Tag: California State University

Increasing On-time Graduation Rates at CSU

Just 19% of California students at California State University (CSU) campuses graduate in four years. A bill introduced this week is aimed at improving these graduation rates by addressing two commonly cited issues important to graduating on time: getting access to necessary classes and taking a full course load.

The bill would guarantee that students’ tuition is frozen at freshmen-year levels and provide priority registration for classes—as long as they take enough units to stay on track to graduate in four years and carry a certain minimum GPA. In order to graduate in 4 years, students need to average 15 units a semester (about 5 classes). However, students can take 12 units a semester (about 4 classes) and still be considered full-time by university standards and for financial aid purposes. While it does not cost any more money for students to take 15 units, many students choose to take 12 units so they can work or because they feel that 15 units would be too challenging. It’s also possible that some students just don’t know that taking only 12 units pushes them off-track to graduate on time.

Would a promise of frozen tuition be enough to cause more students to graduate in four years? After all, there has always been a financial incentive to do so. The fifth (and sixth) year of college is expensive, and later graduation also keeps student from entering the workforce full time and earning income. For example, a student starting in 2007 who graduated in 4 years would save $5,472 in tuition alone by not attending a fifth year—when including a year’s worth of room, board, books, and other related expenses, this number is closer to $20,000,and likely even more when considering the foregone earnings a student could be making during that year. Under the proposed bill, SB 1450, that student would save an additional $3,198, thanks to frozen tuition. If a vast majority of students do not finish in 4 years in light of the significant savings, would the promise of additional $3,000 in eventual savings push them to take more classes each semester?

It is possible that by highlighting near-term savings on yearly tuition the bill could convince some students to stay on track and graduate on time. How much it could move the needle for on-time graduation remains to be seen. If few students are moved to participate, the state could end up just partially subsidizing the degrees of students who were already going to finish in 4 years.

It makes sense for legislators and the higher education systems to work together to remove the barriers for on-time graduation for California’s students. This would cost students and the state less money, increase the number of CSU graduates, and makes space for more students at the university.

How the New FAFSA Can Help Californians

Last month the Obama administration unveiled a revamped Free Application for Federal Financial Student Aid (FAFSA). The new FAFSA is available in October rather than January, so high school seniors won’t have to wait until their spring semester to apply for aid. This means that students can factor their federal grant and loan eligibility into their college application process, instead of getting information about aid after they apply or even after they are admitted. The FAFSA will also be easier to fill out. In the past, students had to wait until their parents filed taxes in January (or later) and then fill out the FAFSA, but the updated form allows families to electronically transfer their tax data from the previous year’s IRS returns, which means that many income-related questions can be filled in automatically. This will drastically reduce the amount of time it takes to fill out the FAFSA.

These changes can benefit Californians in multiple ways. A streamlined FAFSA that families can fill out earlier may induce more students to complete the application, which is likely to lead to an increase in Pell Grants. According to nationwide estimates, 6 to 10 percent of college students from families with incomes under $48,000 fail to fill out the FAFSA; this suggests that many students in California and elsewhere are currently missing out on Pell Grants.

For Californians, the FAFSA is not just a federal aid application; it is also a prerequisite for participating in many state and institutional aid programs for students from low-income families. Cal Grants, the largest source of state aid, can cover up to the full tuition at a UC or CSU for students who qualify. UC’s Blue and Gold Opportunity Program combines federal, state, and local aid to ensure that students from families making less than $80,000 per year do not pay any tuition. But students who do not fill out the FAFSA are not eligible for any of these programs. National data show that about 20 percent of families who make from $48,000 to $75,000 do not fill out the form and therefore are potentially paying more than necessary for college.

Increased FAFSA completion rates may also benefit students from higher-income families. As PPIC has noted, the increases in tuition between 2007 and 2011 primarily raised the cost of attending a UC or CSU for many students from middle- and upper-income families. Filling out the FAFSA can help these students qualify for California’s Middle Class Scholarship, which covers a portion of the tuition and fees at UC and CSU for students with family incomes of up to $150,000 per year. In addition, FAFSA completion can help students qualify for federal loans and decrease their reliance on private loans, which can be more expensive and potentially riskier than federal loans.

Lastly, students who get financial aid—and who find out about it earlier in the application process—are better able to assess their college options. For instance, a student who knows that financial aid is available might apply to a four-year university instead of a two-year college. While the four-year school may be more expensive, research suggests that students who begin at a four-year institution are more likely to get a bachelor’s degree than if they begin at a community college with the intention to transfer to a four-year school. In other words, making the FAFSA process easier may not only help students afford college and take on less debt; it may also lead to higher baccalaureate degree completion rates.

