Despite the very large state expenditure on colleges, universities and programs, the state is operating without any institutional body that coordinates these systems or even provides basic data that would be essential for the rational management, maximum efficiency and coordination of the system,” the California Competes report states, adding that creating such a board is “particularly urgent and doable.”

Other proposals in the report may be less doable, Jez said Monday, adding that her proposal should be seen as a “vision,” even if making it happen would be “really tough.”

“Our higher ed system is the best in the world, and I want us to stay there,” she said. “And I think that this is a moment that we can accelerate and ask, how do we stay on the vanguard? How do we continue to be the ones that are creating new models that the rest of the world will follow?”

Source link

20/05/2025
All California students should be empowered to be ready for UC and CSU admission

Making Waves Academy, a charter school in Richmond, tries to instill a college-pursuing attitude while leaving room for kids to enter a career after graduation if they wish.

Courtesy: Making Waves Academy

There is a troubling trend in California that makes affordable and quality higher education — which is meant to be a public good — not even an option for most students, particularly Black and Latino students. It’s the inequity of students completing the “A-G” courses required for admission to the University of California and California State University systems. More than half of all students, and over two-thirds of Black and Latino students, did not meet these requirements — too often because the courses were not offered or the students didn’t know they were needed. This means they are ineligible for admission into California’s public universities.

As CEO of a grade 5-12 charter school in Richmond, I believe the A-G requirements should be seen as an asset rather than an obstacle for California schools. The requirements are transparent and attainable. They help prepare students academically, support eligibility for California’s public universities, and open up a variety of opportunities for students’ future career pathways. Ultimately, this helps alleviate inequities in education, the workforce and the economy.

At our school, our goal is that 100% of our students are ready for college while also embracing, supporting and celebrating students who want to pursue early post-secondary career options. Within the Class of 2024, 95% of our graduates are pursuing higher education, and within that group, 71% are planning to attend University of California or California State Universities campuses. Among our 1,000 or so fifth through 12th graders, 99% are students of color, and 85% are from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Here is how school and district leaders can build a culture around supporting students in meeting the A-G requirements.

Align your curriculum to the A-G requirements

Students don’t know what they don’t know. And they don’t always know there are specific course requirements to be eligible to attend public universities. It is our responsibility as school leaders and systems to align our curriculum to the A-G requirements and remove that burden on individual students.

The good news is that this is not a very heavy lift. In California, students are already required to take a variation of core academic subjects listed within the A-G requirements, such as English, history, science and math. Making sure students are taking a lab science class, a third year of a world language, or a math up to Algebra II are small but meaningful adjustments to their course schedules that would help more students meet the A-G requirements, thus meeting eligibility requirements for UC and CSU campuses.

Get creative to track individual students

For every college and career counselor in California, there are 464 students. It’s no wonder 56% of California students experience barriers to meeting the requirements. Instead of relying solely on counselors, make the most of advisory period. Advisory period teachers can reinforce college readiness and help track individual students’ progress on the A-G requirements. Our advisory teachers track the same cohort of students from ninth through 12th grade. With this support, students can also practice their agency by being actively involved in mapping out their courses and paying attention to their post-graduation plans, which serves them well whether they ultimately pursue college or not.

Be inclusive of non-college-going students

It is important to note that a culture that embraces the A-G requirements and college readiness and a culture that embraces a continuum of college and career options can and should live side by side. It is a both/and approach not an either/or approach. Allow for both. When you align to the A-G requirements, you ensure that students meet the “floor” for college eligibility. Build further understanding with students on the continuum of attainable pathways. For example, the A-G requirements can also align with career technical education, which integrates core academic courses with technical and occupational ones. This way, students can explore career interests and still remain eligible for college. Knowing the range of options available means students can choose what’s best for them.

Communicate early and often with parents and families

California has some of the world’s best and most affordable opportunities for higher education. Tragically, many students and families don’t know these opportunities are attainable. The importance of the A-G requirements and information around college affordability must be communicated to students and families early and often. Ideally, regular updates and information sessions start with students and families in middle school. For example, we set clear expectations with students and families at fifth grade orientation. We talk to them about the A-G requirements being built into our curriculum and about our school culture around college readiness. Time and time again, we see ecstatic students and families when they realize college is accessible and attainable.

It’s our responsibility as school leaders or school systems to provide the necessary courses and support to bridge the inequities between high school to college and careers. The logistical challenges are surely outweighed by the opportunities: more racial representation in higher education, an increase in economic mobility for students from low-income backgrounds, and a more diverse and educated workforce.

