Category: Equity

Testimony: Ensuring That More Students Succeed in College

Hans Johnson, director of the PPIC Higher Education Center and PPIC senior fellow, testified before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee Number 2 on Education Finance in Sacramento today (March 9, 2017). Here are his prepared remarks.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning. My name is Hans Johnson and I am the director of the Higher Education Center at the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC is a nonpartisan policy research organization and does not take positions on legislation. My comments are based on research we have conducted at PPIC on California’s higher education system.

Providing affordable higher education opportunities for all Californians, especially those with limited resources, is essential if we are to realize the benefits of higher education for our state and its residents. Higher education is not only the single best predictor of an individual’s wages and income, but also the strongest determinant of a society’s economic well-being. PPIC has estimated that California’s colleges and universities are not producing enough bachelor’s degrees and will fall 1.1 million degrees short of economic demand by 2030 unless we improve access to and completion in our higher education systems. While economic gains are strongest for workers with at least a bachelor’s degree, recent PPIC research has also shown strong gains for many—but not all—students who complete vocational programs in the state’s community colleges.

One of the central challenges facing higher education today is ensuring that college serves as a ladder for economic and social mobility. This challenge is especially acute in California, where 60% of high school students are identified by the California Department of Education as socioeconomically disadvantaged (meaning they are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch or come from a family in which neither parent has graduated high school). To close the workforce skills gap, California needs to find ways to improve college completion among students from underrepresented groups, including Latino, African American, low-income, and first-generation students.

The good news is that, compared to other states, California’s public colleges and universities enroll a diverse population. Recent research by the Equality of Opportunity Project shows that California’s public universities enroll more low-income students than comparable colleges in the rest of the country. For example, among elite colleges, UCLA ranks first in the nation in the share of students from low- and middle-income backgrounds. Among all large public universities, Cal State Los Angeles ranks 2nd (after City College of New York) in economic mobility, propelling students from lower-income families into middle- and upper-income groups.

The challenge is ensuring that even more students succeed in our higher education systems. The University of California has an excellent track record of graduating low-income and underrepresented students, and California State University has made significant progress in improving graduation rates for all groups. But graduation gaps remain at both institutions. CSU has developed a new and ambitious graduation initiative that would substantially increase graduation rates and completely close graduation gaps by 2025. However, neither institution has been able to fully enroll all qualified applicants. In recent years, thousands of qualified Californians—both freshmen and transfer applicants—have been turned away from UC and CSU due to a lack of funding.

Of the state’s three systems of public education, our community colleges best represent the diversity of young Californians. The state’s community colleges provide higher education opportunities for almost two million students, a majority of whom are from low-income families or other underrepresented groups. However, far too many students who enter community colleges do not succeed: most never transfer to a four-year college or earn a degree or certificate. Hundreds of millions of dollars have recently been invested in efforts like the Basic Skills Initiative (BSI) and the Student Success and Support Program (SSSP) to improve student outcomes at California’s community colleges. These and other efforts—such as Guided Pathways, a new initiative to help students establish clear objectives and provide support to achieve their goals—hold a great deal of promise for improving student outcomes.

Expanding access to our public universities and improving outcomes throughout our higher education system will almost certainly take more resources. But using current and new funding to improve student outcomes in the most efficacious manner possible must be a high priority. Better coordination between UC, CSU, the community colleges, and our K–12 system can be a cost-effective way of providing students with a seamless pathway from high school to a higher education degree or certificate. Improving access and programs, including financial aid and student support services, to students with the most need can also help reduce gaps in educational attainment and economic success. The role of higher education officials and state legislators is to ensure that resources are spent on programs that really work for students. PPIC is already working on a number of projects that focus on improving student success, and we look forward to continuing to contribute to such efforts.

Bridging Equity Gaps in Health Career Training

California’s community colleges are the largest providers of workforce training in the state, offering a wide variety of career technical education (CTE) programs. Career training in health is particularly promising for students, as the health industry offers many in-demand, well-paying jobs for Californians with less than a bachelor’s degree. Health programs have higher completion rates than other CTE programs and attract a large and diverse student population. But gaps in achievement across student groups are a persistent problem.

PPIC’s latest report on career technical education in health provides detailed insights into the nature of equity gaps in student achievement. African American students are nearly 12 percentage points less likely to complete a health credential than their white peers. Latino students are about 6 points less likely.