Video: Higher Education & Our Economic Future

“The world is radically changed,” Gavin Newsom, California’s lieutenant governor, told a Sacramento audience this week.

“We’re competing against billions and billions of people, not just competing against cheap labor now, but against cheap genius,” he continued.

Newsom—who is also a University of California regent and California State University trustee—spoke in a conversation with Mark Baldassare, PPIC president and CEO. PPIC’s new report Will California Run Out of College Graduates? provided the context for the discussion. The report concludes that California will fall 1.1 million college graduates short of economic demand by 2030, if current trends persist.

Newsom said that “there is not a major industrialized nation in the world that is not focusing with intention on radically transforming their education system. One of the remarkable things about California is that we do not have a plan.”

He summed up: “We need goals. And we need to be able to measure those goals. And those goals must emanate from the state itself.”

Newsom was not the only speaker at the PPIC event to use words like “radical” and “revolution” to describe changes needed in higher education.

At a subsequent panel discussion, state assemblymember Catharine Baker said she is concerned that the state is falling short of the workforce needed even now. She noted that there is bipartisan agreement in the legislature that higher education is important but not about the need for major change. “There is a lot more focus on issues around the margins, that is, on how many students are we admitting, what few changes we can make in the community college system.”

Eloy Ortiz Oakley, superintendent-president of the Long Beach Community College District, said, “We almost need a revolution in our system. We started to get there when we were in crisis mode.”

“During the recession, we saw more creativity than ever before in the community college system and we began to focus,” he said. “I fear that post-recession that focus will start to dissipate.”

Hans Johnson, coauthor of the PPIC report and PPIC senior fellow, said the big challenge for the state is replacing the retiring baby boom generation with young, well-educated workers.

“I think there is a very clear path to closing that skills gap,” he said. “We need to have more students going to colleges—especially four-year colleges. We need improve completion rates—that opens up room for more students. We need to improve transfer rates from community colleges to the four-year colleges. And if we do all of those things—and these are all decisions we can make, as policymakers and higher education officials—we can actually close that skills gap.”

Timothy White, California State University chancellor, said CSU can do its part to fill the workforce skills gap—with the help of its educational and funding partners. He called the PPIC report “a very sobering clarion call that is of crisis proportion— not for the CSU or for the University of California, or the community colleges, but rather for California. And I hope we take it with the seriousness that it deserves.”

What the New College Scorecard Can—and Can’t—Tell You

Last month, as high school seniors were beginning to apply for college, the US Department of Education released its yearly scorecard to help students and their parents make informed choices. In addition to information on graduation rates, access, net price, this year’s scorecard includes earnings data for former students. The earnings profiles will be especially helpful—until now, students, parents, and the public lacked access to official information about earnings nationwide. They may also help hold colleges accountable for student outcomes.

The new earnings data is exciting—but not perfect—so it is important to determine what it actually tells us. The US Department of Education—which administers financial aid, mostly in the form of Pell Grants and federal student loans—generates the earnings profiles by linking its data on college students who get federal aid with earnings data from the US Department of the Treasury. This covers about 70 percent of students nationwide. Of course, the shares of students receiving federal aid vary across colleges—at some postsecondary institutions, fewer than half receive it. But the scorecard’s explanation of its methodology suggests that, aside from family income, college students who receive federal aid are similar to those who do not.

Another caveat is that the earnings measure for each institution represents all students receiving federal aid who started there—including those who didn’t graduate and those who transferred to other schools or pursued post-graduate degrees.

Still, it is instructive to compare the earnings of former students across institutional sectors. The table shows what you would see if you looked up earnings profiles for different types of California colleges. We chose colleges with median earnings that were closest to the median of each sector.

The median student who started at UC Davis earns about $8,000 more than a student from Azusa Pacific University, about $10,000 more than a student from Sacramento State. The differences among the sectors align with what we know from prior research: earnings of former students of colleges that grant bachelor’s degrees are, on average, higher than those of former students of colleges that grant only associate degrees or certificates. Moreover, research has found that students at private for-profit institutions end up with lower earnings than those of comparable students from public or private non-profit four-year universities.

What the scorecards don’t show is that the difference between colleges is far smaller than the difference within colleges. The figure shows the variation in earnings at the same campuses included in the table above. First, note the tremendous overlap: many students who start at community college end up earning more than some students who started at UC and CSU. The difference in median earnings between the typical CSU and the typical UC is approximately $10,000. But the difference between the 25th percentiles and the 75th percentile of UC Davis student earnings is almost $50,000.

