برچسب: students

To improve how California students read, we must get past confusion and misinformation
A student holds a flash card with the sight word ‘friend’ during a class at Nystrom Elementary in the West Contra Costa Unified School District in 2022.

Credit: Andrew Reed / EdSource

The “science of reading” confuses and confounds many of us. It’s understandable. There is much misleading and outright false information floating around.

On one hand, too many science of reading advocates claim an unwarranted degree of certainty, for example, that we know from the science how to get 95% of all students on grade level. Vague and unhelpful definitions make matters worse. I’ve even heard advocates say we should treat all children as if they were dyslexic, a claim for which there is zero evidence.

On the other hand, science of reading skeptics spread mischaracterizations and outright fictions. An egregious example was a recent California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE) webinar intended to “debunk” the brain science behind the science of reading by claiming that a key tool used to study the brain (functional magnetic resonance imaging, or fMRI) could not detect brain activity that involved meaning or comprehension. The world’s foremost reading neuroscientist debunked the would-be debunker by pointing out that 20 years of research have shown that writing and speaking “activate extremely similar brain circuits for meaning.“

How can we ever make progress when we’re locked in an eternal game of whack-a-false-mole?

We can all agree learning to read is complicated, and so is the teaching. But there are also a few straightforward and irrefutable findings from research that should constitute the foundations for reading policies. This is particularly important for the students who are most harmed when we fail to use the best knowledge available: low-income students and students who have difficulty learning to read.
- Learning to speak and understand oral language is fundamentally different from learning to read and write. A first language is typically acquired effortlessly if we’re with people who speak it. Learning to read requires explicit teaching to one degree or another.
- Oral language is foundational to reading, because reading requires visually accessing the oral language centers in our brains. Our brain is prepared from birth to make sense of what we hear when people talk, but to read we must learn how to see written language (print), connect it to oral language, and then make sense of it. Neuroscientists have identified the transformation of brain centers and the development of neural pathways that enable an individual to connect print to speech and speech to print.
- Without those connections, literacy is difficult, if not impossible. Foundational literacy skills — usually called “phonics” or “decoding” — are essential for connecting spoken English to written English. Teaching these skills is “nonnegotiable,” and explicit, systematic instruction in how the sounds of the language (“phonemes”) are represented by letters is the approach most likely to lead to individuals’ learning to read.
- In contrast, “balanced literacy” (sometimes called “3-cueing”) is far less effective and even counterproductive — particularly for students who benefit most from direct and clear instruction — because it does not clearly and systematically teach the necessary reading skills described above. (“Balanced literacy” is a misappropriation of the National Reading Panel’s use of “balanced” to mean phonics instruction balanced with language and comprehension-oriented instruction.)
- After acquiring decoding skills, word recognition must become automatic. Decoding a word each time it’s encountered is an obstacle to comprehension. Individuals must know and apply spelling (orthographic) rules, including the exceptions, then practice and apply the rules to words they know orally as they encounter words in print. This creates a growing bank of words that are instantly recognizable once readers have connected each word’s sounds, spelling and meaning several times. This is very different from memorizing whole words. Connecting (“binding”) individual sounds to corresponding letters, then to the word’s meaning is critical. Once readers can read words they didn’t already know, reading becomes a way to learn new words.
- The importance of language development, comprehension, knowledge and other skills is widely acknowledged by those who actually understand the research into how people learn to read. These skills and attributes must be a focus of attention even before reading instruction commences and should continue as children develop foundational literacy skills and throughout their school careers. (See Scarborough’s iconic “Reading Rope” depicting much more than phonics and decoding, and including background knowledge, vocabulary, language structures, verbal reasoning and literacy knowledge.)
- Language, vocabulary, knowledge and other skills must merge with automatic word recognition skills to produce fluent reading and comprehension, which then must be continuously supported and improved as students progress through school. Continued practice and development of skilled fluent reading is particularly critical for students most dependent on schools for successful literacy development. Neither word recognition nor language comprehension alone is sufficient for successful reading development. Both are essential.
- All of the above is true for students in general, and especially true for vulnerable populations. Some students require additional consideration. For example, English learners in all-English instruction must receive additional instruction in English language development, such as vocabulary, since they are learning to read in English as they simultaneously learn to speak and understand it.
- English learners fortunate enough to be in long-term bilingual programs can become bilingual and biliterate. The processes involved in becoming biliterate are essentially the same in each language: Building on spoken language skills, foundational literacy skills link print to the sounds of the language, then to the oral language centers in the brain. Ongoing development of language, vocabulary, knowledge, and other skills and dispositions is essential for continued biliteracy development, as it is for literacy development in a single language or in any language.
California has a long way to go if we are to develop useful policies around reading education for every student. All relevant parties, including teachers and parents, must have a voice in formulating such policies.

But those voices must be well-informed. Misinformation and falsehoods must be eliminated from the conversation, replaced by clear understandings of the best knowledge we have.

With fewer than half of California’s students — and even fewer English-learners, low-income students, and students with disabilities — able to read at grade level, can we afford to waste another day?