To better understand racial/ethnic achievement gaps—and identify potential solutions—we examined three possible explanations: socioeconomic factors, program choice, and course-taking patterns. Individual demographic factors like age, immigration status, and economic disadvantage do matter, but cannot explain away the achievement gap. A student’s choice of health program also matters—that is, African American and Latino students are less likely to be enrolled in the health CTE programs with the highest completion rates, such as registered nursing and dental hygiene. But even after for controlling for socioeconomic factors and program choice, the racial/ethnic achievement gap persists (7 percentage points for African American students and 3 percentage points for Latino students).

By far the most consequential factor driving the racial/ethnic achievement gap in health programs is course-taking patterns—in particular, course progression patterns that are linked to student success. African American and Latino students are less likely to enroll full-time or in consecutive terms—these two patterns are strongly related to college completion. In addition, they are less likely to complete 30 or more units before entering the health program, another factor linked to future success. Finally, compared to white students who are otherwise similar, African American and Latino students are less likely to receive financial aid. Simply put, we find that if students entered similar programs and made similar progress course by course, the racial achievement gap would disappear.

These results suggest that there are many steps community colleges can take to alleviate completion gaps. In fact, systemwide efforts to support full-time attendance to and to guide students on choosing a program of study are among the reforms implemented through the Student Success effort in recent years. Our results suggest that efforts to enable underrepresented students to devote more time to their courses of study and pick up momentum toward their educational goals will do the most to reduce completion gaps. More information about the programs with the best completion rates and earnings potential can empower students to decide which career pathways to pursue. By identifying and addressing the drivers of inequity in CTE—in health as well as other programs—colleges can help more students take the crucial first step of earning a credential and then move along well-paying career pathways.

Learn more

Read the report Career Technical Education in Health: An Overview of Student Success at California’s Community Colleges
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Equity and Remedial Education at Community Colleges

PPIC research has shown that students from groups that are historically underrepresented in higher education are more likely to take a remedial—or developmental—course at some point in their college career. Our research also shows that these students are less likely to complete a college-level course in math or English—and less likely to meet their educational goals. At a time when California faces a shortfall of college-educated workers, this has profound implications for the state’s future. Given that more than half of Latinos and African Americans who pursue higher education attend community college, policymakers need to focus on closing access and achievement gaps.

A recent PPIC report found that 87% of both Latino and African American community college students took at least one developmental math or English course, compared to 70% of Asian and 73% of white students. Likewise, 86% of recipients of fee waivers from the California Community Colleges Board of Governors (BOGW) or Pell Grants—our proxy for low-income status—took at least one developmental math or English course.

A closer look reveals that Latino, African American, and low-income students are likely to be placed in developmental education at lower levels than other groups of students. This requires students to take a longer sequence of developmental courses—up to four semesters’ worth—and dramatically alters college trajectories. African American and Latino students make up 61% of students who enter the developmental math sequence four levels below college ready, but only 41% of students who begin one level below. Similarly, the share of low-income developmental math students who start four levels below college ready (82%) is significantly higher than the share that begin one level below (64%). This means that Latino, African American, and low-income students are more likely to spend valuable time and financial aid on courses that do not count toward a degree or transfer.

Equity issues are apparent not only in students’ participation in developmental education, but also in their outcomes. When we examine the completion of college-level math and English courses among students who started out in developmental education, we find that rates are lower for most underrepresented groups. For example, 39% of Asian students and 30% of white students who took a developmental math passed a college-level math course, compared to 24% of Latino and 14% of African American students. The same pattern holds true for English, where 59% of Asian students and 49% of white students successfully completed a college-level English course, compared to 42% of Latino and 28% of African American students. However, low-income students who enrolled in developmental education courses completed college-level courses (26% math and 45% English) at about the same rate as developmental students overall (27% math and 44% in English).

It is also important to look at the assessment and placement policies that place students into developmental courses. Our research found that these policies vary widely across the state’s 113 community colleges. As a result, some Latino and African American students may be enrolling in developmental education at higher rates, especially in math, simply because they attend colleges that set higher cut-off scores for placement into college courses.

Our recent findings suggest that developmental education, which is intended to help students succeed in college, may actually be contributing to college achievement and completion gaps. A multipronged approach that improves developmental education courses and streamlines assessment and placement policies can lead to more equitable student outcomes.

