Tag: California

Improving Community College Transfer in California
California has established significant goals for postsecondary attainment, with the stated aim of having 70 percent of working-age adults hold a credential of value by 2035. To meet this goal, the state has invested time and resources into the community college system and upward transfer processes, seeking to create affordable and accessible pathways in and through higher education.

A recently published report by the Public Policy Institute of California Higher Education Center found that a large share of community college students are applying to and enrolling in state universities to complete a bachelor’s degree, but equity gaps persist among certain demographic groups.

The data highlights the importance of focusing on early benchmarks of academic progress—including credit completion rates, GPA and the stated goal of transfer—to help students succeed in making the transition to a four-year university. The report also underscores that some transfer students are willing to pay more and travel farther to attend a more selective institution.

The background: California’s public higher education system is the largest and most diverse in the country, the report authors note. The California Community College system includes 116 institutions enrolling over 2.1 million students, and the California State University system consists of 22 institutions educating nearly half a million students. Within the state, the system is the top destination for upward transfer, with 58 percent of community college students going on to enroll at a CSU campus.

Over the past decade, the two college systems have partnered to streamline transfer opportunities. One innovation is the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a group of 40 academic pathways that guarantee admission to students who complete 60 credits toward a bachelor’s degree in a specific major. Another is the CSU Transfer Planner, which provides insights for students to navigate transferable credits, degree programs and campus requirements for transfer.

The report looks at student demographic information, academic progress and participation in transfer pathways such as A.D.T. to identify success indicators in the transfer pipeline.

Methodology

Researchers analyzed data from the CSU Application and Admission Dashboard and longitudinal student-level data from fall 2018 and fall 2023.

In the sample, 48 percent of transfer applicants were Latino, 26 percent white, 15 percent Asian and 4.5 percent Black. A majority were 24 years old or younger, and 75 percent received a California Promise Grant or a Pell Grant while in community college.

The data: The average student spends nine semesters at a community college before applying to a CSU institution, researchers found.

Students are required to complete 60 credits to transfer with junior-level standing, but the median student completed 71.5 credits. Only half of applicants had earned an A.D.T. before applying, and 22 percent earned a local associate degree, meaning about 30 percent of students applied for transfer without a credential.

Researchers noted that students who made significant progress in their first year of community college were more likely to transfer. Those who successfully completed transfer-level math in their first year applied to CSU after seven terms on average, whereas student who didn’t applied after 10 community college terms.

Students who were 25 or older, Black or financial aid recipients were less likely to meet early milestones and therefore less likely to transfer. Conversely, students with high GPAs were more likely to transfer.

The data also indicated a gap between students eligible for admission at a CSU and those who actually applied. One in five students who completed an A.D.T. never applied to CSU despite having guaranteed admission. Of those, 43 percent enrolled at a different university, many in the University of California system.

In total, 87 percent of A.D.T. recipients declared a transfer goal while at community college, but approximately 20 percent of them didn’t continue on to a bachelor’s degree program.

A majority (92 percent) of all transfers were eventually admitted to at least one CSU, and 63 percent of all transfers enrolled. Three in 10 applied more than once, and almost half of them (47 percent) had their application denied the first time.

“It is possible that these students were initially rejected from the campus of their choice (or to all campuses), took more community college classes, and then gained admission,” researchers wrote. On the flip side, a large share of those whose transfer applications were rejected applied only once (88 percent), and to only one campus (61 percent).

Admissions data also revealed the importance of academic benchmarks early in the student’s community college career. Admission rates for students who took transfer-level math or English in their first year were higher compared to their peers who did not; similarly, students who earned 24 transferable credits were more likely to gain admission to a CSU. Unsurprisingly, students who stated a transfer goal, completed the A.D.T. or had a GPA of 3.25 or higher also had high admittance rates.

One trend researchers noted is that students who were admitted to a CSU but chose to enroll at a different institution were more likely to select a college that was farther away or more expensive, indicating that cost and proximity are not deciding factors. Transfers also enrolled at more selective colleges compared to their peers who opted to enroll at CSU, though some students selected universities with lower graduation rates than CSU.

Over all, transfer students had high graduation rates. Among the incoming fall 2020 cohort, 76 percent graduated with their bachelor’s degree in four years, and 69 percent completed it in three years. About 19 percent of students left the CSU system without graduating three years after enrolling, and these students were more likely to be Black, Latino, male or older or have financial need.

