Tag: California community colleges

A Coordinating Council for Higher Education

The California Legislature and Governor Newsom are interested in creating a new coordinating entity for the state’s public higher education system. The state has been without such an entity since 2011, when Governor Brown vetoed funding for the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC). A new coordinating entity can help the governor and legislature improve higher education by providing expertise and analysis. But it will require policymakers to provide a solid foundation for its work.

California’s 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education gives the three state public higher education segments—the University of California, the California State University, and the California Community Colleges—significant autonomy. CPEC was created to help policymakers conduct long-term planning, monitor student outcomes, and oversee intersegmental policies that make it easier for students to navigate through the college and university systems. A new PPIC report looks at the strengths and weaknesses of CPEC to provide suggestions about how to make a new coordinating entity as effective as possible.

CPEC’s experience underlines the need for clear state goals and objectives. A higher education coordinating body can advocate effectively for student success and assess how well the segments are meeting the needs of the state economy. But higher education in California has changed significantly over the past several decades, and the Master Plan is either silent or outdated in important areas.

CPEC’s history also shows that the details of the coordinating entity’s design are important in giving it a strong, unified voice in the budget and policy process. A coordinating entity should be empowered to monitor whether the state’s higher education goals are being met and suggest ways to make the system more effective. When the segments fall short or when there are conflicts about how best to accomplish state goals, the coordinating entity should be able to work with the colleges, universities, and state policymakers to find workable solutions.

In this time of heightened demand for higher education, the governor and legislature could benefit from a coordinating body that acts as an honest broker in helping the state provide access to all interested students while maintaining the quality of public higher education that California is known for.

Serving California’s Diverse College Students

As part of his cradle-to-career initiative, Governor Newsom has emphasized higher education as a key means of expanding Californians’ social and economic opportunities. From proposing more higher education funding in this year’s budget to supporting two years of free tuition for first-time community college students, many of his initiatives are focused on making college accessible and affordable to more of the state’s residents. For these initiatives to succeed, it will be essential to enroll a broad array of students—in particular, those who have been historically underserved in higher education–and to ensure that more students successfully complete college.

The good news is that the state is enrolling a diverse set of students, especially at the two largest systems, California State University (CSU) and the California community colleges (CCC). Overall, these two systems closely reflect the racial and ethnic make-up of California’s high school population—which is critical given that these two systems are key entry points for African American, Latino, low-income, and first generation college students. UC and private nonprofit colleges in California serve diverse populations, including more first generation and low-income students than their peer institutions in the rest of the country, but they do not reflect the full ethnic diversity of the state’s high school graduates.

More challenging is helping students to successfully complete a four-year degree. Graduation rates are very high at UC and at most private nonprofit colleges. At CSU, graduation rates have improved dramatically, but even so about 40% of students do not earn a degree within six years. Most students who enter community colleges with the intent to transfer to a four-year college never do so. Transfer rates are especially low for African American and Latino students.

Both CSU and CCC have launched new policies and programs that hold the promise of improving transfer and reducing inequities. For example, community college reforms in developmental—also known as remedial—education will lead to substantial increases in the share of students taking college-level courses in English and math. The Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program is making the transition to California State Universities much more straightforward. And the new Guided Pathways initiative provides support services and clear course-taking patterns to community college students to promote success.

These are important steps in the right direction. Renewed interest in Sacramento regarding higher education will help. And Californians are well aware of the stakes. A majority of adults in California (56%) say a four-year college degree is very important for economic and financial success in today’s economy, and 75% believe California’s higher education system is very important to the quality of life and economic vitality of the state.

Testimony: Career Education Is Key to Meeting California’s Workforce Needs

Sarah Bohn, research director and senior fellow at PPIC, testified today, November 27, 2018, before the Assembly Select Committee on Career Technical Education and Building a 21st Century Workforce. Here are her prepared remarks.

Thank you for convening this informational hearing on higher education and the workforce. PPIC recently surveyed Californians on these topics and a large majority (75%) view the state’s higher education system as very important to the quality of life and economic vitality of California. Not surprisingly, the same share say that the higher education system should be a high or very high priority for the new governor. So this hearing is extremely timely and I’m so pleased to share PPIC research on education and workforce needs.

