California community colleges – Page 8 – Public Policy Institute of California

Community College Placement: Lessons from North Carolina

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

Every year, California’s community colleges identify the vast majority of entering students as not ready for college-level courses in math and English. Since these courses are required to earn a degree or transfer to a four-year college, students deemed underprepared are placed in developmental (also known as remedial or basic-skills) courses to prepare for college work. Placement has a profound effect on students’ college trajectory: most developmental education students never earn a degree or transfer.

Concerns about poor outcomes have led California’s community colleges to reexamine their assessment and placement policies. How do colleges currently assess and place students? Are too many students placed into developmental courses? At PPIC, we will examine this topic in the months ahead. Reforms in other states can also help inform upcoming changes in California.

Policy: Uniform Assessment Test and Cut Scores in North Carolina

Prior to 2013, the North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) allowed a great deal of local autonomy in assessment and placement policies—similar to California’s community colleges today. NCCCS provided a list of permitted assessments, but each of the 58 colleges decided on the specific tests (e.g., Accuplacer, Compass, or Asset tests) and cut-off scores that determined students’ math and English placement. Local policymaking lets colleges take into account their course offerings—which can differ a great deal, especially at the developmental or pre-collegiate level—and the needs of the specific populations being served. But allowing individual colleges to determine placement rules inevitably leads to varying definitions of what it means to be college ready.

In 2012, research by the Community College Research Center at Columbia University found that placement tests were only weakly predictive of success in college courses at NCCCS and that high school records were as useful or better at predicting college-level course success. Beginning in 2013, NCCCS implemented several reforms that transformed its assessment and placement system: multiple measures, a customized diagnostic math assessment, and uniform placement rules. In addition, students achieving a minimum high school GPA or SAT/ACT score could enroll in college-level courses without having to take a placement test.

Policy Impact

There are a number of arguments for uniform assessment and placement policies: they can set a common definition of college readiness, align high school and college expectations, allow states to measure performance across colleges, and facilitate transfer between colleges in the same system.

Early evidence from Central Piedmont Community College in Charlotte, North Carolina, also suggests that systemwide assessment and placement reform can significantly increase the number of students directly enrolling in college-level math and English. At Central Piedmont, 54% of students enrolled directly into these courses in fall 2015, up from 36% in fall 2012. It also appears that more students were able to complete college courses with no significant changes in pass rates. As more data is collected and analyzed, it will be important to see if these promising findings hold for colleges across the system and for different student groups.

Lessons for California

As California’s community colleges plan to implement a common assessment, the system must balance centralized decision making and local autonomy as well as rigorous standards and broader access. There is mounting evidence that more consistent and broader access to college-level courses contributes to improved student progress and more equitable outcomes. But some research does suggest that these reforms could result in lower course pass rates. For this reason, broader access to college-level courses should be complemented by increased support for faculty and academic supports for struggling students.

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Improving College Completion
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Comparing College Readiness across States

How does California compare to other states in preparing students for college? This isn’t necessarily a straightforward question to answer, because most cross-state metrics, such as Advanced Placement or SAT performance, only capture the subset of students who are thinking seriously about college. However, California’s new 11th-grade assessments are aligned to college-readiness standards and administered in many other states—allowing us see how California compares to other states in preparing all students for college.

These new Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) tests are aligned with the Common Core curriculum standards. The 2015–16 school year was the second year of statewide administration of these tests for students in grades 3–8 and grade 11 in California.

A high enough score on the 11th-grade test is an early guarantee that students can take college-level courses, rather than remedial courses, upon enrolling at any California State University (CSU) and most community colleges in the state. As part of California’s Early Assessment Program, students who score in the highest level (“standard exceeded”) in English language arts (ELA) or math are exempt from remediation at participating colleges. Students who score in the second highest level (“standard met”) are considered conditionally ready for college coursework and may become exempt from remediation upon successfully completing a specified course in the 12th grade. Ten other states also participate in the exam, and while the test scores don’t affect college remediation for all colleges in every state, over 200 colleges across most of the states accept the scores.