Recommendations: Based on their findings, researchers identified three opportunities for improvement:
1. Invest in the student’s first year. Interventions including dual enrollment, corequisite English and math courses, proactive advising, and flexible scheduling can promote early momentum and academic success for community college students.
2. Collect additional data on enrollment decisions. While system data showed that some students opt out of a four-year degree program, researchers emphasized the need for student voices to understand why those admitted would not enroll at CSU. Researchers also noted a need for campus-specific data, “because there is high variation across individual CSUs in both acceptance and enrollment rates.”
3. Create space at selective campuses and in high-demand majors. “Some of the students who were never admitted to CSU were competitive applicants, but they applied to the most in-demand campuses,” the authors wrote. To increase capacity for these students, researchers suggest flexible course scheduling options, co-locating campuses or expanding online degree programs.
Source link
October 28, 2025
How a San Diego Preschool Serves Kids After Trauma – The 74

Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

Almost 20 years ago a San Diego nonprofit created a preschool to focus on the “little guys” — children who experience domestic violence and other serious traumatic events before kindergarten.

Today, Mi Escuelita is still going strong and it’s something of a model in showing other schools how to address childhood trauma.

Mi Escuelita provides services for kids in a single location that for most other families would require intricate coordination among multiple health care providers, educators and social programs.

The children learn in a classroom that is always staffed with at least one therapist, they participate in one-on-one therapy, and join group therapy sessions. Their parents take part in special classes, too, where they learn ways to support their children.

Researchers from UC San Diego have paid close attention to Mi Escuelita and followed how its graduates fared after leaving the preschool. The university also works with the school to evaluate outcomes from each cohort of students. Here are four takeaways from those reports.

The kids leave ready for kindergarten

Students who graduate from Mi Escuelia outperform or do at least well as their peers in kindergarten, according to a UC San Diego analysis of their scores in reading and math tests.

It looked at kindergarten students in the Chula Vista Elementary School District from 2007 to 2013 and found a higher percentage of Mi Escuelita met math, reading and writing standards than the district’s general population.

That’s not a given because research shows that children exposed to domestic violence have lower verbal ability than their peers, which can set them back in school.

And they do well for years

The length of UC San Diego’s study allowed its team to follow Mi Escuelita graduates through fifth grade. The results suggested that their preschool experience helped the kids throughout their childhoods.

Their average scores on several standardized tests exceeded those of the general population at Chula Vista Elementary School District, especially in math.

“Taken together, the Mi Escuelita program demonstrates clear benefits to children who may otherwise fall quickly and unsparingly behind with regard to school readiness,” the UC San Diego researchers wrote.

Better relationships at home

Some families turn to Mi Escuelita in moments of distress, such as after experiencing domestic violence. The preschool provides counseling for parents and students alike, which may contribute to behavioral improvements at home.

Over the past five years, 64% of the families in the program reported sensing fewer conflicts and 83% of them noticed an increase in closeness.

“Families reported that children’s communication, behavior, and listening skills improved both at home and at school,” a UC San Diego team wrote in an evaluation of student and parent surveys that spanned 2020 to 2024.

It takes a village

Running Mi Escuelita costs about $1.3 million a year, a sum that nonprofit South Bay Community Services raises through a mix of donations and government funding. That cost — along with the challenge of hiring trained educators and therapists — makes the program difficult to replicate.

But, other schools and government agencies are watching Mi Escuelita to see what kind of services they can carry over to other venues.

“We can spend less later on intervention programs and alternative facilities,” said Hilaria Bauer, chief early learning services officer at Kidango, a Bay Area nonprofit childcare provider. “There will be less truancy, less big behaviors or expulsions or alternative programs, and all of those ‘fix’ initiatives if we really focus on the time in the life of a child that really makes a change.”

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

October 18, 2025
Penn, U of Southern California Reject Trump Compact

Four of the nine universities initially asked to sign have rejected the document.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images | Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California have now refused to sign the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” making them the third and fourth of the nine initial institutions that were presented the deal to publicly turn it down. No institution has agreed to sign so far.

Both announcements came Thursday, a few days before the Oct. 20 deadline to provide feedback on the proposal. Beong-Soo Kim, interim president of the University of Southern California, shared his message to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which outlined how USC already seems to adhere to the compact.

“Notwithstanding these areas of alignment, we are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim wrote. “Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition.”

Kim added that the compact does raise issues “worthy of a broader national conversation to which USC would be eager to contribute its insights and expertise.”

California governor Gavin Newsom, a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2028, had threatened that any university in his state that signed the compact would “instantly” lose billions of state dollars.

Over at Penn, President J. Larry Jameson wrote in a message to his community Thursday that his university “respectfully declines to sign the proposed Compact.” He added that his university did provide feedback to the department on the proposal.

