Author: admin

More Students Completing College Prep Courses

Over the past few years more school districts have made college preparatory courses mandatory for high school graduation. These districts have aligned their graduation requirements to the CSU and UC a-g sequence in an effort to make more students college ready. Some of these districts include Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Sonoma Valley, and Vallejo City Unified; the East Side Union High School District in San Jose; and the San Diego Unified, Carlsbad Unified, and Sweetwater Union High School District in San Diego County. Most of these requirements are too new to evaluate, but as more districts make this change, it is important to understand the potential impact. A PPIC report on San Diego Unified found that about 10 percent more students would become eligible to apply to UC and CSU because of the requirement.

The a-g sequence is a set of high school courses required for admission to UC and CSU. The content is rigorous and broad, designed to provide students with a solid foundation of general knowledge. It covers seven different subject areas: (a) history/social science, (b) English, (c) mathematics, (d) laboratory science, (e) foreign language, (f) visual and performing arts, and (g) college-preparatory electives; it includes a total of 15 year-long courses or 30 semesters. These courses are viewed as more rigorous than standard high school courses, as they must meet the criteria developed by the UC’s Board of Admissions and Relations with Schools (It is possible that a non-a-g course is equally rigorous but has simply not undergone a-g approval).

The new a-g graduation requirements have raised concern that many students would be unable to meet them—the reform designed to prepare more students for college might result in lower high school graduation rates. Given this concern, most a-g aligned districts require that students earn a D or higher, which is lower than the UC and CSU requirement of a grade of C or higher.

As it turns out, more students are meeting the a-g requirements with a C or higher. Over the last 10 years there has been an increase of 48% in those meeting the requirements—or 60,000 more high school graduates—with 43% of the class of 2015 doing so.

As more students complete the a-g sequence, the UC and CSU systems receive more applications and admit more students. Between 2011 and 2016, 23% (or 54,383) more Californians applied to UC and CSU, and the systems admitted 20% (or 33,557) more California applicants. However, both systems still limit or deny access to some qualified students. In the 2014‒15 school year, UC redirected 10,688 eligible California students to UC Merced―they had been denied admission to other campuses―but only 195 actually enrolled. The following year, the CSU denied over 17,000 eligible California students, which amounts to almost 55% of denied applicants.

Improvements in college preparation among California’s high school graduates is great news. The challenge is to ensure that our colleges and universities are able to accommodate the increase in demand that comes with it.

Learn more

Read the report College Readiness in California: A Look at Rigorous High School Course-Taking
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Child Poverty and California’s High Cost of Living

A quarter of young children in California live in poverty, yet the local variation in poverty rates is dramatic. Our recent report shows, for example, that the areas with the lowest and highest rates of child poverty in the state are less than 20 miles apart: child poverty is 4% in Redondo Beach, Manhattan Beach, and Hermosa Beach in Los Angeles County and 68% near southeastern LA City. (Data is for 2011–2014 combined, the most recent available).

Families adapt to California’s high cost of living in ways that vary across the state. The interactive map that accompanies our report allows stakeholders to investigate how their local area (defined to have a population of roughly 100,000) stacks up relative to other areas, their region, and the state as a whole.

For example, Selma, Kerman, and Coalinga make up a local area just west and south of Fresno. The area has a relatively high poverty rate of 30% among young children. Most of these children’s parents have limited education: 55% lack a high school degree compared with a statewide average of 37%. But for the most part they are working full-time (62% vs. 50% statewide). They also report the lowest annual housing costs ($5,888) of any area in the state. (We standardized this cost to represent a family of four.) This means they have a relatively low housing burden. Specifically, 18% of families living in poverty in this area use over half of their family resources to pay for housing, compared to the statewide average of 32%.

At the same time, 52% of poor children in this area live in overcrowded housing—about the same as in the state as a whole (55%) and higher than the regional average in the Central Valley (46%). Also, the share of working parents in these poor families who commute 60 minutes or more each way is relatively high at 14%, compared with 10% in the state as a whole.

In sum, the picture that emerges shows families of young children in poverty in this local area tend to have low housing costs relative to other parts of the state. Nevertheless, the cost of housing in inland California is still high compared to the rest of the country, and the data suggest poor families with young children in Selma, Kerman, and Coalinga are indeed making adaptations to cope with these costs—such as living in more crowded conditions and, in some cases, commuting long distances.

