Tag: California State University

Testimony: How an Integrated Data System Could Improve Education

Jacob Jackson, research fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified before the Senate Committee on Education in Sacramento today (April 11, 2018). Here are his prepared remarks:

Thank you Chair Allen, Vice Chair Wilk, and members of the committee for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jacob Jackson and I am a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California. PPIC is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research organization and does not take positions on legislation. My comments today are about the potential benefits of a statewide, longitudinal student data system and are based on research that PPIC and others have conducted.

Right now, educational institutions and government agencies already collect plenty of data. The California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) tracks students from kindergarten through grade 12. Each public system of higher education (the community colleges, California State University, and the University of California) keeps track of its students while they are attending that institution. And the Labor and Workforce Development Agency collects data on the earnings of Californians over time. However, these data sources remain largely separate—which prevents the state from understanding how students move across educational institutions and into the workforce. Below are three key considerations in thinking about the potential value of an integrated data system.

A statewide longitudinal data system could help answer important questions for California. The lack of an integrated data system leaves California unable to answer basic questions about educational progress, workforce development, and equity. Such questions include:

  • Is the state’s educational pipeline working? Who applies to which colleges? Does starting at a community college hurt students’ chances of earning a bachelor’s degree?
  • How does education affect workforce outcomes? In what ways are academic coursework and performance during K–12 related to future earnings? What are the economic returns to different Career Technical Education (CTE) pathways?
  • Are state interventions working? Are districts that receive extra funding through the Local Control Funding Formula getting better at sending students to college?
  • Are state investments paying off? What are the impacts of early childhood education on long-term educational and economic outcomes?

College and career readiness is one area where a longitudinal data system could help inform policy. The Common Core State Standards and the Smarter Balanced assessments are aimed at preparing K–12 students for college and career success. PPIC projects that California will face a shortfall of 1.1 million college graduates if current trends in college-degree production and demand for college-educated workers persist. Getting students ready for college is an important goal for the state. In fact, California’s K–12 scorecard will soon start holding districts accountable for their college and career readiness. The College Career Indicator contains metrics about high school course completion and standardized test measures. But due to the lack of linked data, high schools do not actually know which of their students go to which colleges, whether students need remediation once they get there, and whether students succeed in their academic goals. High schools also lack data on if or when students enter the workforce and how successful they are in their career. A statewide longitudinal data system can connect high school performance with outcomes in college and career, which could in turn provide schools, researchers, and policymakers the feedback they need to improve college and career readiness policies and programs.

Though our current ability to link data across sectors is limited, doing so has already produced important insights. Occasionally, researchers or institutions can link together data on a project-by-project basis. Here I list two examples that uncovered important insights and that would not have been possible without longitudinal data. First, PPIC researchers Sarah Bohn and Shannon McConville’s work on Career Technical Education in health fields linked educational data from the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office with earnings data from the state’s Unemployment Insurance system. Their work showed that CTE credentials in health generally have sizeable economic returns. The research also indicated which certificates result in higher wages and showed that earning multiple, short-term credentials yields significant economic returns. My own research with Michal Kurlaender and Scott Carrell of UC Davis connected community college data to high school data to show that incoming student characteristics play a big role in determining college-wide outcomes and rankings. These findings are especially important given the initial conversations around performance funding for California’s community colleges.

It is clear that a statewide longitudinal data system could provide new information and insights that are not currently available or possible. There still may be concerns about organization, privacy, security, costs, and ownership of the data, but if the state is willing to meet those challenges—as many other states have done—this tool could help California evaluate and improve its system of education. Linking K–12, college, and earnings data would allow policy experts to determine which policies and programs produce the best and most efficient outcomes for students, colleges, and the state as a whole.

Testimony: Transfer Is Key to Closing the Workforce Skills Gap

Hans Johnson, director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified March 20, 2018, before the Senate Select Committee on Student Success.

Here are his prepared remarks.

California faces a shortage of highly educated workers. Specifically, economic projections to 2030 show that about two in five jobs will require at least a bachelor’s degree, while demographic projections suggest that only about one in three Californians will attain this level of education. This shortfall equates to 1.1 million workers. To close the gap, all higher education systems will need to play a role, increasing access, transfer, and completion. Improving access and outcomes among groups historically underrepresented in higher education—including low-income students, first-generation college students, Latinos, and African Americans—is essential if we are to close the workforce skills gap.