•••

Claude Goldenberg is Nomellini & Olivier Professor of Education, emeritus, in the Graduate School of Education at Stanford University and a former first grade and junior high teacher.

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
28/05/2025
Trump Threatens to Transfer Harvard’s Billions for Scientific Research to Trade Schools, Demands Names of Foreign Students

Trump is a petty man who is filled with rage, grievance, and a passion for retribution. His current target is Harvard University because the nation’s most prestigious university told him no. Harvard’s President Alan Garber said it would not allow the federal government to control its curriculum, its admissions, and its hiring policies. No.

Every Cabinet department has pulled research grants to Harvard. Now he warns he might turn the billions that were going to medical and scientific research and hand it over to trade schools.

He would rather stop researchers who are trying to find cures for cancer, tuberculosis, Alzheimer’s, multiple sclerosis, and other diseases than back down on his efforts to stifle academic freedom and his vendetta against Harvard.

I don’t know about you, but I would rather see the federal government fund the search for a cure for MS than withdraw the funding. If he wants to fund trade schools, why should he do so at the expense of crucial research?

He wrote on Truth Social yesterday:

^{“I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land,” Trump said in a post on social media. “What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!”}

Meanwhile, Trump dreamed up another way to harass Harvard during the hours when he couldn’t get to sleep. He demanded that Harvard give him a list containing the names and countries of origin of all its foreign students. Harvard has nearly 7,000 foreign students. Why? What will he do with those names? Will he say they are spies and try again to expel them? Funny thing is he already has all their names and countries. They were registered when they applied for a visa. It’s all a campaign of endless vengeance by a petty, bitter man.

Source link

27/05/2025
Map: Most California districts identified more homeless students this year

The number of homeless students statewide increased by 9.3%, according to recently released state enrollment data. Out of 761 districts, 433 — or 57% — reported an increase in their number of homeless students. This map shows the change in the homeless student population by district from 2023–24 to 2024–25. Click on a district to see the percent change and the number of homeless students enrolled.

Note: A particularly sharp increase from one year to the next may be due to improved tracking or reporting practices. Please contact the district for further details.

Data source: California Department of Education and EdSource Data Analysis

Source link

27/05/2025
California schools see 9% surge in homeless students as funds decrease

Students work on homework during an after-school program in Chico, the largest city in Butte County. (File photo)

Credit: Julie Leopo / EdSource

The number of students experiencing homelessness who were enrolled in California’s TK-12 public schools has jumped over 9% for yet another year, even as overall enrollment rates continue on a downward trend.

Nearly 20,000 more homeless students were enrolled by the first Wednesday in October, known as Census Day, during the 2024-25 school year. This increase represents a 9.3% change from the previous school year, and it means the homeless student population in the state has surged 37% in the last decade.

Schools say the spike in homelessness is due both to families’ worsening financial troubles and improved identification efforts. Covid-era funding, refined data tracking, and improved training and protocol have resulted in schools being more likely to properly identify homeless students than in the past.

“It’s a combination of a perfect storm where you have all of these elements coming into play, which then speaks to that increase. The data is highlighting the need to continue these supports,” said Alejandra Chamberlain, youth services director for the Contra Costa County Office of Education.

Families are increasingly financially strained

Coachella Valley Unified School District’s homeless student enrollment tripled, a reflection of the economic struggles their families are experiencing, said Karina Vega, a district support counselor.

Increased fear of immigration enforcement is contributing to homelessness in the area. Vega shared how a student’s mother could no longer afford to pay rent after her husband was deported; another family lives in their car, and they travel each weekend across the Mexican border to spend time with a deported parent; others are constantly moving to stay off the radar of immigration officials because they fear being deported.

Many of her students live in inadequate housing. Electricity may need to be wired from one trailer to the next, water may have been shut off, or multiple families live in a small space due to financial hardship.

“We’ve seen more families than we’ve probably ever seen” experiencing homelessness, Vega said.

But she noted that students were identified at a greater rate after more school personnel learned that homelessness does not only mean someone is on the streets.

“The reality is, a lot of us that work for the school district grew up in the valley and some of these things that we see are typical, like trailer parks and inadequate housing,” Vega said.

This is where the (Riverside) county’s training on identifying all types of homelessness, an effort they have championed down to the school sites, has made a significant difference, she added.

In Mendocino County, many families who once held jobs in the waning marijuana industry are now struggling to make ends meet, said Blythe Post, coordinator of foster youth and homeless services at the Mendocino County Office of Education.

Their rural 89,000-person county is vast, but there are few affordable housing options to choose from, she said, pushing more and more of their students and families into homelessness.

But increased homelessness is only one part of the problem.

‘I anticipate we will see a huge drop’

Although the official number of homeless students continues to rise, liaisons believe the actual numbers are far higher.

Under the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, every public school district, county office of education and charter school is required to hire a local liaison to ensure that homeless youth are identified and have the educational services they need to succeed academically. This federal law is also the reason that schools have counts of homeless students at all.