Looking at these differences alone is not enough to judge the quality of an institution. The differences that we observe across colleges might reflect differences in the type of students who enroll in different institutions, or variations in completion rates. They may also have to do with differences in the fields of study that attract large numbers of students. For example, some colleges have high concentrations of students enrolled in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) fields—these students traditionally go into higher-paying jobs. Other colleges may have a high concentration in less remunerative majors. Similarly, the dispersion that we observe in student earnings within institutions is likely tied to a number of factors, including fields of study and rates of completion.

PPIC research has found that a worker’s wages vary tremendously depending on his or her college major. At the high end, those with engineering degrees earn a median annual wage of $96,000. At the low end, those with degrees in education administration and teaching have a median annual wage of $57,000. The Department of Education plans to include earnings by area of study in future versions of the scorecard, and we think this will make the scorecards much more valuable to students and families.

Californians will find the federal scorecard particularly useful, since the state currently lacks a student tracking system. Many other states have maintained more robust and inclusive student tracking systems for years. These systems allow calculation of more precise earnings information by major and degree for all graduates in a state—and some states are collaborating to track outcomes and earnings of former students who move from one state to another.

In California, only the community college system provides salary information for its graduates. At a time when state and national leaders are urging that colleges and universities be held accountable, the state’s parents, students, and taxpayers would benefit from more and better information about student outcomes.

College Readiness and the New State Exams

Last week, California released the results of the new statewide tests aligned with the Common Core State Standards for students in grades 3-8 and grade 11. The 11th-grade test—from the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC)—is designed to measure whether students are on track to be ready for college and careers after graduation. In fact, the CSU and community colleges can use scores from the test to determine if students are ready for college level courses. The results show that about half of 11th-grade students are at least conditionally ready for college level courses in English and less than a third are ready for college level math courses.

The fact that most 11th-grade students are not yet ready for college is not necessarily news for California. Since 2004, California students have been able to participate in California’s Early Assessment Program (EAP), which used an optional statewide test to determine college readiness levels of 11th-grade students. The college readiness identification component of the new tests is based on the EAP and informs 11th grade students whether they are ready, conditionally ready, or not ready for college.

We cannot directly compare the test results to see if students have improved, as the EAP was optional for all students and the math section was only offered to students in advanced math courses, meaning a large portion of students were untested by the EAP. But the two tests are similar in that they show that a majority of high school juniors are likely not ready for college in both English and math. The new test data does show that a large majority of students are now tested in English and math, meaning more students now know whether they are ready for college level work.

But there is also some good news here for California. For students, new ratings regarding college readiness come early enough for the information to help before they enroll in their 12th-grade classes. Prior research on the EAP suggests that the optional testing helped lower the likelihood that a student would need remediation. Now, because the SBAC test is mandatory, almost all students in California will know whether they are ready for college or need to make improvements during their senior year.

This year, over 90,000 more students than last year were given a rating of “conditionally ready” in English. This will give them an opportunity to avoid remediation in college, by taking a prescribed 12th-grade English class and receiving at least a C grade.

And while it might seem that informing almost 200,000 more math students that they are not ready for college would be discouraging, prior research on the EAP suggests that a “not-ready” rating did not discourage students from enrolling at a CSU. Finally, the SBAC can serve as one of multiple ways for students to demonstrate college readiness. Research suggests that using multiple measures—rather than relying solely on a placement exam—can keep students from being misdirected into remediation.

For the state, the new test provides a benchmark by which to measure future progress and a way to compare across states. Of the eight states that have released test scores, California is 4th and 5th in the proportion of students who are at least conditionally ready for English and math, respectively. As more states release their scores, California will have a clearer picture of how well it is preparing high school students for college on a national scale.

Chart notes: Data from the EAP and CDE websites. The number of students in each category of the SBAC are estimated from the total numbers tested and the percentages given by CDE.

Expanding Education, Reducing Recidivism

This month, the Obama administration unveiled a pilot program to allow access to Pell Grants to those incarcerated in state or federal prison. In addition to expanding access to higher education, this program presents a new opportunity to leverage federal dollars to improve public safety and generate savings in the form of reduced correctional costs.

The federal program complements a bill passed last fall by the California Legislature aimed at increasing educational programming to prison inmates. Authored by State Senator Loni Hancock (D-Berkeley), SB 1391 allocates $2 million to create and fund higher education programs for inmates in four pilot sites, under the leadership of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).