Child poverty is a difficult problem, both because it is so high in California and because the family circumstances that poor children experience can differ so much. Investigating varying patterns of housing and commuting across the state can help suggest how policies aimed at reducing the incidence—or severity—of poverty can be tailored to meet local and regional needs.

Californians Favor Funding Flood Improvements

California’s very wet winter has revealed both literal and figurative cracks in the state’s flood management infrastructure. While most flood-related problems this year didn’t reach the level of the Oroville Dam spillway disaster, public concern about California’s aging flood infrastructure is growing—including how to pay for upgrades.

According to the latest PPIC statewide survey, 61% of Californians say that more spending on water and flood management infrastructure is very important for their part of California. Only one in ten say it is not important. When we asked a similar question in October 2006, fewer than half (43%) said such spending was very important. Today, the view is widely held, with about majorities across partisan, racial/ethnic, age, education, and income groups saying so. Across regions of the state, majorities say more spending is very important, ranging from 56% in the San Francisco Bay Area to 65% in the Central Valley.

Governor Brown recently requested the appropriation of $437 million for flood control projects. The majority of the funds ($387 million) come from Proposition 1, the 2014 water bond devoted to investments in the state’s water systems. These funds would finance high-priority infrastructure projects―for instance, maintaining and improving Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta levees. Another $50 million of the governor’s proposal would come from the general fund for ongoing emergency needs and would cover government agency coordination and flood management equipment needs.

But even with this one-time infusion of dollars, the funding gap for flood management activities is large. Our earlier work, Paying for Water in California, estimates it at $800 million to $1 billion annually. This gap varies regionally, with areas located in floodplains needing higher levels of investment in flood-protection infrastructure.

Finding ways to close this gap will require us to rethink not only how we pay for flood infrastructure but also how we manage floods more generally. In fact, using flood management approaches that derive multiple benefits―for instance, to recharge groundwater basins and to restore ecosystems—could help improve the state’s ability to adapt to a changing climate. But just as floods are sporadic, so too is public interest in funding flood infrastructure projects. With the Oroville Dam crisis and San Jose flood still fresh in the minds of many Californians, the timing may be right to start a conversation about creating more stable financing mechanisms that can help us prepare for floods of the future.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center flood resources page
Read California’s Water: Paying for Water (from California’s Water briefing kit, October 2016)

Video: Californians’ Views of Trump and Key Proposals

Californians show their partisan colors when asked how they feel about the job performance of President Trump and a number of his proposals—building a wall on the Mexican border, reducing regulation of business, and banning travel to the US by people from six majority Muslim countries. The March PPIC Statewide Survey shows majority approval by Republicans and majority disapproval by Democrats of the president and these policies.

But there is one significant exception. As associate survey director Dean Bonner points out in a briefing on the survey, majorities of Democrats and Republicans say that undocumented immigrants living in the US should be able to stay legally rather than required to leave.

Learn more

Read the March PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Learn more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Can Mandatory College Entrance Exams Boost College Access?


This post is part of an occasional series examining how California can learn from policies in other states.

California ranks 47th out of the 50 states in the proportion of recent high school graduates that attend a four-year college. There are big recognizable barriers to attending a four-year college, such as cost. However, there are also smaller barriers—like taking a college entrance exam such as the SAT or ACT—that can keep students from even being eligible for entry to a four-year college.

Policy: Mandatory College Entrance Testing in High School

Several states have recently instituted statewide college entrance exams for high school students through allowances in the federal Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which mandates that states test their students for accountability purposes. The ESSA allows states to use college entrance tests as their high school tests. Students in states that use college entrance exams have one less hurdle to college eligibility, as well as experience taking the test and a signal of their level of college readiness. These benefits could help students make their way to a four-year college. Does the policy work?

Policy Impact

Because many states are only recently requiring a college entrance exam, there has not been enough time to analyze long-term trends. However, a 2015 study by Daniel Klasik evaluates the college-going behavior of students in three states (Illinois, Colorado, and Maine) that have long required all students to take national college entrance exams in high school. The study shows that statewide college enrollment may not necessarily increase, but students may have enrolled in different types of institutions than they otherwise would have. In Illinois and Maine the entrance exam policy was associated with a shift in enrollment away from public two-year colleges, which generally don’t require entrance exams; Illinois saw increases in four-year college attendance. Students in Maine and Colorado were more likely to enroll in institutions that required entrance exams for admission. All three states saw a positive impact on attendance at private four-year colleges.