This law may be at risk under the Trump administration if the U.S. Department of Education is shuttered or its funding is lumped into a block grant as stated in Trump’s budget proposal.

“There’s going to be more kids to count and fewer people to count them, and then fewer services,” said Margaret Olmos, director of the National Center for Youth Law’s Compassionate Education Systems.

Liaisons say accurate counts are difficult to reach for a host of reasons. The information is self-reported, and some families are reluctant to share their housing status with school personnel. It’s rare that a school liaison only serves homeless students. Most have divided attention because they are supporting foster students and low-income students. In smaller districts, they may be the support liaison for all students.

“There’s going to be more kids to count and fewer people to count them, and then fewer services,”

Margaret Olmos, National Center for Youth Law

In some ways, schools have been here before. During the 2022-23 school year, for example, the rate of homeless students enrolled in California schools rose 9% while overall student enrollment dipped.

Then, as now, families were confronting skyrocketing housing and cost-of-living expenses. The rolling impact of expiring eviction moratoriums put in place during the pandemic and the loss of housing due to disasters, including fires and floods, have further exacerbated the issue. And, similarly, liaisons attributed much of the increase to families being squeezed financially as identification practices were simultaneously improved.

But while the situation might appear familiar, liaisons say they are at a crossroads — and many do not think the odds are in their favor.

Liaisons said a 2021 state law requiring that schools include a housing questionnaire in enrollment packets has supported identification efforts. But many say what made the single, greatest difference is the one-time funding they received from the pandemic-era American Rescue Plan – Homeless Children and Youth (ARP-HCY) federal grant. The total amounted to $98.76 million for California, which was spread to 92.1% of districts over several years.

“ARP-HCY was the first time you saw school districts and counties be incentivized to find and care and count — and they did,” Olmos said.

How districts and counties applied the funds varied widely. Liaisons said it depended on their school community’s needs. Some booked short-term motel stays for students whose families were being evicted or were on homeless shelter waiting lists or provided transportation to and from school. Other liaisons hired staff to improve data tracking or who spoke students’ native languages. Still, others established after-school care, provided baby supplies for students’ younger siblings, or purchased washers and dryers to provide free laundry services for families.

Some districts opted to focus a portion of funds on improving data tracking practices.

Mendocino County’s Round Valley Unified went from one homeless student to 199 in just one school year — one of the greatest surges in the state. That increase was a reflection of more data training and tightened protocols, Post said.

“When I see those jumps in numbers … that tells me that there’s a problem with identification or communication between who’s inputting the records and who’s submitting those data reports,” Post said.

What comes next?

There are no plans by either the federal or state government to replenish the one-time federal funds at anywhere near the same levels, which has left some liaisons to cut services and staff and lament a near future with lowered capacity to count and serve homeless students.

Map: Most California districts identified more homeless students this year

Use the map to view the change in the homeless student population by district from the 2023–24 to 2024–25 school year.

“There’s going to be a number of families that just fall under the radar,” Post said. “I anticipate we will see a huge drop in McKinney-Vento numbers; those families will just not be served or identified.”

Some districts do rely on funds from the federal McKinney-Vento law, but educators say the 1987 act was never adequately funded by the state or federal government. Funding cycles are every three years, and it’s a competitive grant that reaches few districts. California received less than $15 million in this funding for the 2022-23 school year, for example, which went to just 6% of the state’s school districts, according to an analysis by SchoolHouse Connection and the University of Michigan’s Poverty Solutions program.

The state has released billions of dollars in recent years to address general homelessness. But funds aimed at youth are often targeted to those over the age of 18, including $56 million in new grants announced Friday by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office.

Liaisons have also long highlighted that few of those dollars ultimately reach students who are living doubled-up — where more than one family lives in a single home due to financial crises — which is how the majority of homeless students in the state and nationwide live. Doubling-up is identified as homelessness under the McKinney-Vento act, but not under other federal definitions of homelessness.

And while schools receive extra funding for homeless students from the state through the state’s Local Control Funding Formula, or LCFF, this stream is often limited in how it can be spent and is shared among several vulnerable student groups with differing needs.

“There is a part of really acknowledging to the community that other special populations receive state funding to be able to carry out the responsibilities and to dedicate staff to do that work” while homeless students rely on the limited federal dollars, said Chamberlain, who is also one of three leads for the state’s Homeless Education Technical Assistance Center network.

Advocates have pushed for the state to, at a minimum, match the McKinney-Vento dollars California receives, but that amount has yet to make it into the state budget.

Despite the increases, liaisons and advocates are clear that the rising numbers alongside decreasing dedicated funding puts kids at risk.

“If we cannot identify these kids early and serve them and ensure they go on to a choice-filled adulthood, they’re so much more likely to end up experiencing homelessness as an adult,” Olmos said.

EdSource reporter Emma Gallegos contributed to this story.

Source link

27/05/2025
Identifying CODA students as bilingual learners boosts academic success

Children of Deaf Adults attending the KODAWest summer camp.