The good news is that California’s students are rising to the challenge. College preparation among high school graduates has increased, with the share of students completing the college preparatory requirements of UC and CSU now at an all-time high. Strong demand for UC and CSU is likely to continue as college preparation improves and the transfer pathway becomes more efficient and effective. In addition, new initiatives, including reforms in remedial education at the community colleges and CSU, have the potential to substantially improve student success rates and boost transfer. Finding ways to accommodate all these students remains a central challenge, but one that must be met in order to ensure a better future for all Californians.

In this testimony, I will focus on the importance of transfer. California enrolls a disproportionate share of students in community college. We rank 47th in the nation in the share of recent high school graduates enrolling in four-year colleges and 5th in the nation in the share enrolling in community colleges. This means that we must do more to ensure that community college students reach their educational goals—since the vast majority of recent high school graduates attending community colleges say that they want to transfer and earn a bachelor’s degree. As shown in the chart below, there is a lot of room for improvement—only 40% of recent high school graduates who go to community college will end up transferring to a four-year institution.

PPIC has identified ambitious targets that would close the workforce skills gap. As shown in the table below, doing so will require large increases in access to UC and CSU, both for first time freshmen and for transfer students. In its Vision for Success, a blueprint for improving student outcomes, the community colleges have established new goals for transfer that align exactly with the PPIC targets. Those targets include a 35% increase in the number of transfer students at UC and CSU, increasing from about 72,000 combined in 2015 to almost 100,000 by 2020.

I’m pleased to say that the colleges are currently on track to meet those targets. We are now two years into PPIC’s projections, and both UC and CSU have met the closing-the-gap targets (see charts below). The concerted efforts of policymakers, higher education officials—including staff and faculty—and, of course, students have led to these early gains.  State general fund allocations for each system have increased since the Great Recession, allowing for increased enrollment. At UC, those budget allocations were partially tied to increasing enrollment, hence the sharp rise in transfers from 2015 to 2016.  New articulation agreements, such as the Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT), have streamlined the pathway from community colleges to four-year colleges, especially CSU. And an increased focus on improving student outcomes in the community colleges has led to multiple substantive reforms designed to increase persistence and completion (including transfer).

These early successes are very promising. Still, California needs to build on them if it is to close the degree gap.  We offer the following recommendations for moving forward:

  • First, the state should work with the systems to ensure that students who are eligible for transfer successfully make the transition. Some students who are eligible to transfer never even apply to do so. More work needs to be done to understand factors that prevent those students from moving on, including an assessment of equity implications. At the same time, many transfer-eligible students do apply to transfer, but are not admitted because of insufficient resources at UC and CSU. Because of budget constraints, CSU reports turning away more than 32,000 transfer applicants from 2013–14 through 2016–17, even though they had met CSU admission requirements (based on systemwide unduplicated counts of California resident applications). UC does not report how many qualified applicants have been turned away, partly because UC eligibility is less clearly defined. UC has general transfer requirements, including courses and grade point average requirements, but advises students that “meeting these basic requirements doesn’t guarantee admission to the campus or major of your choice.” Enrolling more students will almost certainly require more funding, either from the state via the general fund or from students and their families through tuition increases.
  • Second, the pathway from community college to UC and CSU needs to become systematically and comprehensively streamlined. The Associate Degree for Transfer is a step in the right direction. Students earning an ADT are guaranteed admission to CSU in a major aligned to their course of study. But these degrees are offered only in some majors at some colleges. While the number of students earning an ADT has grown rapidly, it is still the case that the majority of transfers to CSU do not have the degree. As shown in the chart below, institutional participation in the program varies by college and by major. Some majors, including engineering, have no ADT at all.  Moreover, UC does not formally participate in the ADT guarantee. At UC, transfer admission requirements vary by campus and by majors within campuses.  For example, UC Berkeley’s College of Engineering has much higher standards than the UC minimum requirements for transfer, including a 3.5 grade point average and the completion of courses that are not offered at all community colleges.