Learn more

Read Preparing Students for Success in California’s Community Colleges
Read Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

College Costs Could Rise for Some Students

The governor’s budget proposal includes increased funding for UC and CSU but likely not enough to keep the systems from raising tuition—which the governor said he expects. The proposed tuition increases (about 5% at CSU and 3% at UC) are modest compared to the large increases from 2006 to 2011 (104% at CSU and 92% at UC). PPIC has shown that while financial aid increases protect most students from low income families from tuition hikes, students from middle- and upper-class families see their costs increase.

The governor’s proposed budget also phases out the Middle Class Scholarship program. Created by the legislature in 2013—after CSU and UC costs climbed rapidly—this program aimed to help students from families too wealthy to receive Cal Grants (state grants that cover tuition for low-income students). The scholarships cover 10% to 40% of tuition (depending on family income and assets) for eligible students from families with incomes up to $156,000. About 37,000 students benefitted from the scholarship this year.

How much do middle-class students pay?
To characterize what a student pays to attend college, we often use the term “net price”—a comprehensive accounting of student costs and assistance. To determine the net price, we add books, room and board, and other expenses to tuition, and subtract federal, state, institutional, and local grants and scholarships (money that a student doesn’t have to pay back).

Students who receive some form of federal financial aid (grants, loans, work study, etc.) generally pay much less than the full cost of college. For students from families making less than $80,000, federal, state and local grants usually cover at least the full tuition at both CSU and UC—but these students pay a net price that could be as high as $11,000 a year at CSU and $13,000 at UC in order to cover expenses other than tuition. Students from families making $75,000 to $110,000 are generally too wealthy for federal and state grants; they pay a much higher average net price of about $16,000 at CSU and $21,000 at UC. (Also, many students pay close to the full cost because they do not apply for and/or are ineligible for federal aid.)

The most recent cost data is from 2013‒14—this was the first year of the Middle Class Scholarship program. Average awards that year were $1,100 or less, and once the program was fully implemented awards were slated to range from $1,300 and $5,400 at UC and $700 and $2,700 at CSU, depending on the income and assets of eligible students and on the number of applicants.

Not surprisingly, the phasing out of the Middle Class Scholarship and the impending tuition increase are expected to have a disproportionate impact on middle- and upper-class students. As a result, those students will probably pay more for their degrees.

Learn more

Read “Higher Education in California: Student Costs”
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

The News on Student Debt Is Not All Bad

Californians are rightly concerned about the costs of attending college and the amount of money many students need to borrow in order to pay those costs. In a recent PPIC Statewide Survey, 57% of Californians identified lack of college affordability as a big problem. An even larger majority—78%—agreed with the statement that students have to borrow too much money to pay for a college education.

As college costs have risen, the share of students taking out loans has grown substantially in both California and the nation. Just ten years ago, only about one-third of freshmen at four-year colleges and universities in California took out loans compared to 44% in 2014. Equally troubling is the growing size of those loans. Even after adjusting for inflation, average loan amounts for freshmen increased 14% in California between 2004 and 2014 (from just over $6,000 to almost $6,900). Among graduating seniors at California colleges in 2015, cumulative student debt totaled just over $24,000 for those who took out loans.

But not all of the news is bad. There are some encouraging and newly emerging trends in student debt, especially in California.

  • Over the past few years the trend toward more loans and higher loan amounts has reversed, with declines in both the share of freshmen taking out loans and the amount borrowed. In California, the share of freshmen at four-year colleges taking out loans has declined from 48% to 44%, and average loan amounts (adjusted for inflation) have declined from over $7,700 in 2010 to under $6,900 in 2014.
  • Student debt remains lower in California than in the rest of the nation, with California freshmen less likely to take out a loan (44%) than their counterparts in the rest of the nation (54%). Among those who do borrow, loan amounts are lower in California ($6,851) than in the rest of the US ($7,014).
  • The vast majority of students in California attend public colleges, and these students are much less likely to take out loans than students at private colleges. Very few California community college students take out loans, and less than 40% of freshmen at UC and CSU take out a loan, compared to more than 50% of freshmen at private nonprofit colleges and 70% at private for-profit colleges. Among those who take out loans, the amounts borrowed are also lower at California’s public colleges. Graduating seniors in 2015 at UC and CSU who took out loans had a median cumulative debt of $16,600, compared to $23,400 at private nonprofit colleges and $30,500 at private for-profit colleges. The lower rates of student debt at California’s public colleges and universities are related to institutional and state policies that provide scholarship and grant support to many low- and middle income students.
  • Finally, and perhaps most importantly, strong job prospects for college graduates, especially in California, mean that the vast majority of students are able to pay back their loans. Loan default rates are very low for students graduating from the state’s public and nonprofit private universities. Students at private for-profit colleges fare much worse. They often accumulate large amounts of debt, and this—coupled with low graduation rates—often makes it a struggle to pay back their loans.