Lessons for California

California currently uses the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) tests, which students take in grades 3-8 and 11. Of the fifteen states in SBAC, six use a college exam for federal accountability for their high schools and another three states require (and pay for) all students to take a college exam in addition to their normal state test.

The trend is catching on in California. Right now only 60% of students take the SAT, but several California districts are offering the test free to all students. In fact, Long Beach Unified School District recently asked the state if it could replace the SBAC test with the SAT, citing similar schoolwide accountability scores and the additional college-going benefits. The state declined, citing concerns about alignment with the Common Core State Standards, the ability of the SAT to accurately assess lower-performing students, and accommodations for students with limited English proficiency or learning disabilities.

But mandatory college entrance exams could remove a barrier to college entry for California students. As we have examined in prior research, the SBAC tests already link high school testing to college readiness at the California State University (CSU) and some community colleges through the Early Assessment Program. However, the University of California and many private schools still require a college entrance exam score. And while CSU does not require an entrance exam for all students, it does require an ACT or SAT score for students with GPA that is below 3.0 and for those applying to some impacted campuses or majors.

A statewide entrance exam program may not solve all of California’s enrollment issues—in part because California’s master plan limits entry to public universities and many campuses are not currently able to accept all qualified applicants. California could still benefit if the policy increases enrollment at four-year private schools, as students starting at four-year institutions are generally more likely to obtain a bachelor’s degree than those who start at a community college. In a state that is facing a 1.1 million degree gap by 2030, removing barriers to college entry is an important step toward producing more college graduates.

Banking on Groundwater

California’s groundwater basins can store much more water than surface reservoirs. After years of unchecked depletion of many groundwater basins, communities are now coming together to figure out how to manage them sustainably. We talked to Helen Dahlke, a hydrologist at UC Davis and a member of the PPIC Water Policy Center’s research network, about efforts to recharge groundwater basins to help bring them back into balance.

PPIC: Where do we stand with groundwater recharge?

Helen Dahlke: California has huge potential to store water underground. Over the past century, we lost more than 120 million acre-feet of groundwater in Central Valley aquifers. With increased pumping in recent years there is now plenty of space to put groundwater back into these aquifers. Local groundwater agencies are starting to figure out how to implement the state’s Sustainable Groundwater Management Act. There is growing interest in recharge and a number of new projects are underway. Many water districts have purchased land to create recharge basins. And several groundwater banks in the Central Valley buy water from state and federal water projects to store water underground for use in dry years.

We’ll need to do more. In the past 15 years or so we’ve only had three wet years. Climate models tell us we’ll see fewer wet years in the future, and recharge systems can help make the most of those years. This year—a really wet year—has been marked by not having enough space in reservoirs to store surface water. It would have been really great to have had a coordinated effort to use more of the flood runoff to recharge groundwater, but existing groundwater recharge basins—which allow water to infiltrate the aquifer―are at full capacity. We need to use good recharge lands to capture these floods and restore groundwater resources. The bottom line is, we need to put a larger fraction of winter floods into groundwater storage.

PPIC: What are some of the most difficult challenges for groundwater recharge?

HD: Besides natural recharge from rainfall, in the past much of California’s groundwater has been recharged from irrigation. Flood irrigation (in which water flows across fields or between furrows) is a major source of groundwater recharge in the Central Valley―about 10–20% of the irrigation water percolates beyond the root zone to recharge groundwater. As farmers have switched to more efficient irrigation systems―which use less water and promote better crop quality and higher yields―the amount of recharge has been decreasing. To compensate, we need to do more intentional groundwater recharge during winter when plants are dormant. However, this approach requires a larger effort and would benefit from some coordination by the state. We also need to learn more about which crops can tolerate winter flooding without increasing root diseases or reducing crop quality or yields. And if we do flood farmland, we need to take into account fertilizer use, because flooding farmed lands can result in more leaching of salts and nitrate into groundwater. We’re actively working on that now.