  • Third, the state and its higher education institutions need to plan for potentially large increases in the number of community college students prepared and ready to transfer. New reforms in the community colleges hold the promise of dramatically increasing persistence and completion. Assessment and placement reform, spurred by AB 705, is likely to lead to an enormous increase in the number of students placed directly into college-level English and math courses—bypassing traditional remedial classes that have been the single largest impediment to student success. Other new initiatives, including “guided pathways” intended to provide a clear road map to students on courses of study and the supports needed to succeed, could lead to further gains. Because most transfer students enroll in CSU and UC, capacity issues at those institutions must be addressed. The state’s private nonprofit colleges are also an important destination for transfer students, and continued efforts should seek to gain greater participation and enrollment in that vital sector.

Through thoughtful planning—and yes, additional funding—closing the workforce skills gap is possible. Improving the transfer pathway is a necessary and critical component. And because community colleges are highly representative of California’s economic and demographic diversity, improving transfer pathways will ensure that more low-income, first-generation, and underrepresented students have access to a four-year degree.

The Rising Cost of College: Student Fees

Students, parents, and lawmakers often express concern about tuition increases at California’s public universities. But tuition is not the only college cost that has been rising. Students also pay fees that cover many non-instructional costs, and between 2013 and 2016, student fees increased an average of 21% at both the UC and CSU systems, even as tuition itself stayed flat.

UC charges a systemwide fee ($1,228 for 2017‒18) to cover student affairs operations, and UC campuses can assess their own fees. CSU does not assess a systemwide fee; instead, the Chancellor’s Office allows campuses to decide how much to charge for each of seven fee categories, ranging from health services and facilities to instructionally related activities to the student association. When students vote to approve referenda, they are agreeing to implement fees for new or expanded services.

Fees typically pay for things like student affairs services, health center services, campus gym services and facilities (initiated at UCLA and UC Irvine in the early 2000s), and student union seismic retrofit fees. Today, student-advocated fees commonly pay for expanded psychological health services and recruitment and retention centers.

Campus-based and systemwide fees add from 15% to 25% to tuition at UC and 15% to 65% at CSU. Total fees assessed in 2017‒18 range from $1,759 (UCLA) to $2,949 (UC Santa Barbara) in the UC system and from $843 (Fresno State) to $3,718 (Cal Poly San Luis Obispo) at CSU schools.

While financial aid protects low income students from tuition increases, it doesn’t always cover fees. State and institutional aid programs cover only tuition and systemwide fees, so most campus-based fees must be paid by all students. This lack of coverage is becoming a bigger issue now that fees are on the rise. The UC Regents systemwide fee increased more than 10% from 2013 to 2016, and campus-based fees increased an average of 24%. At CSU, campus-specific fees increased by an average of 23%. This has increased the total cost of attending college even though the state and the two systems made a deal to freeze tuition.

Fees have become an important source of revenue for campuses, enabling them to provide non-instructional services. But, along with high housing costs, rising college fees are having an impact on students and families. As policymakers consider revising the master plan and the administration of state financial aid, they need to address growing non-tuition costs.

Learn more

 

Testimony: How Can California Produce More College Graduates?

Hans Johnson, director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center, testified today, February 6, 2018, before the Assembly Budget Subcommittee No. 2 on Education Finance and the Assembly Higher Education Committee. The master plan defined a strategy to meet the state’s education needs in 1960—but today, California faces new challenges. The topic of today’s hearing: how to meet the state’s future economic need for more college graduates. Here are his prepared remarks.

PPIC’s work has revealed a serious gap between the number of highly educated workers that California’s future economy will need and the number the state is on pace to produce. We call this the workforce skills gap—and it’s quite large. To meet economic demand and secure a more prosperous future for our state, California’s higher education institutions will need to produce 1.1 million more college graduates by 2030.

Admittedly, doing so is an ambitious goal. But there is significant room for improving how many students graduate from college—especially if we consider that currently only about 30 percent of California’s 9th graders will earn a bachelor’s degree.