Most jobs require some college training

The majority of jobs today and in the future will require education beyond high school—split about equally between jobs that require a four-year college degree and those that require education or credentials provided at community colleges. Only about one-third of new jobs created in California over the next decade or so will be available to workers with no more than a high school diploma. These workforce needs are the result of long-term shifts toward a knowledge-based economy. It’s not just that there are new jobs that require more postsecondary education, but the need for credentials within professions has grown as well. For example, more office administrators now have a college education than in the past.

Better-paying jobs are more likely to need college training

College credentials are also the route to accessing better-paying jobs. With the trend toward a knowledge-based economy comes an increasingly wide gap in terms of earnings between jobs that require a college education and those that don’t. Among the top ten occupations in terms of job growth you find many service sector jobs that pay less than $35,000 in annual earnings (personal care aides, food preparation, freight/stock movers, medical assistants) and do not require a college education. And you find a handful of jobs at the opposite extreme—which pay three to four times as much and require a college education (registered nursing, software developers, managers). This trend is likely to continue and might become more extreme with additional pressures like AI (artificial intelligence) and further automation.

California’s community college system is key to meeting state workforce needs

Ensuring we have the workforce to meet these demands—and ensuring future workers can access higher-paying jobs—requires a higher education system that is responsive to student and economic needs. The young workers of today and tomorrow are much more diverse than the current workforce, comprised of demographic groups with historically lower levels of college attainment (including racial/ethnic minorities and first-generation college students). And though we’ve made progress, there’s still room to broaden access to college—and narrow achievement gaps.

For that reason, community colleges—and career education programs in particular—are critical to educating our future workforce. The community colleges are the most common entry point to higher education for Californians, serving almost three times as many students as CSU and UC combined. They also serve a more diverse mix of students. In career education (or CTE) programs, the majority of students are nonwhite and low income. Students range from recent high school graduates to stranded workers (who lack the skills needed to succeed in the job market) to older workers in need of retraining. And these programs provide opportunities in a wide spectrum of careers. As just one mission of the community colleges, CTE is so consequential for meeting workforce needs and improving economic outcomes because it is often the fastest route to new and better careers.

Career education programs can pay off for students

Earning credentials in CTE pays off for students. Those who earn an associate degree see a 20–35% increase in their wages. The payoff wanes for shorter credentials but remains positive even for certificates that can be earned in less than a year (certificates of 6–18 units). But the choice of program or career matters a lot. If health programs are excluded from these calculations, the payoff is much lower on average (4–7% for an associate degree). The health field offers the highest returns across all broad program types. But there’s even variation in which health programs pay off (e.g., registered nursing is more remunerative than medical assisting).

Because CTE credentials vary so much in terms of what they offer in the labor market, the choice of what to study can be as important as the choice to go to college. That information is critical for policymakers evaluating effectiveness and especially for students choosing programs. I commend the community colleges in sharing earnings potential data on their website through tools like Salary Surfer.

Some students may need new job skills to move along a career pathway to higher-paying jobs

Instead of pitting one type of credential or program against another, what we should be thinking about is improving long-term economic mobility for students. A lot of CTE students start by earning a short-term credential, which offers the lowest earnings bump, on average. But those credentials might help an individual switch to an industry with more opportunity in the long run or to start an educational career pathway toward higher-level achievement (i.e., earning “stackable” credentials). Unfortunately our research shows that only a small share of CTE programs (at most 18%) have well-defined career pathways and less than one-quarter of students who start with short-term certificates take additional steps toward broader career options.

But there’s great promise in improving those career pathways. We found that students who “stack” credentials—in this example, in a health field—eventually catch up in earnings to those who started on a high-return pathway like registered nursing. Students who earn a single health credential (mostly high-return associate degrees) see a marked improvement in their earning trajectory. Those who complete a lower-value credential but then return and complete a second one later do nearly as well. Of course this takes time (which is not free), but it’s a reminder that a single credential is not the end of the road. Effective CTE programs can connect students to in-demand and high-return careers in many ways.