•••

Alton B. Nelson Jr. is the CEO of Making Waves Academy in the Bay Area city of Richmond.

The opinions in this commentary are those of the author. We welcome guest commentaries with diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.

Source link

11/05/2025
UC, Cal State, community colleges should work together to boost transfer rates, auditor says

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

Credit: Karin Higgins/UC Davis

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

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

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

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

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

Complexity leads to low transfer rates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Streamlining transfer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

10/05/2025
New Cal State Bakersfield president says campus should see Kern County’s education problems ‘as our own’

Vernon B. Harper Jr.

Courtesy of California State University, Bakersfield

Vernon B. Harper Jr. is scratching the word “interim” from his nameplate at California State University, Bakersfield.

Harper, who has served as the university’s interim president since the end of 2023, was named CSUB’s permanent president on Wednesday, the second day of a Cal State board of trustees meeting dominated by discussions about the financial pressures facing the university system. The system is projecting a $400 million to $800 million budget gap in 2025-26 as state leaders signal their intention to reduce funding for CSU.

CSU Bakersfield has been able to prevent students from feeling the effects of a reduced budget, Harper said, buoyed by growing enrollment this school year. His focus is on making what he calls a “pivot towards the community” — expanding programs to boost the number of Kern County high school graduates and community college transfer students who enroll at CSUB. The Central Valley is growing rapidly but has lower college attainment than the rest of the state.

Harper envisions the university taking a more active role alongside local K-12 schools to increase the number of students who meet A-G requirements, the coursework that makes students eligible to start college at a Cal State or University of California campus. Only 36% of Kern County high school graduates completed such coursework in the 2022-23 school year, according to state education data, compared with 52% of high school graduates statewide.

“That’s the real transition that the institution is making. It is to accept those problems as our own,” Harper said. “We’re partnering with our K-12 providers and making sure that we’re doing absolutely everything we can to raise that statistic. We’re not just going to sit back passively and watch our community go in a direction that we don’t want it to go.”

One example of the work Harper hopes to get done: CSUB’s teacher education program is forming a task force with the Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office and the Kern High School District in a bid to increase the number of students who are A-G qualified, he said.

The campus is also experimenting with ways to get local students thinking about college even before they leave middle school. It recently started a pilot program with four middle schools and four high schools in which students as young as 12 will receive notices that they are guaranteed admission to CSUB so long as they meet A-G requirements.

“We’ve seen that with young people, especially in under-resourced populations, their vision is truncated by their circumstance,” Harper said. “Whatever we can do, we have a responsibility to do, to extend that vision as far as it can go.”

The past decade has seen rising graduation rates at CSUB. Among first-time, full-time freshmen who entered Cal State Bakersfield in 2017, 49% graduated in six years, an almost 10 percentage-point increase from 2007. But the school has not caught up to some of its Cal State peers. Systemwide, the six-year graduation rate for the same group of students in the fall 2017 cohort was roughly 62%.

Harper said that the intervention that seems to have the most impact on improving graduation rates is pairing students with an academic adviser who works with them throughout their time at CSUB, guiding them through unforeseen challenges, like switching into a course that fits the student’s work schedule.

“As much as we can invest in that activity, the more positive outcomes that we (see),” he said.

The university is also experiencing some of the same longstanding graduation equity gaps that exist across California higher education. The six-year graduation rate among Black students who entered CSUB as freshmen in the fall 2017 cohort was 40%, lagging Asian, Latino and white students.

Harper has backed several CSUB initiatives to attract and retain Black students. Harper said that community college students at Bakersfield College who participate in the Umoja program, which includes courses on African American culture as well as mentorship and academic counseling, will find they can continue receiving similar support now that CSUB has its own Umoja program for transfers. The campus plans to open a Black Students Success Center in the spring and has already hired a group of faculty members whose work is focused on minoritized communities, Harper said.

Harper’s tenure as CSUB’s permanent president begins at a moment when the California State University system is raising financial alarm bells.

Cal State leaders are anticipating that a $164 million increase in revenue from tuition hikes will not be enough to alleviate other stresses on its budget. The system expects that state general fund revenue will drop nearly $400 million, according to a September budget presentation, and that $250 million in compact funding will be delayed. The university system also faces rising projected costs, including for basics it can’t avoid like increased health care premiums and utilities expenses.

Speaking at a Sep. 24 meeting, trustee Diego Arambula said the university system has “almost been too effective at making these cuts year over year over year” without explaining to legislators the impact those budget reductions are already having on students.