PPIC has quantified the role of each university segment—the University of California, the California State University, and private nonprofit colleges in California—in closing the workforce skills gap. Overall, the number of bachelor’s degrees would need to increase by about one-third over baseline projections. Almost half of the gains would need to occur at CSU, the nation’s largest public university system. UC and private nonprofit colleges would also play an important role.

Most immediate to today’s conversation about goal setting for the state’s public systems, PPIC has identified the combination of increases in freshman eligibility, transfer, and completion rates necessary to close the gap.

Our preferred approach—a closing-the-gap scenario—combines increases in eligibility, transfer, and graduation rates, as shown below. Along with increases in enrollment and completion at private institutions, reaching these targets would fully close the workforce skills gap.

In our scenario, each target would be reached gradually through a phase-in period. In the first few years, projected increases would be minimal as the systems would enroll more students and implement policies to improve completion and transfer. But within five years, the increases would become quite large. By 2020–21, CSU would award almost 25,000 additional bachelor’s degrees; UC would award more than 12,000.

For the purposes of setting annual goals, we are identifying annual targets in new freshmen enrollment, transfer, and completion rates that would match the closing-the-skills gap degree targets. Enrollment and transfer targets depend on graduation rates and time to degree—meaning that enrollment increases could be lower if graduation rates improve and students complete their degrees more quickly. For example, students who take 12 units per semester will take five years of continuous enrollment to earn the 120 units necessary for graduation.  If those students instead took 15 units per semester, they would graduate in four years and free up additional space for other students.

It has been a couple years since PPIC first developed our projections, and we’ve now been able to chart early progress by the systems. Later you will hear in detail from the segments about their plans, but right now I am happy to report some good news: the number of bachelor’s degrees awarded at UC and CSU is actually higher than our initial scenario called for.

Of course, we are just at the start of our projection period, and to close the gap the numbers must ramp up quickly after the first few years. Nonetheless, growth in graduation rates and enrollment has led to a notable expansion in degrees awarded at both systems. Over the past two years, UC and CSU combined have awarded 295,000 bachelor’s degrees—21,000 more than in our closing-the-gap-scenario and 23,000 more than in our baseline scenario. In addition, the number of transfer students has increased 8%, also higher than in our closing-the-gap scenario.

In addition, community colleges and CSU have adopted new goals for student success that are entirely consistent with PPIC’s closing-the-gap scenario. CSU’s new graduation initiative calls for reducing time to degree and increasing both four-year and six-year graduation rates. CSU’s goal of a 70% six-year graduation rate by 2025 is in line with and in fact slightly more ambitious than our scenario. In their new “Vision for Success,” the community colleges have adopted a goal to increase transfer to UC and CSU by 35% over the next five years, a goal that is entirely consistent with our work.

There is an important additional benefit of meeting these goals: reducing equity gaps. Today, students who have been underrepresented in higher education—including Latino, African American, low-income, and first-generation students—make up a majority of California’s high school graduates. Strong increases in college preparation among the state’s high school graduates are expanding the pool of potential college graduates, with the share of students—including African American and Latino students—completing the college preparatory requirements of UC and CSU reaching an all-time high. Ensuring that the growing number of prepared high school graduates have meaningful access to and success in higher education will not only help California meet its economic challenges, it will ensure that higher education continues to serve as a ladder of economic and social mobility.

Our focus at PPIC has been on college graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree, but we acknowledge the importance of other postsecondary training. We have a series of reports and ongoing projects that identify successful vocational pathways and high value awards (certificates and associate degrees) offered by the state’s community colleges. Lande Ajose of California Competes will discuss in more detail the need for sub-baccalaureate post-secondary education. We also acknowledge the importance of post-baccalaureate education, including professional and academic graduate degrees offered primarily by UC and the state’s private nonprofit colleges. Those degree holders have the best labor market outcomes in the state.

Figuring out how to pay for all these increases is no easy task and will be discussed later in this hearing.  Let me alert you to two projects underway at PPIC that will help shed light on this issue. One will examine the role that tuition policy could play and the other will focus on capital finance. In addition, we will continue to monitor affordability issues, including student debt, identified by respondents to the PPIC Statewide Survey as the number one higher education issue.