In California, 13% of 11th graders were ready for college courses in math and 20% were conditionally ready. In English, 26% were ready and an additional 33% were conditionally ready. California ranks about in the middle of all other states taking the exams, a surprising result considering previous standardized tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress have consistently placed California students as among the lowest-performing in the nation. Moreover, of the states using the exams, California has the largest share of students in the federal free or reduced-lunch program (a proxy for low-income status) and by far the largest share of English Learners. Students from both groups are about half as likely to be prepared for college compared with their peers. In other words, the California scores are perhaps more impressive in light of the barriers to college readiness that more California students face.

Does this mean that California is doing a good job preparing students for college? This 11th-grade test is meant to be an early signal to students of their college readiness. Students also have their senior year to prepare for college, and the readiness levels of 59% in English and 33% in math will likely improve by the end of 12th grade. However, for students who do go to college, remediation rates are still high at CSU (40%) and community colleges (80%), and haven’t changed much since the new assessments began. These results and cross-state comparisons show us that California has room for improvement and may face more challenges than other states moving forward.

Learn more
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Spending on Corrections and Higher Education

California has long been criticized for its growing corrections expenditures, especially as General Fund spending on higher education has declined. The beginning of a new budget year is a good time to examine where the state now stands on spending in these two key areas.

California’s legislature recently adopted a budget for 2016–2017 that devotes $14.5 billion of General Fund revenue to higher education institutions, including the University of California, California State University, and California’s community college system. It allocates $10.6 billion for operations of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), which is responsible for adults in state custody and parolees under state jurisdiction.

These budget allocations reflect a striking shift from California’s budget of forty years ago, when the state spent a larger share on higher education and a much smaller share on corrections. But by the 2008–2009 budget year, allocations to higher education (11.1%) and corrections (10.7%) were almost identical. In the years since, higher education spending has outpaced corrections in relative terms, largely because recent criminal justice reforms have drawn down the number of adults in state custody and on parole. Nonetheless, California spends more on corrections and less on higher education today, in relative terms, than at nearly any point in the past thirty years.

Despite these dramatic trends, spending in each area has actually increased alongside of growth in the populations served. Enrollment in higher education institutions has increased roughly 50% since the 1977–78 academic year; the budget has increased 65% (according to CPEC Fiscal Profiles). Until 2011’s realignment of California’s corrections responsibilities, the number of adults in CDCR custody had increased 555% and the budget increased 526% (CDCR Monthly Population Reports).

Clearly the costs of serving these two populations are different. On average, the cost of the CDCR population is much higher than the cost of students in higher education. Within each area, costs per person vary as well. The cost of educating a student at UC far exceeds the cost of doing so at a community college. Similarly, the cost of incarceration far exceeds the cost of supervising a parolee in the community. Although the per person cost of delivering services has risen over time, the dramatic increase in the prison population has been the key driver of the dramatic shift.

To reverse these trends, the state must identify and disseminate cost-effective strategies to reduce recidivism, further diminish California’s crime rates, and ultimately reduce the prison population enough to allow for the closure of state facilities or the elimination of in-state and out-of-state contract prison beds used to relieve overcrowding. Corrections realignment reduced state prison and parolee populations, but the anticipated savings from this policy shift have yet to materialize. Moreover, the most recent reports show a small uptick in the corrections population (CDCR Monthly Population Reports).

In the meantime, California needs to find ways to accommodate more students in its higher education systems—which it could do at relatively low cost by reducing time to degree, or at higher cost by increasing financial aid or expanding the number of slots for students. At the end of the day, ensuring that more of California’s youth attend and complete college will reap positive long-term benefits for the state, helping to meet the needs of the state’s future economy and create a brighter future for all Californians.

Chart source: California Department of Finance Chart C-1 Program Expenditures by Fund.

Learn more

Will California Run Out of College Graduates?
“California’s State Budget”
California’s Future: Corrections

A Generational Challenge for Higher Education

Generational progress in educational attainment has long been a critical component of societal improvements in well-being and economic mobility. For many decades in California and the United States, the expectation has been that children will eventually attain a higher level of education than their parents. And for many decades, that is exactly what occurred.