In closing, this research suggests state investments in CTE are worthwhile, both for improving student career outcomes and meeting workforce needs. But the state and colleges can’t operate alone; partnership with businesses will be key to making sure that programs address workforce needs and adjust as those needs change. Only then can the state be deliberate in its investments to make sure that CTE programs improve long-term outcomes for students and the state’s economy.

Videos: Higher Education Priorities

Last week in Sacramento, PPIC researcher Lunna Lopes outlined key findings from the latest PPIC Statewide Survey, which focuses on higher education. The following day in San Francisco, PPIC president Mark Baldassare and Monica Lozano, president of the College Futures Foundation, talked about the survey’s implications for governor-elect Gavin Newsom.

The survey finds that most Californians think public higher education should be a high priority for the next governor. For Monica Lozano, this is a key takeaway: “Overwhelmingly, Californians said that a four-year degree is essential to the economic vitality of the state. And, as much as we have considered Jerry Brown a real progressive on lots of issues, there is a sense that he did not do enough on higher education.”

Lozano also noted that Californians are focused on helping students succeed. Their concerns are less about access and enrollment capacity and more about student support: student debt, financial aid, and academic and other kinds of support. “The public is putting students at the center of this equation,” she said.

A majority of Californians see affordability as a big problem. In a state with one of the highest costs of living in the country, residents are divided on whether tuition and fees or housing and living expenses are the bigger burden: 45% say tuition and fees, 34% say housing and living expenses, and 17% volunteer that the two are equally burdensome. As Baldassare put it, “There’s more to affordability than tuition and fees.”

Noting that governor-elect Newsom has an ambitious agenda for “cradle to career” education, Baldassare asked how higher education advocates and experts could help the new administration move forward.

Lozano replied, “Our challenge is to actually help them think about the fundamental issues that surfaced in this survey.” For example, most Californians think state higher education funding is inadequate and many support a funding guarantee for UC and CSU. “If the system of financing higher education has to change so that it’s more predictable—so that there’s some sort of a dedicated revenue stream that’s tied to some accountability measures—how would you actually do that?”

More generally, Lozano and Baldassare agreed that the survey shows how highly Californians value higher education; as Lozano put it, “This survey gives the next governor permission to be bold.”

New Reforms at California Community Colleges

California community colleges are reforming to the way they assess their students’ college readiness and place them in remedial courses. A recently passed measure—Assembly Bill (AB) 1805—may increase both the uniformity and transparency of placement policies. PPIC research indicates that AB 1805 has the potential to improve student outcomes and narrow achievement gaps.

Our research finds that clearer and more uniform policies can make assessment results more portable for students. A previous measure, AB 705, established a set of measures a college must use to determine college readiness (e.g., coursework, grades, and/or grade point average). However, colleges continue to have autonomy to set their own rules, as opposed to using the Chancellor’s Office default placement rules. Our latest study finds that varying policies across colleges is a cause for concern. For example, two colleges within the same district might both use high school GPA to place students, but their GPA cutoffs might differ; this could pose problems for students who are assessed at one institution but want to take a transfer-level course at the other college.

AB 1805—which will be implemented systemwide in fall 2019—may help address this concern by mandating that colleges publicize their placement policies. As a result, students will be better informed and may also be more motivated to challenge placement decisions or enroll at colleges with broader access to transfer-level courses.

Variation in placement policies may also contribute to inequitable access to transfer-level courses. Our research indicates that underrepresented students may have more difficulty gaining access to transfer-level courses if they attend colleges with stricter placement rules. AB 1805 requires colleges to report the number of students placed into transfer-level coursework (with or without concurrent support) to the Chancellor’s Office and the public each year, providing racial/ethnic breakdowns. This should make it easier to see whether colleges are implementing placement policies that are fostering inequitable student outcomes.

Over the summer, PPIC engaged in an exhaustive scan of college websites and catalogs to get a sense of how placement policies are being communicated to students. We found that most community colleges do not provide clear and complete information—in fact, only 19 colleges provide placement details (e.g., GPA cutoffs). As we move forward, it will be critical to monitor the implementation of AB 705 and AB 1805 at the college level—including the placement measures being used and levels of access to transfer-level courses. By examining the policies and practices at colleges where underrepresented students experience uneven access to transfer-level courses, progress can be made toward improving outcomes and narrowing achievement gaps.