Finally, it is worth noting that the governor has proposed a funding formula for the community colleges that for the first time will provide additional funding based on student outcomes and enrolling low-income students. PPIC has argued that this approach has the potential to incentivize investment by the state’s higher education systems in areas that further state priorities.

 

Funding Increase for Community Colleges

Nearly 70% of new funding for higher education—or $570 million—in Governor Brown’s proposed budget goes to the state’s community colleges. This continues a trend that has seen community colleges get an ever-growing portion of higher education funding even as overall funds for higher education have shrunk—from 18% of the General Fund 40 years ago to just under 12% now. This trend is likely to continue—mostly because Proposition 98, passed by the voters in 1988, sets minimum funding levels for the state’s K–12 and community college systems.

Blog figure: 2018-19 Budget, Community College FundingThese mandated minimum funding levels have protected community colleges from the kind of budget cuts that have affected California’s other public higher education institutions. In addition, Governor Brown has prioritized investments in the community college system, which serves 2.1 million students and is the gateway to higher education for the vast majority of California students.

Governor Brown and the legislature have vastly increased investment in community college programs intended to improve student outcomes and eliminate achievement gaps, including programs focused on adult education and career technical education. Moreover, last year the governor provided a one-time allocation of $150 million to develop the Guided Pathways program, aimed at integrating disparate student success programs into one model and creating clear pathways for students to earn a certificate or degree, or transfer to a four-year college.

The governor’s current budget proposal also contains a new funding formula for the community colleges. This formula would shift future funding to districts with higher proportions of low-income students and those that have achieved better student outcomes. Under this formula, each district would get 50% of its funding based on enrollment, 25% based on enrollment of low-income students—those who receive a tuition waiver or Pell grant—and 25% based on district performance. Performance would be measured by the number of degrees and certificates provided, the number of students who complete a degree or certificate in three years or less, and the number of Associate Degrees for Transfer granted.

California’s community colleges have long struggled with low completion rates, low transfer rates, and persistent achievement gaps. Additional funds and a new funding formula may help to address these issues and lead to greater student success—which, for most community college students, means transferring to a four-year institution. Today, more than half of CSU students are community college transfers, as are nearly one-third of UC students. If current investments in community colleges do in fact improve student outcomes, then California’s four-year institutions will need to be ready for even more transfers.

 

High Housing Costs Hurt College Affordability

A majority of Californians say affordability is a problem in the state’s public colleges and universities, according to the PPIC Statewide Survey. In addition, three-quarters of residents in the survey agree that the price of college prevents students who are qualified and motivated from going to college. Not surprisingly, state leaders are exploring new strategies to help students and families better cope with college costs. Most current approaches, such as state and institutional financial aid, focus primarily on tuition relief. This makes sense, as tuition more than doubled at California universities from 2006 to 2012—and is on the rise again.

However, housing costs also play a significant role in the total cost of attending college. Californians are well aware of the issue: 85% of residents in the PPIC survey say colleges and universities should do more to make sure that all students have affordable housing options. Indeed, even with the rapid increases in tuition, living costs for many students exceed tuition at California’s public institutions—the state’s community colleges, California State University (CSU), and the University of California (UC). Average room and board costs also differ substantially across the three systems, from $8,509 per year at the community colleges to $13,774 at UC.

These differences in costs are related to whether students live on campus, off campus on their own, or off campus with family. Estimated average costs of housing and food for students living on campus top $13,000 per year, and those living off campus pay an average of $10,000 to $13,000 in room and board. The costs associated with living with family are not estimated in the available federal data, but most college websites suggest these costs range from $5,000 to $6,000—about half the cost of living on or off campus.

Students’ housing choices also partially depend on where they go to school. Only nine cities in California have UC campuses (excluding UCSF which only enrolls graduate students), and most UC freshmen live on campus in their first year. Historically, the 113 community colleges and 23 CSU campuses have been seen as local and low-cost options. Indeed, both systems show about 30% or more of freshmen living with their families, which helps keep average room and board costs lower than at UC. But it is worth noting that the share of CSU freshmen living on campus may grow. More dorms are being built on CSU campuses as administrators see on-campus housing as a strategy to increase graduation rates. Data on students’ living arrangements are based on institutional reporting on freshmen who receive some sort of federal financial aid, which includes more than 60% of students at most institutions.