Learn more

Read “Reforming California’s Groundwater Management” (PPIC fact sheet, June 2015)
Read “Groundwater: Act Locally, Think Sustainably” (PPIC Blog, March 1, 2017)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Republican Optimism Spikes after Election

Following the November election, Californians’ views on the state of the nation changed only slightly overall—but the opinions of partisans diverged greatly. In our January 2017 survey, only 36% of Californians said that things in the United States were generally going in the right direction. This was a slight decline from October 2016, when 43% were optimistic. In addition, in January, about half (52%) thought that good economic times could be expected in the next year—a slight increase from October (46%).

The mood of partisans changed dramatically after the election of President Donald Trump, with Republicans becoming much more optimistic and Democrats much more pessimistic. Republicans’ optimism about the direction of the nation went up 44 percentage points (17% in October, 61% in January), and their optimism about the country’s economic outlook rose 56 points (27% in October, 83% in January). On the other hand, Democrats became much more pessimistic, with a 37 point drop in optimism about the direction of the nation (57% in October, 20% in January) and a 20 point decline in economic optimism (58% in October, 38% in January). On both measures, independents were more optimistic in January (up 10 points on direction of the nation, up 13 points on economic outlook).

While the partisan differences were the most evident, there were also changes across racial/ethnic groups. Notably, there was a drop in optimism about the direction of the nation among Latinos (down 22 points, from 53% in October to 31% in January) and Asian Americans (down 21 points, from 55% in October to 34% in January). Latinos were also less optimistic about the economic outlook of the nation (down 12 points, from 58% in October to 46% in January), while there was a sharp increase in economic optimism among whites (up 24 points, from 36% in October to 60% in January).

As President Trump works to implement his policies, we will continue to periodically track Californians’ views of the state of the nation as well as monitor partisan and demographic differences.

Learn more

Read the January PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Their Government
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Video: Top Goals of Higher Education Leaders

California’s higher education system is not keeping up with the economy’s changing needs, PPIC research has shown. Falling behind in creating a skilled workforce could curtail economic growth, limit economic mobility, and increase inequality in the state. The leaders of the California Community Colleges (CCC), California State University (CSU), and University of California (UC) are essential in the effort to increase the number of educated workers, because the vast majority of the state’s college students attend public colleges and universities.

Hans Johnson, director of the PPIC Higher Education Center, summarized this research, and the three leaders of the higher education system sat down last week with Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO, to talk about their goals before a large Sacramento audience.

The first question: What are your top goals in the next decade?

Eloy Ortiz Oakley, CCC chancellor, said it is a critical time for the 113-campus system. “We connect with so many Californians at a time when the economy is changing before our eyes, and the default to get into the workforce is no longer a high school diploma. Some sort of post-secondary credential is essential. That is our focus.”

He said he is working with the other higher education branches and the K–12 system to integrate them into “one public system of education, not four separate systems.”

Timothy White, CSU chancellor, had a similar focus on results. “Our number -one priority in the years ahead is to improve the success rates of our students,” he said, adding that just 20 percent of CSU students earn their degrees in four years. He said he wants to make sure CSU students have access to courses when they need to take them, as well as sufficient faculty and academic support.

Janet Napolitano, UC president, said, “My vision is that the University of California remain the top public university in the world.” Citing the recent growth in enrollment of in-state students, she said that sustaining academic excellence, increasing diversity, and producing students who will be the next generation of California’s leaders are all key parts of this vision.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Water Stress in San Joaquin Valley

The San Joaquin Valley―California’s largest agricultural region―faces growing water stress that will bring significant changes to the region’s farms, communities, and economy. Increased cooperation and coordination from the region’s complex mix of agencies and water users is needed to address water shortages and water-related environmental and public health challenges. These are key takeaways from an event in Clovis last week, co-sponsored by the PPIC Water Policy Center and the California Water Institute at Fresno State.

Ellen Hanak, director of the PPIC Water Policy Center, introduced the discussion by summarizing the findings of a new PPIC report on the drivers of water stress in the San Joaquin Valley—the state’s most water-dependent economy—and some tools and strategies that can help. “The valley is an agricultural powerhouse,” Hanak said. “A lot is at stake for the region’s economy, communities, and the environment.”

The first panel looked at balancing water supply and demand, and included experts from water and irrigation districts and farming interests. Panelist Eric Averett, general manager of the Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District—an area he called “ground zero” for groundwater overdraft—said that the variety of interests in that basin makes it challenging to finding common ground for getting groundwater use to sustainable levels. “However, it also represents a unique opportunity. [We] will pass or fail … collectively as a basin. That brings us all to the common table of addressing and solving these challenges.”