In recent years, however, generational progress has stalled. The share of Californians ages 25–34 with at least a bachelor’s degree (33%) is only very slightly higher than the share of bachelor’s-degree holders among the 55–64 age group (31%). Compared to countries that are part of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), an international organization of 34 member countries that provides data on economic and education trends, California ranks 1st in the share of older adults holding at least a bachelor’s degree (or equivalent), but only 22nd among younger adults.

Unlike almost all OECD countries, California has seen very little generational progress (2 percentage points). In stark contrast, Korea, Poland, and Ireland witnessed gains of 23 or more percentage points in the share of bachelor’s-degree holders among younger adults, relative to older adults. Because educational attainment is the single most important determinant of employment and wages, this lack of progress has implications not only for individuals but also for the state’s economy.

Not all states share California’s lack of progress. Among the 30 largest states, California ranks 21st in generational gains. New York, Iowa, and Illinois have all seen some of the largest improvements (10 to 12 percentage points) in the share of bachelor’s-degree holders among younger adults, compared to older adults. In Massachusetts (not shown), half of all young adults have a bachelor’s degree, compared to 40% of older adults.

A few states, including Arizona, Colorado, and Oklahoma, actually saw generational regress, meaning older adults are more highly educated than younger adults. Despite the lack of generational progress, Colorado still has a relatively high share of young adults (37%) with at least a bachelor’s degree.

What is most worrisome for California is that the lack of generational progress is coupled with a relatively low share (33%) of young adults with college degrees. Connecticut (not shown) has not seen much generational progress either, but even so, over 40% of young adults in that state have a college degree.

These differences in generational progress (or lack thereof) are not necessarily attributable to differences in education systems across states. For example, in Colorado, many highly educated older adults have migrated to the state from elsewhere.

The tremendous challenge facing California and the key to improving economic well-being in the state is to increase educational attainment among young adults. PPIC has identified key strategies to do this:

Improve access to four-year colleges.
Increase transfers from community colleges to four-year colleges.
Raise graduation rates for those already in college.

By taking steps now, the state and higher education leaders can put California back on the path of strong generational progress.

Chart source: OECD and American Community Survey.
Figure notes: Charts display select countries or states, including those with the highest and lowest generational gains.

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Addressing California’s Skills Gap
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Increasing On-Time Graduation Rates in Hawai‘i

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

While 57 percent of students at California State University (CSU) earn a bachelor’s degree, only 19 percent of first-time freshmen graduate in four years. Taking longer to graduate increases the cost of the degree and delays entry into the workforce.

One reason students are not graduating in four years is because they are not taking a full course load of 15 units—about five classes—per term. For financial aid purposes, students are considered full-time if they enroll in 12 units per term—about four classes. But taking 12 units means taking an extra year to graduate. Students have many reasons for taking less than a full load: family obligations, employment, inadequate preparation for the rigor of college courses, or the cost of extra books. It is also possible that students do not realize they need 15 units per term to graduate in four years. UCLA’s Cooperative Institutional Research Program found that 86 percent of freshmen nationwide believe they will graduate in four years, but only about 55 percent actually do so. CSU may be able to learn from 15 to Finish, a campaign adopted by the University of Hawai‘i in 2011 to increase student enrollment in 15 units per term and increase their four-year graduation rates.

Policy: University of Hawai‘i’s 15 to Finish Campaign

In 2010, the University of Hawai‘i system (UH) launched the Hawai‘i Graduation Initiative (HGI) to increase college participation and completion. One of HGI’s strategies is a 15 to Finish campaign to encourage university and community college students to enroll in 15 units a term so they can graduate in four years. Other HGI strategies include creating block or cohort scheduling so that groups of students take the same courses together; reducing summer tuition; and developing academic roadmaps to help freshmen plan their course sequences to graduate on-time. The 15 to Finish campaign’s communication strategy highlights the need to take 15 credits per term and the benefits of graduating in four years in television commercials, informational handouts, and student orientations. It also markets the additional three units as “free” because tuition is the same for 12 and 15 units.

Policy Impact

The early results of UH’s 15 to Finish campaign look promising. Between 2011 and 2013, enrollment in 15 units per term rose by about 5 percentage points, to 25 percent of the UH student population enrolled in 15 units. More important, the system’s four-year graduation rate has risen 7.2 percentage points since the graduating class of 2012, to 25 percent. At CSU, the four-year graduation rate has improved just 2.9 percentage points, to 19 percent, over the same period.