As state leaders reexamine the goals in the 1960 Master Plan for Higher Education and consider changes to financial aid, they should take into account the role that living costs play in the total cost of education.

Learn moreRead the PPIC Statewide Survey: Californians and Higher Education
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Bricks and Mortarboards: Capital Investment in Colleges

PPIC has documented California’s need to increase the number of resident college graduates to meet the economy’s future needs. While the state’s public higher education systems are taking steps to increase the number of students who complete their degrees in a timely manner, these improvements alone will not fill the gap. At some point, the UC and CSU systems will have to expand their capacity, and such an expansion is likely to require long-term capital investment in buildings, technology, and campus infrastructure.

It is important to note that capital investment encompasses more than new classrooms or dormitories. Earlier this week, the College Futures Foundation released a report by Patrick Lenz in which the California Community Colleges, the University of California (UC), and the California State University (CSU) estimate that they will need a combined $47.2 billion to modernize and maintain their facilities in the next five years alone. Their needs include ensuring the safety and accessibility of aging buildings and investment in the less visible systems—heating, cooling, electrical, and water—that enable a campus to function.

A look at some historical data suggests that economic pressures and policy decisions have led California to underinvest in higher education infrastructure over the past decade compared to four other large states. From 2005 to 2015, the period for which we have data, state support for capital investment in both California and Florida dropped sharply as a consequence of the Great Recession. Interestingly, New York increased its support, while support in Pennsylvania and Texas stayed the same.

In 2000, California voters approved Proposition 39, which makes it easier for community colleges to pass bond measures. Since then, local community college districts have been relatively successful in funding their capital needs. The state’s four-year universities, however, face a different situation. To compare how much UC and CSU spent (per student) on maintaining and operating their campuses between 2005 and 2015, we separated and compared each system to a nationwide group of similar institutions. As the state cut its investment in higher education infrastructure, UC cut its infrastructure spending dramatically, while CSU’s spending remained relatively constant. But average maintenance spending by both systems was significantly below that of their peers.

These comparisons suggest that California has been systematically underinvesting in its higher education infrastructure, at least at its four-year public universities. Even if California were not facing a degree gap, it could benefit from rethinking its higher education capital finance strategy. But a new approach becomes imperative when one considers that larger shares of high school graduates are expected to complete the a–g requirements and that many of those students will seek admission to UC and CSU. Efforts by the state’s community colleges to increase the number of students who transfer to four-year institutions will also heighten the need to expand capacity, necessitating further capital investment.

Over the coming months, PPIC will be focusing on capital finance, a key component in maintaining access for all students and producing an educated workforce. We hope to inform state decision making in this critical area.

Learn more
Visit the PPIC Higher Education Center

Video: Keeping Students on Track for College

Only about 30% of California 9th graders are expected to earn a bachelor’s degree—a startling statistic in a state that faces a shortfall of college graduates. A new PPIC report finds that the vast majority fall off the path to a college degree in the last two years of high school or the first two years of college.

Report coauthor Niu Gao presented the analysis in Sacramento last week, along with recommendations for tackling the problem. Among them: updating high school graduation requirements, offering more of the college preparatory courses required for admission to California State University (CSU) or the University of California (UC), and improving placement policies in both high schools and community colleges to ensure that students take the classes needed to progress.

Gao’s presentation was followed by a panel discussion among experts who work in this area. In a conversation moderated by Hans Johnson—report coauthor, and director and senior fellow at the PPIC Higher Education Center—participants touched on challenges, as well as potential solutions.

Jorge A. Aguilar, superintendent of the Sacramento City Unified School District, noted that while more students are completing college prep courses—known as a–g courses—many aren’t making it to or through college. Part of the problem, he said, is the “fundamental disconnect between K–12 and higher education.” Having worked in both sectors, he noted there are insufficient incentives for school districts to focus on persistence in higher education and for higher education to work with K–12 on the issue.

Kimberly Rodriguez, chief education advisor to Kevin de León, state senate president pro tempore, addressed one of the report’s key recommendations: increasing state high school graduation requirements in math. She noted that requiring a–g courses for graduation has been much discussed at the state level.