“We are doing everything we can to make them as far away from students, but a hiring freeze is a hiring freeze, and that does impact students if we’re not bringing someone into a role that we know is important,” Arambula said. “It’s impacting our staff, who are taking on more to try and still meet the needs of the students who are here.”

CSUB officials last spring said they planned to cut the school’s 2024-25 net operating budget by about 7%, citing a decline in enrollment and increased salary and benefits costs. The school had less than a month of funding in its rainy day fund in 2022-23, slightly less than the net operating budget across the CSU system at that point.

But Harper said enrollment this year is up between 4% and 5%, driving tuition growth that is alleviating some budget pressure. The campus also has made temporary cuts to areas that aren’t student-facing, he said, such as professional development.

“We’ve been able to really, really shield any negative effects on students,” Harper said.

Harper succeeds Lynnette Zelezny as president. He was previously Cal State Bakersfield’s provost and vice president for academic affairs. He will receive a salary of $429,981 and a $50,000 housing allowance.

Harper was first hired at CSUB in 2016. Prior to his arrival at Cal State Bakersfield, he worked at West Chester University of Pennsylvania, Wilkes University of Pennsylvania and the State Council for Higher Education of Virginia.

He holds a bachelor’s degree in communication from Pennsylvania State University, a master’s degree in rhetoric from West Chester University and a doctorate in human communication from Howard University. He served eight years in the U.S. Army Reserve.

Source link

10/05/2025
What schools should know about the liability insurance crisis in foster care
Koinonia Family Services is one of the foster family agencies that received a letter of nonrenewal. Their policy expires in 2025.

Credit: Ourpromiseca/Instagram

A seismic disruption of the foster system is underway in California, with no clear solution in sight for the 9,000 school-aged children whose lives and schooling may be severely impacted.

Most foster family agencies in California either lost liability insurance coverage on Sept. 30 or will lose it once their current policies end after their insurer pulled out of the market.

“A blanket non-renewal would cause a collapse of the California foster family system,” the company, Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California, acknowledged recently.

The agencies cannot remain open without liability insurance, and few companies offer the required coverage for the agencies, which manage thousands of foster families caring for roughly 9,000 foster children statewide.

Some agencies that managed to acquire coverage in recent weeks complained that the premiums are exponentially higher than what they paid previously.

The insurance crisis currently affects only the foster families managed through the state’s more than 200 agencies, not those managed by their local counties. The impact may be far-reaching, however, especially if counties have to take on a significant number of foster families from agencies.

Families are screened and certified to foster in two ways: directly by their local counties or through private nonprofits that counties contract with called foster family agencies.

No matter how a foster care family obtains its certification, it must retain insurance to protect against potential liabilities.

As agencies decide on their next steps, advocates say educators should keep in mind that some of their students might be part of the foster youth at risk of being displaced from their homes.

This guide explains how the crisis occurred, what it means for foster youth, and what school staff can consider as it unfolds.

What do foster family agencies do?

Agencies are known for providing 24/7 support to foster families, which can include, but is not limited to:
- Training foster families to advocate for children’s educational rights, such as establishing individualized education plans
- Facilitating reunification visits between the foster youth and their biological family
- Providing tutoring services
- Providing transportation to and from extracurricular activities that the foster parent might not be able to work into their schedule
- Supporting foster families as they become mentors for biological parents reunified with their child
Families fostering through agencies often expect to receive a higher degree of support than a county might be able to offer.

Why is this happening?
Nonprofit Insurance Alliance of California previously insured 90% of foster family agencies in California, but they issued letters of nonrenewal to all of those agencies in late August.

The company said foster family agencies are “uninsurable” because they are “being set up as scapegoats” and “held accountable for the wrongful acts of others beyond their scope of control” in cases where children are harmed.

The nonrenewal letters came less than a year after a jury awarded $24.8 million in December to three siblings who were sexually abused in a foster home certified by a Northern California foster family agency that failed to complete many of the required screenings and assessments prior to placing children in the home.

The nonprofit insurance alliance insured the agency and initially rejected multiple settlement offers from the three siblings. The insurer instead took the case to trial, where the jury awarded a settlement higher than the siblings’ initial offers.

The non-renewal decision also came after recent legislation extended the statute of limitations for reporting child sexual assault and provided a three-year window for victims to sue in cases where the statute of limitations had expired. The changes also allowed for damages to be tripled in certain cases.

Who is impacted by the insurance challenge?