These federal and state policy initiatives come in response to mounting evidence that education—particularly at the post-secondary level—reduces recidivism and related correctional costs. Inmates who participated in education programs had 43% lower odds of reoffending after being released into the community, according to a 2013 RAND report funded by the U.S. Department of Justice. This reduction in recidivism translates to $5 in direct correctional cost savings for every $1 spent on educational programming. Efforts to take advantage of these potential returns are in line with other recent initiatives, such as California’s public safety realignment, that emphasize the use of evidence-based practices to address the state’s historically high rates of recidivism.

However, past efforts to provide educational services to inmates in California—and elsewhere—have not always been successful. Numerous studies have documented the growth of private companies that have profited from providing a range of correctional services—including secondary education, GED classes, and vocational training—with little oversight or evaluation to ensure that public money is well spent. As the federal government makes additional funds available for higher education in prison, some of these service providers will likely seek to expand into post-secondary programming. At the same time, new players, both public and private, attracted by a promising new revenue stream may well enter the field. This means it is critical to ensure that the institutions receiving Pell Grants for inmate education have sufficient and appropriate training, staff, and capacity to offer high-quality college classes and student support services. A 2015 report from UC Berkeley’s Warren Institute and Stanford’s Criminal Justice Center outlines key recommendations for improving and ensuring the quality of inmate education programs, including an emphasis on face-to-face instruction inside prison and transitional programs on the outside for students.

Given their experience in providing a range of educational services, the California Community College (CCC) and California State University (CSU) systems stand out as promising candidates to lead efforts to increase post-secondary education among inmates. The map below shows the close proximity of these educational institutions to prisons across the state.

California currently supports community college education for all low-income students, including inmates, through fee waivers. However, these waivers are not available for students who wish to pursue four-year degrees. These students rely on other forms of aid, including federal Pell Grants. The Pell Grant pilot program presents an opportunity for CSU to begin working with CDCR to leverage federal dollars to expand access to high-quality, onsite higher education for inmates in state prison.

The security and operational constraints of correctional facilities pose unique challenges to service providers. It is likely that even organizations with experience providing quality education programs, such as well-performing state universities and community colleges, may find that they have a steep learning curve when it comes to operating within a prison. Careful planning, detailed oversight, and rigorous evaluation therefore will be critical to ensuring that SB 1391 and the Pell Grant pilot achieve their goals.

Chart Source: California Post-Secondary Education Commission and California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Testimony: Improving the Cal Grant Program

PPIC researchers Hans Johnson and Kevin Cook testified before the California Student Aid Commission last week at a hearing to provide information about improving the Cal Grant program. The program provides about $1.5 billion in grants to college students in California each year and is administered by the commission. The program provides grants to state residents attending approved institutions and is the largest source of state aid to California students. Here is a summary of the testimony.

 

Rapidly increasing costs to students, low completion rates, and lack of access to four-year colleges are key challenges facing the state and the Cal Grant program. Given relatively high rates of poverty among high school graduates, grant and scholarship aid is more important than ever in making college possible for many Californians. Currently, California ranks 47th among all states in the share of high school graduates that go to four-year colleges. Only about half of California State University (CSU) students earn a bachelor’s degree within six years, and less than half of community college students earn an associate degree or vocational certificate or transfer to a four-year college.

To improve outcomes, the California Student Aid Commission should invest in what works, taking into account both efficiency and equity. One possibility would be to provide incentives for completion by providing more funding for students taking a full course load of 15 units. Students who take only 12 units per semester are currently considered full-time students but will not acquire enough units to graduate in four years. Of course, making this change might require increasing the size of grants so that students would be able to cut back on the number of hours they work at jobs.

Student outcomes might also be improved by using Cal Grants to encourage enrollment at four-year colleges. One way to achieve this would be to provide tuition, as well as a living stipend, for students eligible for the University of California and CSU. Currently, some awards for the students with the lowest incomes provide a living stipend for four years but tuition support for only three years.

More and better data is necessary to properly evaluate these and other proposals for improving student outcomes. The best way to identify effective and equitable delivery of Cal Grant aid would be to develop a statewide longitudinal data base that follows students from high school through college and into the workforce. Such a database, already developed in many other states, would allow the commission to answer additional questions that would help them understand what works—and doesn’t—to effectively target grant aid in California.

View the presentation slides

 

Locking Students Out of Our Colleges a Losing Strategy

This commentary was published on Sunday, April 12, 2015, in the San Francisco Chronicle.

High school seniors across the state are just now hearing if they will be accepted into the college of their choice. Most of those students have applied to one or more of the state’s public four-year universities and, despite meeting eligibility criteria, many will be disappointed. While this is certainly distressing for individual students and their families, this problem points to larger, troubling issues of access to and student success in California’s higher education system. The state’s public universities are not able to accommodate all of the qualified students who apply.