Video: Stackable Credentials at California Community Colleges

California’s community college system is the state’s primary provider of postsecondary career education and plays a critical role in meeting workforce needs. Stackable credentials are a key component of career education programs—students who “stack” multiple, related awards can build skills and increase their potential to advance in a career over time. As the state continues to invest in career education, it is important to understand how these programs can expand employment opportunities, particularly for students who do not get four-year degrees.

In Sacramento this past Tuesday, PPIC researcher Shannon McConville outlined findings from a new report that identifies stackable credential pathways in several disciplines and looks at whether programs with well-defined pathways facilitate stacking. Building on previous PPIC work on stackable credentials in health care, this new report focuses on several other fields—including business, information technology, and engineering.

Nearly 40% of community college students in career education programs start with short-term certificates, which can be earned relatively quickly. Most return to college after earning a short-term award, but fewer than one in four obtain an additional credential. Making it easier for these students to move along a stackable credential pathway could help them get better jobs and earn higher wages.

PPIC’s analysis of existing programs across the community college system suggests that well-defined pathways with clearly mapped course sequences and multiple exit and reentry points do increase the odds of students stacking credentials. It also indicates that few programs have course and credential sequences that are designed to be stackable. Expanding the number of programs with clearly designated stackable features could go a long way toward strengthening the links between career education and long-term employment opportunities.

California Community Colleges Are Transforming Developmental Education

With the passage of AB 705 in October 2017, California community colleges are in the midst of a major transformation of developmental education. The new law requires that community colleges restructure developmental education to maximize the likelihood that students will enter and complete transfer-level coursework in English and mathematics/quantitative reasoning in a one-year time frame.

Full implementation of AB 705 is expected no later than fall 2019. As colleges replace standardized test scores with high school records as their primary placement criteria, it is likely that the majority of entering students will enroll in transfer-level courses. To improve the likelihood of success, especially among students with the lowest high school performance levels, colleges are being encouraged to implement curricular reforms as well. Co-requisite remediation is an essential component of these reforms: it allows students who would otherwise be deemed underprepared to enroll directly in transfer-level math or English courses with concurrent remedial support.

While the vast majority of the state’s 114 community colleges have not yet implemented co-requisite models, a few colleges began experimenting with co-requisites and other reforms before the passage of AB 705. According to a recent PPIC report that looks at the efforts of these “early implementers,” co-requisites in English are more common than those in math. Nine California community colleges provided co-requisite courses in English to about 3,000 students in 2016–17 (the latest year of available data), and at least seven additional colleges began offering English co-requisite models in 2017–18.

Early implementer colleges have seen dramatic gains in the completion of transfer-level English courses. Results for the fall 2016 cohort show that 78% of all co-requisite students completed a college composition course within a year; this metric, known as throughput rate, will be used to measure success under AB 705. The throughput rate of co-requisite students is 50 percentage points higher than the throughput rate of students who started in traditional remedial courses (27%); it is 36 percentage points higher than the throughput rate of students who took one-term accelerated developmental English courses (42%), and similar to the throughput rate of students who enrolled in transfer-level English without co-requisite support.

Throughput rates ranged from 67% to 96% across this group of colleges; rigorous research is needed to understand which factors are driving this variation. However, this early evidence—while not causal—does shed light on what we can expect to see in terms of student outcomes as more colleges move toward compliance with AB 705 requirements.

Video: Remedial Education Reform in Community College

Since the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 705, California community colleges have been transforming their approach to remedial—or developmental—education. AB 705 requires community colleges to maximize the probability of their students completing transfer-level courses in the one-year time frame. To comply with AB 705, colleges are revising the way they assess student readiness for college-level courses—giving priority to high school GPA rather than tests. They are also changing course offerings and classroom approaches. How will the reforms affect student outcomes, and how are colleges dealing with the challenges of implementation?

At an event in Sacramento last week, PPIC researcher Marisol Cuellar Mejia outlined the findings of a new report that sheds light on AB 705’s potential impact by looking at the efforts of “early implementers”—colleges that began experimenting with reforms before AB 705 was signed into law. A panel of experts then offered a range of perspectives on AB 705 implementation.