Lessons for California

CSU’s 2015 Graduation Initiative was successful in raising six-year graduation rates. As the system launches a new 2025 Graduation Initiative, which focuses in part on increasing four-year graduation rates, campuses should consider implementing a media strategy to inform students about the three “free” units per term that will help them graduate on-time. One campus, Cal State LA, has already started: it launched a 15 to Finish campaign in August 2015, in anticipation of its transition to a semester calendar.

A system-wide 15 to Finish campaign could also persuade some campuses to stop discouraging students from taking 15 units if they work. It would be more helpful for campuses to inform students they need 15 units a semester to graduate in four years and give them estimates of the number of homework hours created by this course load, so they can make their own decisions about how many units to take each term.

This kind of messaging could also help UC and the community colleges increase on-time completion rates. It could be a relatively simple way to create more room for new students and increase the number of college graduates in our state.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Does Free Community College Grow Enrollment?

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

Tuition-free community college has garnered increasing political support over the past two years. In his recent budget requests, President Obama proposed legislation entitled America’s College Promise to make community college free nationwide. Three states—Oregon, Minnesota, and Tennessee—already have free community college programs, while nine more are considering legislation to create similar programs.

Supporters say that making community college more affordable will increase enrollment and graduation. But will free community college increase overall college enrollment, or will it merely shift enrollment from four-year colleges to two-year colleges?

Policy: Tennessee’s College Promise
Tennessee’s College Promise program—the model for the federal America’s College Promise program—offered its first scholarships to students starting college in the 2015–16 academic year. This program is part of a larger effort to increase the state’s percentage of college graduates from 32% to 55% by 2025.The program provides “last-dollar” scholarships that cover the remaining cost of tuition after a student has used all other available federal, state, and local grant and scholarship aid. Funded by state lottery revenues, Tennessee’s College Promise program will cost an estimated $12 million and provide scholarships to nearly 15,000 students in its first year.

Policy Impact
Initial results suggest that free community college may shift enrollment, rather than growing enrollment. According to an article in the Tennessean, community college enrollment rose by nearly 14% following the program’s implementation, while enrollment at the state’s public four-year institutions decreased. At the University of Tennessee at Martin, enrollment declined by 13% in one year. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga also saw declines in freshmen enrollment, while two nearby community colleges saw dramatic increases.These preliminary results run counter to national trends, which have shown a shift in enrollment away from community colleges to public four-year institutions since 2010.

Lessons for California
California’s community colleges play an essential role in our higher education pipeline. They often serve non-traditional and underserved minority students, and provide workforce training to help students ascend the economic ladder. If providing free community college increased enrollment and graduation, this could lead to higher earnings, more tax revenue, and reduced demand for social services in the state.

But there’s a chance the policy could limit degree production. According to our research, students who begin their postsecondary career at a four-year college are much more likely than those who enroll at a community college to earn a bachelor’s degree, even when controlling for student characteristics. For example, students from low-income families who begin at a four-year college are, on average, two to three times more likely to finish their bachelor’s degree, regardless of their high school GPA.

Other approaches to making college more affordable might have a bigger impact. In California, two-thirds of students already receive free tuition, and about 90% of the cost of attending community college comes from living expenses. Increasing state awards for non-tuition educational costs would be a logical step to improve student access and educational attainment. The Cal Grant B access award currently provides low-income students with up to $1,656 to help pay for items like books, housing, and food. If funding for this award, which started in 1969–70, had kept up with inflation, it would currently by worth over $6,000, nearly four times its current value.

Compared to other states, California ranks 47th in sending our high school graduates to four-year colleges. Improving access and affordability is vital, but California should make sure that policies also increase students’ likelihood of earning a bachelor’s degree, so that more individuals have the opportunity to realize the myriad benefits—economic and otherwise—that these degrees confer.

Figure source: Author’s calculations based on logit regression models using College Futures Foundation student data. Students followed for six years. Data and methods available in Technical Appendix A of the report Making College Possible for Low-Income Students.