The challenge affects foster youth and families whose lives are in limbo as their agencies confront the issue, agencies that are ending services in the face of sudden increased insurance costs, counties that might be managing greater caseloads amid their own staff shortages as foster families potentially transfer under their care, and the people whose jobs might be on the line if foster cases are transferred from agencies.

Roughly 9,000 youth out of over 41,000 total foster youth in California live with families overseen by agencies.

They are some of the highest-needs children and teens within the foster system, said Christine Stoner-Mertz, CEO of California Alliance of Child and Family Services, which represents foster family agencies. Many are medically fragile, identify as LGBTQ+, are older and sometimes have other teenage siblings, or they have significant behavioral challenges.

The families who foster them are burdened with uncertainty as they figure out if their agency will remain open and if their foster children will remain in their homes.

Counties are verifying the scope of the problem, at times transferring families into the county foster system to avoid displacing children. They are checking in with local agencies to ascertain if they received a notice of non-renewal and how long their policies are in effect, said Eileen Cubanski, interim executive director of County Welfare Directors Association of California.

But counties are rife with problems as it is, with shortages of staff and foster homes.

Tiffany Sickler, executive director of a foster family agency called Koinonia Family Services, received a notice of non-renewal, but their policy doesn’t expire until next year.

Even so, some of her agency’s families have transferred to counties, believing that is their only option for keeping their foster children at home.

Agencies sustain themselves by taking on foster cases; losing a foster family leads to a reduction in revenue and caseloads. If this continues, Sickler said it could ultimately lead to staff layoffs.

What happens to foster youth?

Many children’s lives are expected to be disrupted, particularly those whose agencies are shuttering or losing coverage before they can transfer families to counties or another agency.

In those cases, foster youth might be moved to placements far from their schools of origin, requiring them to transfer and lose connections they may have developed at school.

Some may be moved to placements that allow them to remain at their school of origin, but advocates say the disruption in their home lives is likely to impact their education.

“If you’re worried about where you’re going to sleep, how well do you show up? Even if you’re physically present, how well do you show up to learn in the classroom?” said Cubanski. “It’s those added traumas and stressors, I think, that really play a significant role in the educational trajectory of these youth.”

Some agencies whose insurance policies ended Sept. 30 got coverage with other companies. In such cases, foster youth remain in their current homes with no disruptions. But agencies are reporting increased premiums anywhere between 30% to 400% from their previous coverage.

“Many (agencies) are saying, ‘We don’t know exactly how we’re going to get the money, but we’re going to do this at least for a year’ in hopes that maybe there’s a broader solution that gets put in place to keep kids and families stable,” said Stoner-Mertz. “At this moment, that’s the best case scenario because people are concerned about kids’ stability on a very broad level, and certainly education is a component of that.”

Advocates are hopeful that some relief might come their way via the state. The state’s insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, issued a notice in August “encouraging all property and casualty insurance companies licensed or doing business in California” to offer the coverage that agencies need, but it remains unclear how many companies have heeded the call.

“What we need is the state to really step in to really stabilize the market,” said Stoner-Mertz, who said her organization is discussing solutions with the Department of Social Services and the Department of Insurance.

What should educators know?

Advocates say educators and school staff are likely unaware that foster youth may be displaced due to the insurance crisis. They suggest checking in with youth and their foster families to better understand what might be happening with their placements.

On a larger scale, advocates are looking to build a coalition to focus on the insurance issues — and they are hoping that schools will join.

That’s because “schools are facing this exact same problem” of insurers seeking to exit their market due to increased settlements related to child sexual abuse cases, according to Stoner-Mertz and Adrienne Shilton, vice president of public policy and strategy at the California Alliance of Child and Family Services.

“It’s a huge issue far beyond these very niche organizations,” Stoner-Mertz said.

The starting point would be to ensure children are not hurt, she added. If they are hurt, they should have their day in court.

In that process, Stoner-Mertz said the challenge for a coalition would be: “How do we ensure that they’re getting their needs met and that there are systems that are not destroyed in the process that they also need?” she asked.

Can families transfer to their local county or another agency?

They can, but one challenge with transferring to counties is that the families certified through agencies are accustomed to a higher level of support, said Shilton.

Additionally, agencies can work with families who live across the state, making transfers more complex than they may initially appear.

Stoner-Mertz provided the following example: Some families have foster children from different counties. If that family transferred from an agency to a county, “then how does that get sorted out in terms of what county takes on that placement?”