Courtesy: KODAWest

Three decades ago, I was flagged as needing special education services because I had a Deaf parent.

The teachers found gaps in my academic and linguistic development. I received those services for six years until a school speech pathologist noted that my language and speech delays were because of a language difference — American Sign Language, or ASL, was my first language — and not a language disorder.

Not recognizing earlier that special education services were not what I needed was a waste of resources, not to mention unhelpful to my progress as a student. What I needed was support as an English learner; instead, I had to sink or swim as I figured out school on my own.

The same is true of my student Ryan, a third-grader, and a CODA — a child of Deaf adults. Ryan and I are both bilingual; we learned American Sign Language as our first language and English as our second. There are significant language differences between ASL and English. ASL has its own grammar and syntax and is wholly separate from English. However, children who learn American Sign Language as their first language are not classified as English learners. This is why Ryan is identified as a special education student, not an English learner, just as I was 30 years ago.

Just like my teachers, Ryan’s teachers worried that he might have a learning disability. Ryan was not assessed in sign language when evaluated for special education services, so he was placed in a special day class. He was identified as having a specific learning disability, a language disorder and articulation errors.

Just as I didn’t need special education services, neither does Ryan. If ASL were considered a language separate from English, Ryan would be an English learner. As such, he would have access to language support in the general education setting. He would not be placed in a special education class or lose valuable time learning with his peers while he receives services from a speech language pathologist.

General education classrooms are designed to support English language development, which children like Ryan also need. Receiving language support means getting help with learning a second language by sounding out letters and words, understanding the phonics behind them, syntax and vocabulary, and building connections between English and American Sign Language so that students can grow their vocabulary in both languages.

Identifying Ryan as an English learner would also have preserved his multiculturalism by celebrating his cultural and linguistic differences. English learner programs are designed to incorporate students’ native languages and cultural backgrounds into the learning process. At their best, these programs validate heritage and provide an inclusive environment, empowering students to share their unique perspectives and helping them feel like they belong in our classrooms. This is what Ryan needs.

I struggled with my identity for a long time, and sometimes, I still do. It took me several years to catch up to my peers academically and linguistically, and all the while, I didn’t understand why learning was so hard for me. I certainly didn’t think of myself as bilingual. My mother could not help me with phonics or reading in spoken language, so my homework took me hours to complete. Often, I used my lunchtime to sit with teachers to help me with projects, and I would go to friends’ houses after school, so their parents would help me with my work. It shouldn’t have been this difficult, but it was.

Children of Deaf adults deserve to be successful in their education and should have help learning English alongside their bilingual peers who use spoken languages. Although my experience is 30 years older than Ryan’s, it is eerily similar.

Change is needed, and the time is now, because every student deserves to succeed.

•••

Olivia Chavez-Hart, Ed.D., is an itinerant teacher of the Deaf and hard of hearing and an induction coach in the San Bernardino City Unified School District in San Bernardino. She is a 2024-25 Teach Plus California Senior Policy Fellow.

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
California releases $470 million to put students on track for college and career

Students at Skyline High School in Oakland discuss coursework in one of four career-themed pathways.

Photo by Allison Shelley/The Verbatim Agency for EDUimages

California has made good on a promise in the 2022 budget to invest in programs that simultaneously prepare students for both college and career.

Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office announced Friday that the state has released $470 million to 302 school districts, charters and county offices of education to fund the Golden State Pathways program.

The program allows students to “advance seamlessly from high school to college and career and provides the workforce needed for economic growth.”

“It’s an incredibly historic investment for the state,” said Anne Stanton, president of the Linked Learning Alliance, a nonprofit that advocates giving youth opportunities to learn about careers.

Both the state and federal governments previously made big investments in preparing students for college or career at the K-12 level, but the Golden State Pathways program is different in that it challenges school districts, colleges, employers and other community groups to create “pathways” — or a focused series of courses — that prepare K-12 students for college and career at the same time. These pathways aim to prepare students for well-paying careers in fields such as health care, education and technology, while also ensuring that they take 12 college credits through dual enrollment courses and the A-G classes needed to apply to public four-year universities.

“By establishing career technical pathways that are also college preparatory, the Golden State Pathways Program provides a game-changing opportunity for California’s young people,” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Thurmond said in a statement.

The Golden State Pathways are an important part of the new master plan for education — Newsom’s vision to transform career education in California — which is expected by the year’s end.

The state is distributing the vast majority of the funding — $422 million — to enable schools to implement their plans in partnership with higher education and other community partners. The remaining $48 million will assist those who still need grants for planning.

All sorts of schools throughout the state — rural and urban, large and small — benefited from the funding.

Schools in the rural Northern California counties of Tehama and Humboldt — whose K-12 enrollment is under 30,000 students — jointly received about $30 million to implement and plan pathways to help students stay on track for college and careers with livable wages.

“That’s a big deal to have that kind of influx going to that many small schools,” said Jim Southwick, assistant superintendent of the Tehama County Office of Education, which plans to expand career pathways in education, health care, construction, manufacturing and agriculture.