(Continue reading on sfchronicle.com)

Testimony: Low-Income Students and Financial Aid

As the legislature considers a number of bills aimed at increasing access and affordability of public higher education, the state assembly’s subcommittee on education finance invited PPIC to testify this week. The focus was the unmet financial aid needs of low-income college students. Hans Johnson, PPIC senior and Bren Fellow, presented data from the recent PPIC report Making College Possible for Low-Income Students: Grant and Scholarship Aid in California, which details the importance of federal and state grant aid in ensuring that higher education remains a ladder of economic opportunity for all Californians.

Johnson noted that as the state has cut funding for the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU), tuition has increased and grant aid has become increasingly important to help students afford college. Research has also shown that grants and scholarships help students persist in their education and enables students to focus on their coursework and complete college faster. UC and CSU remain less expensive options for low-income students in terms of “net price”—the cost of attending college after accounting for federal, state, and institutional aid—than non-profit and for-profit private colleges. However, students whose family incomes are $30,000 or less still pay nearly a quarter of their incomes, or $8,000 per year, to attend a public four-year college.

Improving college access and completion is vital to California’s economic well-being, and aid for students has become increasingly necessary. The legislature’s attention to this issue comes at a time when 60% of California high school students qualify for free and reduced price lunch and three-quarters of California’s low-income college freshmen are enrolled in a UC or CSU.

Dividing California’s Higher Education Pie

The tuition increase recently approved by the University of California Regents has ignited a debate about how the state allocates money for higher education. A brief look at the history of state funding can provide some much-needed perspective.

Each higher education system—UC, the California State University, and the community colleges—receives substantial funding from the state. Most of the remaining funds for instruction come from tuition paid by students. (In this analysis, we look at allocations from the state General Fund and property taxes so that we can compare institutions across time.)

Since 1965, the share of higher education funding provided directly by the state has shifted from the four-year systems to the community colleges. In the mid-1980s, the community colleges received about a third of the state allocations to public higher education institutions. In 2014‒15, the community colleges got more than half of the pie. Meanwhile, the share allocated to CSU and especially UC has been shrinking. UC’s share fell from 38% in 1965 to 24% in 2014‒15, and CSU’s share declined from 25% to 22%. The governor’s proposed 2015‒16 budget includes a funding increase of $843 million to the state’s public colleges and universities—71% ($600 million) of which would go to the community colleges.

The large increase in state allocations to community colleges is linked to increased enrollment. But enrollment has increased just as much at UC and CSU. Indeed, on a full-time equivalent basis, UC, CSU, and the community colleges each serve about the same share of the state’s public higher education students today as they did 50 years ago. So what explains the shift in the share of funding from UC and CSU to the community colleges?

The short answer is Proposition 98.

After Proposition 13 passed in 1978, the state’s community colleges—which unlike UC and CSU relied partly on property taxes—saw a sharp reduction in their share of state and local support. Ten years later, voters passed Proposition 98, which guaranteed K–12 schools and community colleges a minimum percentage of the General Fund and property tax revenue. Proposition 98 guarantees that K–12 schools and the community colleges get about 40% of these allocations—and about a tenth of that share goes to the community colleges. Some have argued that Proposition 98 acts as a funding ceiling for K–12 schools and community colleges, but it also serves as a floor.

UC and CSU lack the same funding protection. While many budget areas outside of higher education are at least partially protected by dedicated funding streams, court orders, or matching federal funds, UC and CSU are vulnerable when state revenues decline. The universities have faced disproportionately large cuts in their general fund allocations during times of economic hardship. From this vantage point, a funding floor—even one that doubles as a ceiling—is preferable to a funding drop-off.

The three higher education systems also receive indirect forms of state support such as Cal Grants, fee waivers, and middle-class scholarships. Grant aid has increased for students at all institutions of higher education in California. Our best estimates suggest that community college students receive slightly more of these state funds (41% of the total in 2011‒12), than UC students (40%) and much more than CSU students (18%).

The debate over higher education funding could benefit from a clearer understanding of how the pie is divided. But the most important issue for the state’s young people is that the pie is not keeping pace with demand. Our four-year colleges have record numbers of applicants and the shares of students who are academically qualified to attend them have increased. The future prosperity of Californians and their state depends on access to higher education. To address these issues, policymakers need to focus on improving vocational programs and pathways from community colleges to four-year colleges and improving access and enrollment at UC and CSU.

Notes (TOP FIGURE): 2012-13 to 2014-15 numbers are from the governor’s budget; earlier data is from the California Postsecondary Education Commission. We include property tax allocations which are a component of the state’s obligation to community colleges pursuant to Proposition 98.