Advocates also have significant concerns about counties’ capacity to take on a currently undetermined number of youth and families.

“It’s a big lift for some counties. … We’ve certainly heard from LA that they are not equipped to take on the number of families that could potentially end up having to be transferred,” Stoner-Mertz said.

Advocates say staffing shortages play a role in that diminished capacity, but often, there is also a difference in philosophy.

County child welfare programs are “very child-only focused” and agencies are family-focused, said Sickler, meaning that counties often provide services solely for children, while agencies often provide services for the entire foster family.

“You can’t just leave the foster families kind of out in the wind and just offer services and programs to the kids that are in their home,” said Sickler, whose agency works with families across 11 California counties. “You have to support the family — I mean, if you want a successful outcome anyway.”

Families can also transfer between agencies, a process recently streamlined by legislation.

Assembly Bill 2496 was initially championed by the Nonprofits Insurance Alliance of California. Its original text included provisions that limited the insurer’s liability, which advocates said deteriorated victims’ rights to sue.

The bill’s text was amended at the eleventh hour, removing the provisions and instead streamlining the transfer of families between agencies by removing administrative burdens.

The company responded to the amended bill by announcing the non-renewals and stating that “foster family agencies are being set up as scapegoats” in claims of child abuse.

They also announced they will immediately terminate coverage, rather than non-renew, of agencies that take families from an agency utilizing the new streamlined process.

The bill will “substantially increase the risk to California FFAs and the children they serve,” the company wrote in the announcement, stating that the bill allows for “transfers with a less-rigorous vetting process.”

The announcement threw a wrench into an already complex series of events, advocates said. “Frankly, what has been the bigger burden has been the insurer itself,” said Cubanski.

“They’ve asserted that the bill makes those families riskier, makes the children less safe,” she continued. “I cannot vehemently enough object to that characterization. It really is about trying to streamline some of the administrative paperwork burden — there is nothing different about the risk or the level of safety of these families.”

A previous version of the story incorrectly noted that the non-renewal decision came after “recent judicial changes” and misquoted the insurance company regarding the agencies’ insurability. The story has been updated to reflect that the non-renewal decision came after recent legislation signed into law in 2019 and to correct the company’s statement on agencies being “uninsurable.”
Source link
07/05/2025
Maybe we should get rid of the U.S. Department of Education

Credit: Carlos Kosienski/Sipa via AP Images

In 1994, I was the press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education when Republicans took over Congress and threatened to shut us down. My then boss, Secretary Dick Riley, would joke in almost every speech he gave that each morning his wife would open the newspaper and say, “Hey! looks like they’re trying to fire you again!” He regularly talked about it because it quickly became clear to us that people deeply believed in the Education Department’s mission and that the threats against us were bad politics.

I was thinking of this when I watched Donald Trump’s 10-point plan for education. I was struck by its contradictory nature of wanting to dismantle federal involvement in schools, while simultaneously trying to dictate curriculum and impose ideological policies. The department was established in 1979 to ensure resources were being spent on our nation’s poorest children.

Now, three decades after my time at the department, the same battle is resurfacing with a new twist. At its heart, what Trump’s really proposing is a hollowing out of the department’s founding mission — not a true decentralization of power to states, but a reimagining of federal oversight as a tool for ideological control instead of a protection for our nation’s most vulnerable.

But here’s the paradox: Without a Department of Education and federal resources, there’s less leverage to enforce his ideological agenda. As a result, we may be in a bizarre quandary of having to choose between these two opposite visions. Given the choice between a Department of Education that no longer champions equity and no department at all, perhaps it’s time to consider the latter.

The plan, as I understand it, is to move higher ed funding (Pell Grants and student loans) and education research to other agencies while providing equity-driven K-12 federal funds as block grants to be spent however states want.

In California, the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF) ensures that schools serving students with the greatest needs — low-income students, English learners and foster youth — receive additional resources. With LCFF, we’ve built a system that both works and meets this moment (though we may also need to codify our clear commitment to special education). As someone who has spent decades in education policy, I don’t say this lightly — in fact, it breaks my heart. But this moment calls for different thinking. The U.S. Department of Education has been a force for good in countless lives. But it should not stand if it’s dictated by ideological agendas. Quality education for all children must remain our North Star in California, because when we center our most vulnerable students, we all succeed.

•••

Rick Miller is the CEO of CORE Districts, a collaboration of nine large California urban districts. He previously served as press secretary for the U.S. Department of Education and as deputy state superintendent at the California Department of 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.

Source link

03/05/2025