The second panel covered improving the quality of the valley’s water, air, and habitat. Maria Herrera of Self-Help Enterprises noted that disadvantaged rural communities continue to struggle with water contamination and dry wells. “We need to make sure the communities understand what’s at stake for them” and include them directly in negotiations.

Michelle Selmon of the California Department of Water Resources noted that when lands move out of production, it opens an opportunity to create permanent or temporary habitat. “Instead of growing alfalfa or cotton they’re growing habitat. But farmers will need incentives,” she said.

Dairyman Chuck Ahlem of Hilmar Cheese Company said there is a need for sustainable funding for solving the valley’s various challenges, and he said he hopes that increased collaboration can help “find the dollars to address some of these issues.” And, he notes, to be effective partners in resolving these issues, farmers and dairies “need regulatory certainty that we’ll be allowed to operate 10 years from now.”

The last panel of the day looked at collaborative solutions. Former Fresno mayor Ashley Swearengin said that even though urban water use is relatively small, the region’s cities depend on a “healthy, thriving ag community” and must provide leadership on sustainable groundwater management—including with better urban land-use planning.

Dave Orth of the California Water Commission likened the valley’s water management challenges to a “ball of string”—pull on one string and you find that everything’s connected. Some of the “strings” the panel touched on included managing the Delta for both improved water reliability and environmental protection, making use of flood waters to restore groundwater, and accounting for groundwater recharge. “We need to think beyond just looking at new surface storage facilities. We need integrated solutions that bring multiple benefits,” Orth said.

While implementing these solutions won’t be simple, Fresno State’s David Zoldoske noted a key takeaway of the event is that “there’s a lot of expertise here in the valley. I’m very encouraged we will find a path forward.” 

We invite you to watch the videos from this event, and hope you find the discussions illuminating and useful:

Learn more

Read the report Water Stress and a Changing San Joaquin Valley (March 2017)
Read “Reforming California’s Groundwater Management,” (PPIC fact sheet, June 2015)
Visit the PPIC Water Policy Center

Californians’ Views on ACA Repeal

With control of the presidency and both houses of Congress, Republicans now have the opportunity to act on their oft-stated promise to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and legislation to replace the 2010 law is advancing in the House. In California, PPIC Statewide Surveys have found majorities of adults viewing the Affordable Care Act favorably since 2015. In our January survey, over half opposed repeal.

A slight majority (53%) of Californians said Congress should not vote to repeal the 2010 health care law, including majorities of those living in the San Francisco Bay Area (59%), Orange/San Diego Counties (59%), and Los Angeles County (56%). Statewide, 42% favored repeal, with just over half saying so in the Central Valley (51%) and Inland Empire (52%).

Not surprisingly, there were wide partisan differences on the question of repeal, with 78% of Democrats and 57% of independents opposing repeal and 80% of Republicans in favor. Whether living in coastal or inland counties, Democrats generally opposed repeal and Republicans generally favored it. But independents on the coast (61%) were more likely than independents in inland counties (46%) to oppose repeal.

In response to another question, 51% of Californians expressed a generally favorable opinion of the ACA. The Kaiser Family Foundation found in a survey conducted shortly after ours that adults nationwide held similar views (48% favorable in February). Majorities of adults in the San Francisco Bay Area (60%), Los Angeles County (56%), and Orange/San Diego Counties (53%) view the ACA favorably, compared with 44% and 41% in the Central Valley and Inland Empire, respectively. In California, there is little difference in opinion on the ACA by age or income, with about half across categories expressing a favorable view. White Californians (44%) are less likely to express a generally favorable opinion of the law, while majorities of other racial/ethnic groups hold a favorable view. Whites without a college degree (36%) are even less likely to view the ACA positively, and 60% favor repeal.

Though majorities of adults have viewed the ACA positively in our surveys over the past two years, opinions were more divided in prior surveys. We will continue to monitor Californians’ views as congressional proposals develop and as potential changes to health care in California become clear. Considering the support we found in our most recent survey for state action to address climate change and protect the rights of undocumented immigrants, it will be interesting to see what state action Californians may want to see if the federal government changes its approach to health care policy.

Learn more

Read the January PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and their Government
Learn more about the PPIC Statewide Survey