“The biggest barrier has always been money,” she said. “Because once you require it, the state is on the hook.” Implementation is also complicated, she said, requiring planning and attention to infrastructure—as districts that have already adopted these requirements have found.

The third panelist, Jim Dragna, talked about a promising initiative. Known as the “graduation czar” at CSU Sacramento, he supervises the Finish in Four program. Students are asked to pledge to take 15 credits a semester—the number needed to graduate in four years—and are provided extra resources to ensure they stay on track.

“Student progression problems have been with us so long that they’ve become part of the culture,” he said. So, he continued, “we tackled the culture.”

California Needs More College Prep Courses

Most California high school graduates are not ready for college. Despite the steady improvements over the past decade, less than half of graduating seniors in the class of 2016 completed the a–g requirements, the set of courses high school students must complete to be eligible for admission to the University of California (UC) or California State University (CSU). The completion rate is substantially lower among Latino (37%), African American (34%), economically disadvantaged (37%), and English Learner (10%) students.

PPIC’s new report looks at the role of several institutional factors that may improve the completion rate, including high school graduation requirements, course placement policies and practices, and academic counseling and advising. But there is another significant barrier: not every high school in California offers the full a–g course sequence.

During the most recent school year (2016–17), 12% of California high schools did not offer the full math sequence, which includes algebra 1, geometry, and algebra 2. Similarly, 14% of high schools did not offer four years of a–g approved English courses. High-poverty schools (where more than 75% of students are eligible for free or reduced-price lunch) and high-minority schools (where more than 75% of students are African American or Latino) were just as likely as schools overall to offer the full sequence. But small schools (those at the bottom 25th percentile of the enrollment distribution) and rural schools were much less likely to do so. Close to 40% of small schools did not offer the full science sequence, which includes two years of approved science courses, and more than a third did not offer the full math or English sequence.

The difference in course offerings has contributed to low a–g completion rates at small and rural schools. For instance, the average a–g completion rate is 46% among all high schools, but only 30% or so among small or rural schools.

College Prep Blog Table

To improve student readiness for college, districts and schools need to increase the number of a–g approved courses. However, some schools may face capacity and resource limitations, such as not having enough qualified teachers. One solution is to establish a regional or statewide virtual school network so students in small or rural schools can enroll in online courses offered by other districts. Several states—including Florida (Florida Virtual Education), Wisconsin (Wisconsin Digital Learning Collaborative), Texas (Texas Virtual School Network), and Georgia (Georgia Virtual School)—have in recent years partnered with school districts to provide academic courses and test prep for all middle and high school students. California’s UC Scout program is a step in the right direction, providing a full set of online a–g courses accessible at no cost to students at participating schools.

Video: Californians Concerned about Cost but Give State’s Colleges Good Grades

Many Californians say the state’s public higher education system is going in the wrong direction, a new PPIC Statewide Survey shows. But they are more likely to say they are concerned about affordability than about the quality of the state’s colleges and universities. Just 18% of all adults say quality is a big problem, compared to 56% who call affordability a big problem.

Researcher Lunna Lopes presented the findings of PPIC’s annual survey on higher education to a Sacramento audience last week.

Among the survey findings underscoring Californians’ concerns about college affordability: 75% say the cost of college keeps students who are qualified and motivated from attending, 79% say students have to borrow too much money to pay for college, and 85% say colleges and universities should do more to make sure that all students have affordable housing options.

In contrast to Californians’ views on costs, solid majorities of residents give excellent or good ratings to the state’s community colleges, California State University, and the University of California.

Californians are divided on whether a college education is necessary to succeed in today’s work world, with half saying it is and 48% saying there are many ways to succeed without college. There are strong differences among demographic groups on this question. Two-thirds of Latinos say college is necessary, compared to just 35 percent of whites. And 59% of Californians with household incomes of $40,000 or less say college is necessary, compared to 42% of those whose incomes are $80,000 or more.

Despite this divide over whether college is necessary for success, 80% of Californians say the public higher education system is very important to the future quality of life and economic vitality of the state.