It is important to remember that loans are an important and useful source of financial aid for many students. Indeed, taking on debt can be a very smart economic choice if it allows a student to enroll in and complete college. Policymakers and educators should seek to provide more opportunities for students to strategically use loans to reach their educational goals. Student debt becomes a problem when graduates are not able to pay back their loans—especially if they received a low-quality education and/or took on an exorbitant amount of debt. These are outcomes we should work to prevent.

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Making College Affordable
Read the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Improving College Placement Policies

Assessment and placement policies govern where students begin their college trajectory. This is a high-stakes issue for students, affecting how quickly they achieve their educational goals. Too often, it affects their likelihood of reaching these goals at all. Students who are placed in developmental, or remedial, courses end up spending significant portions of their limited financial aid packages—and sometimes take on debt—to pay for courses that don’t usually count toward a degree.

Findings from a PPIC survey on assessment and placement policies show that California’s community colleges vary in how they identify college-ready students. First, colleges use different assessment tests. Second, even those that use the same test apply different cut-off scores, which are the minimum scores that a student must get to be designated college ready. While over half of colleges reported using the Accuplacer test to assess college readiness in math, cut-off scores ranged from 25 to 96 out of 120. Students with the median score of 58 would be deemed college ready at only half of these colleges, while at the other half, they would be placed into developmental math. This lack of consistency means that access to transfer-level courses is determined not only by students’ performance on the test, but also by placement policies at the institution where they enroll.

Unfortunately, there’s no easy fix to this problem, as opposing forces are at play. On one hand, the current approach of setting local assessment and placement policies allows for considerable academic freedom and institutional autonomy, giving colleges flexibility to respond to the local needs of the population they serve. This is particularly important for placement into developmental coursework, the structure of which varies significantly across colleges. On the other hand, locally determined cut-off scores into transfer-level courses lead to inconsistent standards and can send a confusing message to high schools around the state about what it means to be college ready.

Accordingly, placement into transfer-level courses should be uniform across the community college system. Having clearer and more uniform policies for accessing introductory transfer-level courses (e.g., college composition, college math, and statistics, among others) is critical because these courses are considered equal in the eyes of four-year institutions accepting them for transfer. Variation in the standards used to access these courses dilutes this presumed equality.

California State University (CSU) presents a compelling case study for a statewide system that has consistent assessment and placement policies for determining college readiness. Across the 23 universities in the CSU system, a common assessment and common cut-off scores are used for placement into transfer-level math and English. Yet individual campuses maintain flexibility regarding how they structure developmental education sequences and placement into these courses.

Systemwide assessment and placement policies at California’s community colleges could yield multiple benefits:

  • Eliminating barriers for students who transfer from one college to another. Clear and uniform policies for accessing transfer-level courses would begin to make students’ assessment results more portable across colleges, especially those in the same region.
  • Improving programs and support for students in developmental education. Currently, the lack of comparable data across colleges has prevented the system from measuring the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase student success in developmental education.
  • Sending a clear message to high schools about college readiness standards at community colleges. This would be akin to the uniform policy used by high schools and colleges across the state to determine college readiness as part of the Early Assessment Program (EAP).

Continuing to let community colleges determine placement into developmental education while standardizing placement policies into transfer-level courses will preserve local autonomy and help to bring about the benefits that come with systemwide uniformity.

Learn more

Read the report Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Grading the Higher Education System

Californians give positive grades to the three branches of the state’s public higher education system—the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California. But the PPIC Statewide Survey on higher education shows that they have big concerns about affordability. Most California adults—regardless of political party, income, or age—see it as a big problem. And when Californians are asked to name the most important issue facing the state’s public colleges and universities, affordability leads the list.

“This is really the issue that’s at the forefront of people’s minds when you’re talking about higher education,” said PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes, who presented the findings at a Sacramento briefing last week.