Penn spokespeople didn’t say Thursday whether the university would sign any possible amended version of the compact that addressed the university’s concerns, nor did they provide Inside Higher Ed a copy of the feedback provided to the Trump administration. (Penn is the only university of the four that didn’t provide its response to McMahon.)

The White House also didn’t provide a copy of Penn’s feedback, but it emailed a statement apparently threatening funding cuts for universities that don’t sign the compact.

“Merit should be the primary criteria for federal grant funding. Yet too many universities have abandoned academic excellence in favor of divisive and destructive efforts such as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” spokesperson Liz Huston said in the statement. “The Compact for Academic Excellence embraces universities that reform their institutions to elevate common sense once again, ushering a new era of American innovation. Any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers support.”

Brown University announced it had rejected the compact Wednesday, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did the same last Friday. Following MIT’s rejection, the Trump administration said the compact was open to all colleges and universities that want to sign it.

The compact is a boilerplate contract asking colleges to voluntarily agree to overhaul or abolish departments “that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” without further defining what those terms mean. It also asks universities to, among other things, commit to not considering transgender women to be women, to reject foreign applicants “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values” and to freeze “effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.”

In exchange for these agreements, the White House has said signatories would “be given [funding] priority when possible as well as invitations to collaborate with the White House.” But the White House hasn’t revealed how much extra funding universities would be eligible for, and the nine-page compact doesn’t detail the potential benefits. The compact, and the Thursday statement from the White House, can also be read as threatening colleges’ current federal funding if they don’t sign. Multiple higher ed organizations have allied in calling on universities to reject the compact.

Jameson said in his statement that “at Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability.”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration said that Penn violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 when it allowed a transgender woman to swim on the women’s team in 2022, and officials issued several demands to the university. Penn ultimately conceded to those demands over the summer, a decision that the administration said restored about $175 million in frozen federal funds.

Marc Rowan, a Penn graduate with two degrees from its Wharton School of Business who’s now chief executive officer and board chair for Apollo Global Management, wrote in The New York Times that he “played a part in the compact’s initial formulation, working alongside an administration working group.” Rowan argued that the compact doesn’t threaten free speech or academic freedom.

Apollo has funded the online, for-profit University of Phoenix. AP VIII Queso Holdings LP—the previous name for majority owner of the University of Phoenix—was the successor of Apollo Education Group, which went private in 2017 in a $1.1 billion deal backed by Apollo Global Management Inc. and the Vistria Group.

AP VIII Queso Holdings LP was recently renamed Phoenix Education Partners as part of a new deal to take the company public once again. Phoenix Education Partners, now owner of the University of Phoenix and backed by both Apollo and Vistria, started trading on the stock market last week and was valued at about $1.35 billion after the first day.

Source link

October 16, 2025
Penn, U of Southern California Reject Trump Compact

Four of the nine universities initially asked to sign have rejected the document.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Jumping Rocks/Universal Images Group/Getty Images | Mario Tama/Getty Images

The Universities of Pennsylvania and Southern California have now refused to sign the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” making them the third and fourth of the nine initial institutions that were presented the deal to publicly turn it down. No institution has agreed to sign so far.

Both announcements came Thursday, a few days before the Oct. 20 deadline to provide feedback on the proposal. Beong-Soo Kim, interim president of the University of Southern California, shared his message to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, which outlined how USC already seems to adhere to the compact.

“Notwithstanding these areas of alignment, we are concerned that even though the Compact would be voluntary, tying research benefits to it would, over time, undermine the same values of free inquiry and academic excellence that the Compact seeks to promote,” Kim wrote. “Other countries whose governments lack America’s commitment to freedom and democracy have shown how academic excellence can suffer when shifting external priorities tilt the research playing field away from free, meritocratic competition.”

Kim added that the compact does raise issues “worthy of a broader national conversation to which USC would be eager to contribute its insights and expertise.”

California governor Gavin Newsom, a possible Democratic presidential contender in 2028, had threatened that any university in his state that signed the compact would “instantly” lose billions of state dollars.

Over at Penn, President J. Larry Jameson wrote in a message to his community Thursday that his university “respectfully declines to sign the proposed Compact.” He added that his university did provide feedback to the department on the proposal.

Penn spokespeople didn’t say Thursday whether the university would sign any possible amended version of the compact that addressed the university’s concerns, nor did they provide Inside Higher Ed a copy of the feedback provided to the Trump administration. (Penn is the only university of the four that didn’t provide its response to McMahon.)

The White House also didn’t provide a copy of Penn’s feedback, but it emailed a statement apparently threatening funding cuts for universities that don’t sign the compact.