Learn more

Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Testimony: Closing California’s Workforce Skills Gap

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 yesterday (May 17, 2016). Here are his prepared remarks.

The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) projects that between now and 2030 California will fall 1.1 million bachelor’s degrees short of workforce demand.¹ Closing this gap will require substantial improvements in access to four-year colleges, transfer rates from community colleges, and completion rates among students who enroll in college. In this testimony, PPIC identifies specific goals for access, transfer, and completion at California’s public colleges and universities, and increases in private colleges that together could close the workforce skills gap.

Our work on this issue emphasizes that closing the workforce skills gap will require strong improvements in college enrollment and completion among underrepresented groups, including low-income students, first-generation college students, Latinos, and African Americans. California cannot succeed economically unless gaps in educational attainment are eliminated or at least substantially reduced. A forthcoming report from PPIC will show how new goals for access, completion, and transfer will improve equity in California.

In our baseline scenario, which is based on current practices and procedures, California’s public and private higher education institutions will produce 3.1 million bachelor’s degrees between 2015–16 and 2029–30. This baseline scenario assumes that the state’s college enrollment rates, completion rates, and transfer rates will remain at current levels.

Our “closing-the-gap” scenario charts a course to producing 4.2 million bachelor’s degrees over the next 15 years. In this scenario, the total number of bachelor’s degrees awarded in 2029–30 would be 60 percent higher than in the baseline scenario—and it would be 72 percent higher than the number of degrees awarded in 2014–15. Such dramatic increases are not entirely without precedent. Between 2002–03 and 2014–15, the annual number of bachelor’s degrees awarded by California’s public and private universities increased almost 50 percent. Gains in earlier periods were even more impressive. For example, between 1964–65 and 1979–80 the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at CSU increased 95 percent.

In the recent past, growth in the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at UC and CSU was fueled primarily by increases in the number of students who enrolled in college and secondarily by increases in completion rates. Even though the share of high school graduates entering UC and CSU did not change appreciably, enrollment increased as the number of high school graduates grew.

The California Department of Finance projects that the number of high school graduates will not change substantially over the next fifteen years. This means that increasing the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded will require changes in three key thresholds in the education pipeline from high school to college to degree.

First, the share of recent high school graduates eligible for and enrolling in four-year colleges will need to increase.
Second, persistence and completion rates for students enrolled in college must increase.
Third, the number of students who transfer from community colleges to four-year colleges (or return to college) must increase.

The exact mix of improvements in these three areas is not set in stone. Our closing-the-gap scenario is based on empirical trends, and our current focus is on public institutions. We assume that private colleges will keep pace with those in the public sector, continuing to produce about a third of all bachelor’s degrees awarded each year. Also, we have not incorporated applied bachelor’s degrees awarded by the state’s community colleges, as those numbers are still very small. This means that UC and CSU together would need to produce an additional 730,000 bachelor’s degrees over this period and private colleges would need to produce an additional 340,000 bachelor’s degrees (a total of 1.1 million) to fully close the degree gap by 2030. Private nonprofit colleges would account for the vast majority of the additional degrees awarded by the private sector.

Our initial closing-the-gap scenario sets the following targets for the state’s public colleges and universities:

Eligibility will increase 5 percentage points over current levels at UC (the top 17.5 percent of high school graduates will be eligible for UC, up from the 12.5 percent share set by California’s Master Plan for Higher Education) and 6.7 percentage points at CSU (the top 40 percent will be eligible for CSU, up from the top third). These new eligibility levels will be phased in over an eight-year period.
The number of transfer students will increase 35 percent over baseline levels. These increases will be phased in over a five-year period.
Completion rates will increase 9 percentage points at UC and 17 percentage points at CSU. At UC, completion rates for students who enroll as freshmen will increase incrementally from 83 percent in 2016 to 92 percent by 2026. Completion rates for freshmen at CSU will increase incrementally from 57 percent in 2016 to 74 percent by 2030. There will be similar increases in completion rates for transfer students at both institutions.