Two out of three Californians say state funding of public colleges and universities is inadequate. While most would support a state construction bond to fund higher education projects, there is much less consensus on other ideas to increase revenue.

Learn more

Read the December PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Find out more about the PPIC Statewide Survey

Commentary: Boosting Success in Community College


This commentary was published in EdSource on December 8, 2016

Most students entering California’s community colleges – especially Latino, African American and low-income students – start their college journey in remedial courses in math, English or both. These courses seek to prepare students for college-level work. But remedial education, also known as developmental education, is lengthy, attrition is high and outcomes are poor.

Read the full commentary on edsource.org.

Improving Math Placement Decisions

A new state law is intended to help ensure that all students—particularly those underrepresented in higher education—have access to rigorous math courses in high school. This is a key step to improving college readiness and closing achievement gaps. The centerpiece of the California Mathematics Placement Act is the requirement that districts create and implement a fair, objective, and transparent math placement policy. The law leaves many aspects of implementation up to the districts.

PPIC surveyed the state’s school districts during the 2015–16 school year to examine their placement policies and identify district needs right before the law took effect in 2016–17. In a new report, Math Placement in California’s Public Schools, research fellow Niu Gao and research associate Sara Adan found that districts face a number of challenges in implementing the law. Gao presented the report at a recent Sacramento briefing.

One issue is particularly complex: teacher recommendations. The new law calls for limiting their use due to concerns that they may be systematically biased against economically disadvantaged or Latino and African American students.

The PPIC report shows that teacher recommendations are among the most widely used measures in determining placement—and the way they are used now is complicated. Recommendations typically address both academic and “soft” skills, such as student maturity, persistence, and motivation, which are predictors of student success. The PPIC authors found cases in which teacher recommendations are biased against high-achieving minority students, but they also found cases in which teacher recommendations are advancing minority students who do not perform well on standardized tests. In other words, eliminating recommendations altogether may help some students but at the expense of others.

Gao said the critical issue is not whether teacher recommendations should be used but how they can be designed to complement objective measures, such as tests.

Preparing Community College Students for Success

Each year hundreds of thousands of students entering California’s community colleges are identified as unprepared for college work and placed in remedial courses, also known as developmental education courses. Colleges vary widely in the way they assess and place students—for example, even colleges that use the same test base their placement decisions on different cut-off scores.

The impact of remedial placement is profound. Most students who enroll in a developmental education class never go on to earn a certificate or degree or transfer to a four-year college. Latino, African American, and low-income students are overrepresented in these courses, raising equity issues at the colleges—the entry point to higher education for most students in the state.

Two PPIC reports document the state of developmental education in California and examine the reforms that have been adopted to change it. Olga Rodriguez, PPIC fellow and coauthor of both reports, presented the findings at a briefing in Sacramento last week, followed by a panel discussion of higher education experts moderated by coauthor Hans Johnson, PPIC senior fellow and director of the PPIC Higher Education Center.

Panelists included Mónica Henestroza, higher education advisor for Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon; Myra Snell, math instructor at Los Medanos Community College and cofounder of the California Acceleration Project; and Theresa Tena, vice chancellor of institutional effectiveness in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

The three panelists emphasized the widespread recognition that reform is needed and under way.

Henestroza said the PPIC reports underscored what she hears directly from students—that they are being sidetracked from pursuing their career goals by developmental education. She also said that the savviest students know that it’s easier to pass placement tests at some colleges than others.

Snell said that when looking at the wide variation in college placement policies and the large numbers of students placed in developmental education, many mistakenly blame high schools for not preparing students. “Really, what we’re beginning to understand is that our definitions of preparedness are problematic.”

She said that student scores on Accuplacer, a commonly used placement test, are not a reliable predictor of college success. Colleges making robust use of multiple measures—including, for example, previous high school work—in placement decisions are seeing higher student success rates, she added.

Snell also pointed to promising reforms elsewhere. Tennessee, for example, enrolls students directly into college-level courses and providing remedial support where it’s needed. In other words, she suggested, reform efforts should focus on bypassing developmental education altogether.

Tena noted that colleges are implementing redesigned courses in developmental education that are intended to improve student outcomes. PPIC is currently conducting research to evaluate these new reforms.

Learn more

Preparing Students for Success in California’s Community Colleges
Determining College Readiness in California’s Community Colleges: A Survey of Assessment and Placement Policies
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center