“Merit should be the primary criteria for federal grant funding. Yet too many universities have abandoned academic excellence in favor of divisive and destructive efforts such as ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion,’” spokesperson Liz Huston said in the statement. “The Compact for Academic Excellence embraces universities that reform their institutions to elevate common sense once again, ushering a new era of American innovation. Any higher education institution unwilling to assume accountability and confront these overdue and necessary reforms will find itself without future government and taxpayers support.”

Brown University announced it had rejected the compact Wednesday, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology did the same last Friday. Following MIT’s rejection, the Trump administration said the compact was open to all colleges and universities that want to sign it.

The compact is a boilerplate contract asking colleges to voluntarily agree to overhaul or abolish departments “that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas,” without further defining what those terms mean. It also asks universities to, among other things, commit to not considering transgender women to be women, to reject foreign applicants “who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values” and to freeze “effective tuition rates charged to American students for the next five years.”

In exchange for these agreements, the White House has said signatories would “be given [funding] priority when possible as well as invitations to collaborate with the White House.” But the White House hasn’t revealed how much extra funding universities would be eligible for, and the nine-page compact doesn’t detail the potential benefits. The compact, and the Thursday statement from the White House, can also be read as threatening colleges’ current federal funding if they don’t sign. Multiple higher ed organizations have allied in calling on universities to reject the compact.

Jameson said in his statement that “at Penn, we are committed to merit-based achievement and accountability.”

Earlier this year, the Trump administration said that Penn violated Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 when it allowed a transgender woman to swim on the women’s team in 2022, and officials issued several demands to the university. Penn ultimately conceded to those demands over the summer, a decision that the administration said restored about $175 million in frozen federal funds.

Marc Rowan, a Penn graduate with two degrees from its Wharton School of Business who’s now chief executive officer and board chair for Apollo Global Management, wrote in The New York Times that he “played a part in the compact’s initial formulation, working alongside an administration working group.” Rowan argued that the compact doesn’t threaten free speech or academic freedom.

Apollo has funded the online, for-profit University of Phoenix. AP VIII Queso Holdings LP—the previous name for majority owner of the University of Phoenix—was the successor of Apollo Education Group, which went private in 2017 in a $1.1 billion deal backed by Apollo Global Management Inc. and the Vistria Group.

AP VIII Queso Holdings LP was recently renamed Phoenix Education Partners as part of a new deal to take the company public once again. Phoenix Education Partners, now owner of the University of Phoenix and backed by both Apollo and Vistria, started trading on the stock market last week and was valued at about $1.35 billion after the first day.

Source link

October 16, 2025
California wants to make platforms pay for offensive user posts. The First Amendment and Section 230 say otherwise.

This week, FIRE wrote to California Governor Gavin Newsom, urging him to veto SB 771, a bill that would allow users and government enforcers to sue large social media platforms for enormous sums if their algorithms relay user-generated content that contributes to violation of certain civil rights laws.

Obviously, platforms are going to have a difficult time knowing if any given post might later be alleged to have violated a civil rights law. So to avoid the risk of huge penalties, they will simply suppress any content (and user) that is hateful or controversial — even when it is fully protected by the First Amendment.

And that’s exactly what the California legislature wants. In its bill analysis, the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee chair made clear that their goal was not just to target unlawful speech, but to make platforms wary of hosting “hate speech” more generally:

This cause of action is intended to impose meaningful consequences on social media platforms that continue to push hate speech . . . to provide a meaningful incentive for social media platforms to pay more attention to hate speech . . . and to be more diligent about not serving such content.

Supporters have tried to evade SB 771’s First Amendment and Section 230 concerns, largely by obfuscating what the bill actually does. To hear them tell it, SB 711 doesn’t create any new liability, it just holds social media companies responsible if their algorithms aid and abet a violation of civil rights law, which is already illegal.

But if you look just a little bit closer, that explanation doesn’t quite hold up. To understand why, it’s important to clarify what “aiding and abetting” liability is. Fortunately, the Supreme Court explained this just recently — and in a case also about social media algorithms to boot.

In Twitter v. Taamneh, the plaintiffs claimed that social media platforms had aided and abetted acts of terrorism by algorithmically arranging, promoting, and connecting users to ISIS content, and by failing to prevent ISIS from using their services after being made aware of the unlawful use.

The Supreme Court ruled that they had not successfully made out a claim. Because aiding and abetting requires not just awareness of the wrongful goals, but also a “conscious intent to participate in, and actively further, the specific wrongful act.” All the social media platforms had done was create a communications infrastructure, which treated ISIS content just like any other content — and that is not enough.