Schools in Tehama had previously begun to implement career pathways at the high school level in concert with local employers and Shasta College. However, many students struggled to complete the pathways because they were ill-prepared in middle school, Southwick said.

But one middle school pilot program did successfully introduce students to career education, he added, leading to an influx of funding through the Golden State Pathways that will expand the program to other middle schools.

Long Beach Unified, the fourth-largest district in the state, received about $12 million through the Golden State Pathways program. District spokesperson Elvia Cano said the funding will provide counseling and extra support for students navigating dual enrollment, Advanced Placement courses, college aid, externships and other work-based learning opportunities.

The district also plans to increase access to dual enrollment through partner Long Beach Community College and to create a new pathway in arts, media and entertainment at select high schools.

Advocates are celebrating the governor’s commitment to the program despite the uncertainty surrounding the budget this year.

Linda Collins, founder and executive director of Career Ladders Project, which supports redesigning community colleges to support students, said, “It’s an impressive commitment at a time that it’s desperately needed.”

Newsom said in a statement that this funding will help students even if they don’t go to college , saying it “will be a game-changer for thousands of students as the state invests in pathways to good-paying, high-need careers — including those that don’t require college degrees.”

Source link

26/05/2025
Report shows few California college students enroll in CalFresh, despite qualifying
At the University of California, Irvine, the basic needs center offers a food pantry, housing support and more to meet students’ basic needs.

Photo: UCI Basic Needs Center

Few college students participate in the state’s CalFresh food program despite being eligible, according to a report published Tuesday by the University of California’s California Policy Lab.

The report, “Filling the Gap: CalFresh Eligibility Among University of California and California Community College Students,” is the first to link together datasets that provide estimates on the number of California college students who are eligible for CalFresh, the state’s food benefits program, in addition to their take-up rate — the share of students who are eligible and also participate in the program.

The report’s authors found that CalFresh eligibility and students’ subsequent enrollment in the program depended significantly on which institution of higher learning they attended, age, housing situation, and other factors. The school they were enrolled in was often connected to the level of outreach they received informing them of the food benefits program and whether they received a certain financial aid grant that made them eligible for CalFresh.

“California in the last few years has been increasingly focused on this channel of potential support for college students. It’s one of the pieces that students can paste together to put together a financial package that allows them to go to college,” said Jesse Rothstein, report co-author, about the CalFresh program.

CalFresh, once known as food stamps, is designed to provide money for groceries for California residents, making it a significant support program for low-income students. College students are typically eligible for CalFresh if they meet the regular rules that everyone, whether a student or not, must meet, in addition to at least one of more than a dozen exemptions. Understanding the long list of eligibility criteria specific to students has long been seen as a significant barrier for students, according to the report.

“But because CalFresh is run by a different agency — it’s not part of the education system — I think it’s hard for students to navigate,” said Rothstein, Carmel P. Friesen Professor of Public Policy and Economics at UC Berkeley and the faculty director of the California Policy Lab’s UC Berkeley site.

The data for the report was collected by the UC’s California Policy Lab from four institutions: California Community College Chancellor’s Office, University of California Office of the President, California Department of Social Services and California Student Aid Commission.

In gathering data from these four agencies, the authors developed a database connecting college enrollment numbers, monthly CalFresh participation records, and annual federal financial aid (FAFSA) details.

The data points to differences in eligibility and take-up rates between students in the California community colleges and the UC campuses as well as which students actually enroll to receive the benefits if they are eligible.

Data from the fall of 2019, the semester immediately prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, provides one of the clearest examples. During that time, the data showed a significant discrepancy between students who were eligible for CalFresh versus those who applied to receive the food aid — and further disparities depending on whether students were enrolled in a community college or a UC.

They found that 20% of community college students, 33% of UC undergraduates and 7% of UC graduate students were likely eligible for CalFresh. Yet just 26% of eligible community college students, 22% of eligible UC undergraduates, and 27% of eligible UC graduate students actually enrolled to receive CalFresh benefits.

The authors suggest a few reasons for the discrepancies.

First, UC students are less likely to live at home with their parents, increasing their chances of being eligible for CalFresh.

Second, students in the community colleges are overall less likely to be eligible for CalFresh. This is because “the version of the Cal Grant given to UC students qualifies many of them for CalFresh eligibility, but the version given to CCC students does not,” per the report’s authors.

And, finally, the UC has increased outreach efforts to enroll more eligible students into basic needs programs like CalFresh. This would explain, the authors wrote, why the take-up rate among UC undergraduates has increased substantially since 2017, while the same rate among community college students has declined.

The authors note that they can only provide data estimates in the report because the multiple eligibility determination factors may be captured inaccurately, although errors were likely insignificant and “our estimates are a good approximation of the share of students who would be found eligible under individualized determinations.”