CSU will account for most of the increase in degrees awarded over the entire projection period—it will award 481,000 additional degrees, compared to UC’s increase of 251,000. This is both because CSU is a larger institution, enrolling many more students than UC, and because CSU has much more room for improvement in graduation rates. Private nonprofit colleges would also play an important role, adding an additional 206,000 degrees. Other additional sources, such as private for-profit colleges, online degree programs, and bachelor’s degrees awarded by community colleges, will also need to play a role (see Table 1).

Most of the projected increase in degrees awarded at CSU comes from improvements in completion, while increased eligibility accounts for almost half of UC’s increase. Increased transfer rates will also be necessary to close the gap (see Table 2).

Of course, this is just one scenario for closing the workforce skills gap (our interactive model is available upon request). In the future, we expect to develop alternative closing-the-gap scenarios; we will also examine the potential impact of shortening the time it takes students to get their degrees. Additional work should assess the role that private institutions might play. Other scenarios might involve different assumptions and targets. But, however it is accomplished, closing the gap will lead to better economic outcomes for all Californians, increased state revenues, and reduced social service demands.

1. Hans Johnson, Marisol Cuellar Mejia, and Sarah Bohn, Will California Run Out of College Graduates? (PPIC, 2015).
Figure note (middle): “Other” includes online degrees, private for-profit degrees, and applied bachelor’s degrees awarded by the community colleges.
Photo credit: Public Affairs/Sacramento State

Assessment and Placement at Community Colleges

The assessment and placement process often represents the first point of contact between incoming students and community colleges. This process aims to evaluate students’ readiness for college-level English and math courses, and for those deemed underprepared, to determine appropriate placement into the remedial—also known as developmental—education sequence. Estimates suggest that 75%–80% of incoming community college students across the state enroll in developmental education in at least one subject.

Despite the prevalence of this process, little is known about how the state’s community colleges assess and place students into math and English courses. The last statewide survey on this topic, conducted over five years ago by WestEd, found that community colleges used placement tests extensively, but the cut-off scores for placement varied a great deal across campuses. Additionally, the survey showed that the use of other student achievement measures for placement was sparse and unsystematic.

Greater clarity regarding assessment and placement is crucial for two reasons. First, decisions made about a student’s readiness for college have significant implications for that student’s educational trajectory. In California’s community colleges, only 40% of underprepared students ever complete a degree or transfer, compared to 70% of their college-prepared peers. Research shows that developmental education may discourage students or “divert” their academic progress, as students spend considerable time and money on developmental courses, but these credits do not count toward a college degree or transfer.

Second, the possible overreliance on placement tests may be cause for concern. The Community College Research Center has found that the placement tests commonly used at colleges across the country are not strongly predictive of student success in college-level courses. In fact, these tests tended to under-place students, meaning students were placed into developmental courses when they could have passed college-level courses. This research also demonstrated that high school grades and other pre-existing student achievement data could do a comparable or better job at predicting success in college-level courses.

More comprehensive research in these areas would allow the state’s community colleges to identify assessment and placement reforms that help improve outcomes for all students. As a step forward in this effort, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is collecting survey data on the current assessment and placement policies and practices at California Community Colleges. These survey results will help pinpoint the different measures used to assess the math and English skills of incoming students and the ways in which these measures determine appropriate placement.

This research comes at an important time, since more change is underway. As part of the Common Assessment Initiative, over the next several years, community colleges will begin to use a common placement test, set locally determined cut-off scores, and enhance their use of multiple measures. PPIC’s survey will establish a benchmark of the assessment and placement process prior to the implementation of these statewide reforms.

America’s College Promise: An Opportunity for California

The cost of college has become a prominent issue in the presidential campaign as tuitions increase, student debt inflates, and candidates attempt to appeal to a growing generation of younger voters. Though candidates and policymakers disagree on the specifics, providing free tuition for community colleges has emerged as one popular policy prescription. Recently, two of California’s candidates for US Senate – Kamala Harris and Loretta Sanchez—voiced support for this idea.

Last year, President Obama proposed legislation entitled America’s College Promise, which would have provided federal funding to states to make two years of community college free to academically eligible, first-time students. However, Congress blocked this program, citing the $79.7 billion price tag. Additionally, the program drew criticism from a range of stakeholders.