Roanna Bennie, interim president of Las Positas College—an early implementer—noted that only a small fraction of students who start at the beginning of a traditional, multi-course math remediation pathway end up taking transfer-level courses. “It’s the data that’s been really influencing our campus to take measures,” she added. But she also said that her college is wrestling with full-scale implementation. The challenges include covering the cost of additional courses, getting input from faculty and other staff across campus, and helping students adjust to the changes.

Laura Metune, vice chancellor for external relations in the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, emphasized the importance of professional development for both faculty and staff: “Everybody needs to understand what these changes are that we’re asking for, the research behind them, and what their individual roles are in helping them be successful.”

What comes next? As Katie Hern, an English instructor at Chabot College who co-founded the California Acceleration Project, put it: “The debate up until now has been whether to make these changes. That debate is over—the legislature settled that one. Now we have to make these changes and now we get to really study how to do it as effectively as possible.”

Higher Education Finance: How Does California Stack Up?

California’s public higher education spending per student has increased significantly since the end of the Great Recession—it is now higher than at any time since 2002. According to a recent report by the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), spending increased 41% per student (based on full-time equivalents and adjusted for inflation) between 2012 and 2017 in California, compared to 17% across the rest of the nation. California’s percentage change was third highest in the nation, after Oregon and New Hampshire (both with an increase of 47%). However, both of those states provide much less support per student: in 2017, New Hampshire appropriated $2,959 per student and Oregon allocated $6,514, compared to California’s $10,157. California also ranked third in terms of absolute increases ($2,960 in California, compared to $3,781 in Hawaii and $3,608 in Illinois).

California’s funding increases have not been evenly distributed across the three public systems. Since 1988, the community colleges have benefited from the Proposition 98 funding guarantee for K–14 education. As a result, per student funding for the community colleges is now at an all-time high, but is still below peak UC and CSU funding levels.

Governor Brown recently signed the state budget for 2018–19, which includes $19.2 billion General Fund and local property tax funds for all public higher education systems—about 8% more than the 2017–18 allocation. This continues the recession recovery trajectory and prevents tuition increases at UC and CSU. Moreover, the governor and legislature have made investments in the Rainy Day Fund—increasing reserves to $13.8 billion—that will help protect higher education from recession-related cuts during the next economic downturn.

Good Budget News for Higher Education

The California State Legislature and Governor Brown recently reached a $200 billion budget deal that includes just over a billion dollars in new funding for the state’s public higher education systems. This funding forestalls proposed tuition increases at UC and CSU and allows each system to support increasing student access and success. Moreover, the governor and legislature’s work to maximize the state’s rainy day fund should help to reduce the likelihood of drastic tuition increases in the future, should an economic downturn threaten higher education funding.

The new funding will allow UC and CSU to enroll an additional 1,500 and 3,641 undergraduates, respectively, next fall.  These enrollment increases—coupled with more dollars allocated to improve time-to-degree, boost graduation rates, and close achievement gaps—will help each system to do their part to provide much-needed growth in the number of college graduates in the state.

The budget deal also includes the governor’s top two higher education priorities: the creation of an online-only community college and the introduction of a new community college funding formula. This year, community college funding per full-time student will exceed $8,000—the highest level in the systems’ hundred-year history. (Mainly this is because community college funding falls under Proposition 98, the K–12 funding guarantee passed by voters in 1988.)

The online community college will be launched with $100 million and receive $20 million per year going forward. The goal? To provide opportunities to earn short-term credentials to California’s “stranded workforce” (workers stuck in low paying jobs or jobs that are likely to be automated soon), to help such workers to better compete in today’s labor market. The online college will offer credential programs that have demonstrated labor market value and are not already offered at brick-and-mortar community colleges.

The establishment of a community college funding formula will be phased in over three years. It will provide funding for low-income and underrepresented minority students, reward colleges for improved student outcomes, and reduce reliance on increased enrollment to secure state funding. This approach represents the ongoing emphasis on improving student outcomes at the community colleges.

This is Jerry Brown’s final budget deal—it will be up to the next governor to work with the legislature to ensure the ongoing health of the public higher education system. California’s future economy depends on it.