A deeper look into data from the fall of 2019 highlights important details, including:
- The Central Coast’s UC Santa Barbara had the third-highest eligibility rate at 37% but the highest take-up rate at 37%
- Of the community college regions statewide, the Central Valley had both the highest eligibility rate at 29% and the highest take-up rate at 33%, while the Bay Area had the lowest eligibility rate at 15% and the lowest take-up rate at 20%
- Black and Latino students were more likely to be eligible than white or Asian peers regardless of the institution attended
- When it came to actually enrolling in CalFresh, Black and Latino students were more likely to do so if attending a UC, but Latino students were less likely to enroll in the program if attending a community college
- Students over the age of 23 had higher take-up rates than those 23 years and younger at both institutions
Some of those details were expected given the history of outreach out of certain institutions. Santa Barbara County and UC Santa Barbara, for example, have long worked toward smoothing out the process for students to both determine their CalFresh eligibility and to apply for the program.

Other details, such as the low take-up rates in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, highlight the potential need for additional outreach in regions with increasingly high housing and cost of living expenses. Among community college students in Los Angeles, just 5% of the population were both eligible and participating in CalFresh during the fall of 2019. That number is 3% during the same timeframe in the Bay Area.

The development of a new dataset

The report included data from millions of students who attended UC and community college campuses between the 2010-11 and 2021-22 school years. While the report’s authors were largely focused on the most recent data, they included previous years’ data that was consistent across the four agencies they had data sharing agreements with — and this happened to take them as far back as the 2010-11 school year.

The bulk of the project took about four years to complete, according to Rothstein, who noted that this project took “longer than most” he’s worked on in his career. The team first needed to execute data sharing agreements between each of the institutions included in the report and then clean it up to ensure accuracy.

“It’s really beyond the ability of the individual agencies to do this kind of project,” said Rothstein.“It just takes too long and requires too much collaboration between agencies.”

Notably missing from the institutions that shared their data was California State University, which is the nation’s largest four-year public university system.

The CSU “was more reluctant” to share their data, said Rothstein, and his team decided to move forward without that system’s information. He noted that his team plans to work on another edition of the report in which they hope to be able to include CSU data.

“Our hope is that by kind of developing long-term relationships with the agencies we can build the trust that’s required to do this kind of project,” said Rothstein. “We can also build the kind of specialized knowledge of the individual data sets that makes it possible.”

The story has been updated to reflect changes made to the report by the California Policy Lab.
Source link
26/05/2025
Governor must OK expanded Cal Grant access for struggling students

The University of California, Riverside sign on University Avenue.

Credit: UC Riverside / Stan Lim

What does a Cal Grant signify for students embarking on their college journeys? For individuals like me, it embodies an unparalleled opportunity to traverse the realms of academia and pursue aspirations that once seemed shrouded in uncertainty due to the lack of financial resources.

Raised in a first-generation household where the prospect of higher education was esteemed but financially not realistic, attending college initially appeared impossible for me. When my parents discussed college, they explained that despite their desire for me to focus solely on my studies, it wasn’t financially feasible. My parents immigrated when they were 16 years old from a small Zapotec town in Oaxaca, Mexico. My dad works as a fry cook and my mom cleans houses; yet even with their long hours, they struggle to cover their own bills. They could only contribute about $20 every two weeks toward my education.

Qualifying for a Cal Grant made college feel like a possibility.

Unfortunately, we know my situation is not unique. In my work in the financial aid office, where I field countless calls about Cal Grant eligibility, I have heard many students with similar predicaments voice their challenges. Many callers are desperate for assistance with steep tuition fees, housing fees and basic expenses such as food. Some students, even though their parents’ income surpasses the threshold to receive financial assistance, still struggle to afford tuition and rent and must work full time, which often results in missed classes and lower grades. There were numerous occasions where, after I had outlined the annual costs for a student, they opted to withdraw from the university due to the overwhelming expenses.

But there is a beacon of hope for countless aspiring scholars who have long grappled with financial barriers: the Cal Grant Equity Framework, California’s commitment to reforming the Cal Grant to expand access to higher education. Approved in 2022, the framework is a set of strategies to promote equal access to grants for all eligible students, regardless of background or socioeconomic status. It does so by making it easier for students and families to understand what aid they’re eligible for, reducing eligibility barriers, aiming to cover the total cost of college, and more.

But making this happen requires a dedicated push by California’s policymakers to fulfill their promise and fund the framework, communicate to students and families about this opportunity, and monitor its long-term effects.

On May 30, the Legislature included funding in the budget plan to phase in implementation of the Cal Grant Equity Framework — and thereby begin comprehensive Cal Grant reform. The Legislature’s proposal would restructure and streamline the Cal Grant program, aligning eligibility with federal standards; include a cost-of-living adjustment for the new Cal Grant 2 award that would go to community college students, and remove several barriers to access the new Cal Grant 2 and Cal Grant 4 (four-year college) award. The current 2.0 grade point average (GPA) requirement for community college students would still be in effect, but will be phased out over a four-year period. The current Students With Dependent Children grant would start at $3,000 for these newly eligible students, climbing up to $6,000 over the same four-year period as the GPA phase-out. All current Cal Grant and Students With Dependent Children recipients would see no reduction to their financial aid as they will all be grandfathered in during the Cal Grant reform phase-in period. Taken together, this proposal presents a low-cost option to begin the implementation of Cal Grant reform and expands crucial financial aid to students who need it.