Many suggested that providing free tuition would do very little to help with the full cost of college. In California, only about 10% of the total cost of attending community college is related to tuition and fees because state subsidies and tuition waivers cover most of these costs. Instead, the state’s high cost of living, most notably in housing, constitutes the largest financial burden for community college students.

The most recent iteration of the program has sought to address this criticism. The president’s 2016 proposed budget includes a request for $1.6 billion as part of a 10-year, $60.3 billion program that would create a partnership with states to make a maximum of three years of community college free for eligible students. The federal government would cover three-quarters of the program’s cost and states would cover the rest. Participating states must meet certain performance requirements regarding student outcomes and state funding increases for higher education. And to avoid spending on those who can more easily afford community college, students must have an adjusted gross income below $200,000.

These changes in the program benefit states with low tuition. States will receive a payment for each eligible student equal to 75% of the national average of community college tuition. If a state’s tuition is below the national average—as California’s is—the additional funding may be used for other higher education purposes. Given that California’s tuition is low but its living expenses are high, this provision would allow the state to direct the extra funding—about $1,000 per eligible student—toward low-income students to help pay for books, transportation, housing, food, and other necessities. This extra funding could help low-income students in community colleges and at public four-year colleges afford the true cost of attending college.

In response to the proposed federal program, the state legislature has introduced a suite of bills known as the California College Promise. These bills would eliminate community college tuition and direct new funding to expand eligibility for the community college fee waiver program, increase funding for the Cal Grant program, and help community colleges establish regional coordination efforts with K-12 feeder schools and public four-year colleges and universities.

Even if federal funding for a long term program like America’s College Promise is unlikely to materialize in a presidential election year, the fact remains that reducing the cost of college has become a prominent issue. Proposals to provide free community college have clearly resonated with a broad coalition of voters, policymakers, and advocacy groups. As congressional debate continues regarding reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965, which approves spending on federal financial aid programs, we can expect the conversation surrounding college affordability and access to intensify.

Chart source: NCES Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS)

Learn more

Read Higher Education in California: Making College Affordable
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Community Colleges and Career Technical Education

The governor’s January budget proposal allocates increased funding to support the Strong Workforce Program, which will enable California’s community college system to expand access to career technical education (CTE), commonly referred to as vocational education.

This proposal comes at a time of renewed attention to CTE. The federal 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act focuses in part on improving community colleges’ engagement in workforce training. In California, in addition to the investment proposed by the governor, the California Career Pathways Trust—a pilot program created by 2014 legislation—aims to ensure the development and strengthening of career pathway training programs.

California’s community colleges have always played a key role in providing CTE training opportunities. While CTE training can start as early as high school, CTE at the community colleges provides a closer tie to workforce opportunities—to meet both student and employer needs. For-profit colleges, which offer a number of CTE programs, are under increased scrutiny due to poor graduation rates, mounting student debt, and questions about the value of their degrees—putting even more focus on the state’s public two-year colleges to provide training opportunities in high-demand programs.

Training programs in the health care field are a prime example. The health care sector in California is large and growing, providing essential services to the state’s population as well as employment opportunities to a wide variety of workers. And according to our recent report, nearly 200,000 new health care jobs over the next decade will require some college training but not a bachelor’s degree. Given the state’s interest in serving employment needs and diversifying the health care workforce, it is crucially important to understand the ability of California’s community colleges to effectively train health workers for needed jobs.

Beyond meeting the state’s workforce needs, career technical education also has the potential to substantively improve labor market outcomes for a wide range of students. Research has identified sizable labor market returns to obtaining a career technical credential, and the California Community College Chancellor’s Office makes this information publicly available through its Salary Surfer web tool. But much remains unknown, especially why economic returns vary across programs and student groups and why more students do not complete a credential at all. To ensure recent state and federal investments—and future reforms—are effective, it is important to fill the knowledge gaps on the student, institutional, and policy choices that lead to optimal outcomes.

Perhaps more importantly, if vocational training is to be a viable mechanism for improving economic mobility, especially for disadvantaged groups, we need a better understanding of the most promising pathways. Upcoming PPIC research will examine this very issue, looking at student success at California’s community colleges across health CTE programs and student demographic groups to provide a clearer picture of effective career technical education.