By keeping Cal Grant reform in the final state budget this year, California is on a path to opening the doors of opportunity for an additional 137,000 students once fully implemented, further extending the transformative power of higher education to communities that have historically been marginalized. Among these beneficiaries, 11,000 Black students and 95,000 Latino students stand poised to embark on their academic journeys, armed with the tools and resources necessary to thrive in an ever-evolving world.

These reforms come at a critical juncture when California students’ basic needs insecurity has reached alarming levels. While Cal Grants provide substantial assistance, it’s imperative to recognize that covering tuition alone falls short of addressing the needs of many students, who often struggle to secure housing and may lack sufficient access to food. Our universities also have a role to play by leveraging their institutional aid to cover non-tuition costs.

Embracing the principles outlined in the framework, California is taking steps toward realizing the state’s vision of an educational system that is accessible and equitable for all. By actively addressing systemic inequities and providing robust support for underserved communities, California is paving the way for a brighter, more inclusive future in which the transformative power of education is fully harnessed.

The Legislature has now made clear their commitment to putting a down payment on Cal Grant reform in the 2024-25 state budget and the final decision is in the hands of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Governor, we are counting on you to approve the Legislature’s path forward for Cal Grant reform and the futures of thousands of students.

•••

Carmen Abigail Juan Reyes is a 3rd-year Political Science, Law and Society major at the University of California, Riverside and the UC Student Association’s Fund the UC Vice Chair for the 2023-2024 academic year.

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
Collegiate recovery programs are essential for students battling addiction

UC Berkeley students on campus on Sather road in Berkeley.

Credit: Alison Yin / EdSource

Patrick Acuña entered the University of California, Irvine as an undergraduate. In recovery from methamphetamine and heroin usage, he entered the UC system with the hope of being supported while he was starting a new academic and social journey. Acuña said maintaining his recovery is vital to him because he knows for sure he “doesn’t want to go back to what once was” — staying up for days on end when he was in active addiction.

The normalization of drinking, substance use and other potentially harmful behaviors campuses is a scary reality for folks in recovery. This disconnect from healthier peers can be isolating and damaging, especially because community can serve as an essential support system. For students entering college, this, in addition to academic stress, new financial responsibilities and more, can increase the risk of relapse.

But on-campus collegiate recovery programs can help students navigate these pressures as part of the continuum of care that is essential to maintaining and solidifying recovery.

Unfortunately, UC Irvine lacked a collegiate recovery program that could have supported Acuña in these challenges. Currently, only six out of the 10 UC campuses have a developing or established collegiate recovery program. The programs that do exist vary widely in their staffing capacity and the range of services they provide.

This discrepancy must be addressed; collegiate recovery programs systemwide should be staffed with at least one full-time staff member, a dedicated and safe physical space and institutional funding.

Trey Murray, an undergraduate student at UC Santa Barbara, said, “I remember coming to UCSB, a quarter behind all the other freshmen because I spent the summer in a treatment center. I was terrified of college as a whole and especially scared of navigating school while staying sober. (The collegiate recovery program) provided me with a safe and recovery-supportive environment that was crucial to my success in school and sobriety. (It) gave me a place to fit in on campus and sparked joy and passion in my student life.”

Collegiate recovery programs provide resources such as substance-free social events, harm reduction supplies such as fentanyl test strips and the overdose medication naloxone, campuswide educational programming, recovery housing, referrals to higher levels of care, and support groups led by peers who are familiar with the social isolation and distinct difficulties of maintaining sobriety or reducing their usage in collegiate settings where substance use is a standard part of social experiences.

These programs are a vital support for students in recovery from substance abuse, other behavioral addictions, eating disorders and similar conditions. According to a report from the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 1 in 7 people aged 18 to 25 meets the diagnostic criteria for a substance-use disorder. Among college students specifically, that number is closer to 1 in 4. Furthermore, data from the American College Health Association’s National College Health Assessment shows that students at every UC campus are using substances and seeking recovery-supportive communities.

For Acuña, integration of recovery into his everyday life was a much bigger challenge due to the lack of a collegiate recovery program on his campus. “I always have to be vigilant with my recovery; I wouldn’t ever say I have arrived at recovery,” he notes. He didn’t get the needed assistance a collegiate recovery program would have provided regarding hosting on-campus support groups, connecting him to clinicians, allowing him to find a supportive community of peers on campus, and providing an accessible, safe place to go when faced with stressors, activators or urges. Instead, he had to find ways to travel off campus and relied largely on other forms of peer support through student organizations and identity-based clubs such as Underground Scholars to have community and connection with his peers. These organizations, however, are not specifically geared for recovery.

An undergraduate student shared why they had chosen to attend UC Santa Cruz, which has a staffed and funded collegiate recovery program: “My biggest fear in coming to college was relapsing. Having (a collegiate recovery program) during my college experience with its substance-free events and programming, as well as support groups to meet people with shared experiences, has been tremendously helpful in my recovery.”

Recovery as a process is more taxing than a full-time job, as it requires constantly challenging the unhelpful coping mechanisms one has been using for so long, and collegiate recovery programs can support students especially well through their on-campus presence and support.

Preliminary research shows that collegiate recovery programs contribute to better academic outcomes. Data from Texas Tech University, which is home to one of the country’s oldest collegiate recovery programs, suggests that its members have higher graduation rates and higher GPAs than the general student body. Data collected from such programs nationwide show that participating students have almost a 90% graduation rate compared with a 61% institutionwide graduation rate.

As Esse Pink, a master’s student at UCLA, said, “Without the UCLA collegiate recovery program, my life trajectory would be far worse. I would not have stayed sober, I would not have graduated with my bachelor’s, I may not even be alive.”

•••

Aditi Hariharan is a third year student at UC Davis, majoring in both political science and nutrition science (public health emphasis). She served as the ACQUIRE vice chair on behalf of the UC Student Association in 2023-24.

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

25/05/2025
Students in small districts deserve better than decaying, outdated schools
This high school wood shop, built in 1954, will not qualify for modernization funding until the district brings an outside entranceway added in the 1970s up to code – an additional expense that Anderson Valley cannot afford, according to Superintendent Louise Simson.

Courtesy: Anderson Valley Unified School District

Gov. Gavin Newsom and the Legislature are wrestling over how to dole out facilities funding for the projected November ballot bond initiative, and my fear is that when all is said and done, small rural school districts will not get their fair funding share at the table. The result will be that students attending schools that have the least political power and the highest facility needs will be, once again, left behind. And more often than not, those are students who are socio-economically disadvantaged and of color. Sadly, the quality of a student’s educational facilities experience in California has become defined by a student’s ZIP code.

Too often, our small rural school systems, which are facing extreme enrollment decline and a lack of bonding capacity, lag far behind nearby more populated school districts. It is unfathomable to me why a student 45 minutes away can receive one educational experience, while students in a small rural district receive another.

During my superintendency at Anderson Valley Unified School District, a 70-year-old school system in rural Mendocino County, I was faced with facilities that were in an extreme state of deterioration. An unincorporated town of just 1,650 people had passed a bond measure back in 2012; but the $8 million they were able to get out was nowhere near enough to remediate the aging infrastructure.

When I arrived in 2021, the community stepped up again, passing an additional $13 million bond with an overwhelming 71% of the vote. With assessed valuations so low and with no real estate development on the horizon due to a lack of a municipal water and sewer system infrastructure, we were only able to pull out $6 million. Throw in on top of that two failed septic systems requiring replacement that topped$1 million with the indignity of students and staff using porta-potties for four months; a plethora of classrooms that hadn’t been touched since Dwight Eisenhower was president; and buildings that were out of compliance with mold and seismic codes, and you have the picture of instructional facilities inequity that just made the instructional divide even greater. And we are not alone. Similar conditions are common for those that don’t have a powerful voice in the Legislature and the lobbying community.

Small, rural districts like mine are run by a district office of three or four people. We are just trying to keep up with the tsunami of reports that the California Department of Education expects us to produce and, in our spare time, do what is best for kids. Wealthier districts exacerbate the disparity with their massive education foundations that create endowment programs that provide even more opportunity for those that need it the least.

It is time for the governor and the Legislature to give students in these crumbling school systems their fair share and create some educational equity on the facilities side. The bureaucracy of the hardship application process is not doable for small rural school systems to navigate by themselves. Small districts end up taking what little money they have for facilities and spending it on expensive consultants that know their stuff but cost the equivalent of a monthly teacher’s salary, to move the applications through the process.

Governor, if you want educational equity, this is how you create it:
- I don’t need technical assistance. I need money to navigate the process. Allocate a funding stream for small rural schools systems to contract with architects and consultants to move applications through the facilities-hardship process outside my existing budget.
- If a facility is more than 50 years old and hasn’t been remodeled, let’s use some common sense and engage in a different process. I shouldn’t have to demonstrate mold, seismic or structural hazards. This building is not an equitable learning environment for kids. Let’s get it done and stop the busy work.
I hope that the governor and legislative partners hear the plea of our rural students and leaders and don’t leave us behind again. What has gone on in the disproportionality of school facility funding for decades and decades will eventually be tested in the court systems, if something doesn’t change, and the poor condition of the deteriorating rural sites will attest to a judgment that will prevail.

Education in California should be based on equal opportunity to access quality programs and facilities, no matter where you live or whether your parents pick crops or work in tech. Something has got to change on the funding and facilities side if we want to talk about real equity for all kids.

•••

Louise Simson is superintendent of Anderson Valley Unified School District in rural Mendocino County.

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
24/05/2025