California law also requires knowledge, intent, and active assistance to be liable for aiding. But nobody really thinks the platforms have designed their algorithms to facilitate civil rights violations. So SB 771 has a problem. Under the existing standard, it’s never going to do anything, which is obviously not what its supporters intend. Therefore, they hope to create a new form of liability — recklessly aiding and abetting — for when platforms know there’s a serious risk of harm and choose to ignore it.

But wait, there’s more.

SB 771 also says that, by law, platforms are considered to have actual knowledge of how their algorithms interact with every user, including why every single piece of content will or will not be shown to them. This is just another way of saying that every platform knows there’s a chance users will be exposed to harmful content. All that’s left is for users to show that a platform consciously ignored that risk.

That will be trivially easy. Here’s the argument: the platform knew of the risk and still deployed the algorithm instead of trying to make it “safer.”

Soon, social media platforms will be liable solely for using an “unsafe” algorithm, even if they were entirely unaware of the offending content, let alone have any reason to think it’s unlawful.

But the First Amendment requires that any liability for distributing speech must require the distributor to have knowledge of the expression’s nature and character. Otherwise, nobody would be able to distribute expression they haven’t inspected, which would “would tend to restrict the public’s access to [expression] the State could not constitutionally suppress directly.” Unfortunately for California, the very goal they want SB 771 to accomplish is what makes it unconstitutional.

And this liability is not restricted to content recommendation algorithms (though it would still be unconstitutional if it were). SB 771 doesn’t define “algorithm” beyond the function of “relay[ing] content to users.” But every piece of content on social media, whether in a chronological or recommendation-based feed, is displayed to users using an algorithm. So SB 771 will impose liability every time any piece of content is shown on social media to any user.

This is where Section 230 also has something to say. One of the most consequential laws governing the internet, Section 230 states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider,” and prohibits states from imposing any liability inconsistent with it. In other words, the creator of the unlawful content is responsible for it, not the service they used to do so. Section 230 has been critical to the internet’s speech-enabling character. Without it, hosting the speech of others at any meaningful scale would be far too risky.

SB 771 tries to make an end-run around Section 230 by providing that “deploying an algorithm that relays content to users may be considered to be an act of the platform independent from the message of the content relayed.” In other words, California is trying to redefine the liability: “we’re not treating you as the publisher of that speech, we’re just holding you liable for what your algorithm does.”

But there can be no liability without the content relayed by the algorithm. By itself, the algorithm does not cause any harm recognized by law. It’s the user-generated content that causes the ostensible civil rights violation.

And that’s not to mention the fact that because all social media content is relayed by algorithm, it would effectively nullify Section 230 by imposing liability on all content. California cannot evade federal law by waving a magic wand and declaring the thing Section 230 protects to be something else.

Newsom has until October 13 to make a decision. If signed, the law takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027, and in the interim, other states will likely follow suit. The result will be a less free Internet, and less free speech — until the courts inevitably strike down SB 771 after costly, wasteful litigation. Newsom must not let it come to that. The best time to avoid violating the First Amendment is now.

The second best time is also now.

Source link

October 11, 2025
California governor signs Cal State direct admissions program into law
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Qualifying high school seniors in California will be automatically admitted to a California State University campus beginning with the 2026-27 academic year under a bill Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law this week.
- Under the program, eligible students will automatically receive letters notifying them that they have been directly admitted to Cal State campuses with enrollment capacity based on their academic records.
- The program expands a pilot announced last year limited to high school students in California’s Riverside County. Out of 17,000 students who received admission offers to Cal State for the fall 2025 term, 13,200 completed the required paperwork, according to state Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, who co-sponsored the bill.
Dive Insight:

California’s new legislation, called SB 640, aims to boost college access and help reverse enrollment declines at some of Cal State’s 23 campuses.

A September news release from Cabaldon’s office noted two campuses with the biggest declines were in his district: CSU Maritime Academy — which recently merged with Cal Poly San Luis Obispo — and Sonoma State University, which announced deep budget and program cuts at the beginning of this year.

“Direct admission removes the applications hurdle that stops some students from going to college, and relieves the fear that they won’t get in anywhere,” Cabaldon said after SB 640 cleared California’s Legislature last month.

The lawmaker cited a 2022 academic study of Idaho’s direct admissions program, implemented in 2015, that found the initiative increased first-time undergraduate enrollments by 4% to 8% — an average increase of 50 to 100 students per campus. It also boosted in-state enrollment levels by approximately 8% to 15%, the study found.

Enrollment gains from the direct admissions program were concentrated mainly in community colleges, though it had “minimal-to-no impacts” on the enrollment of Pell Grant-eligible students, according to the study. At the time of publication, one of the researchers noted the lack of change was not surprising, given that the program did not focus on any particular student group.

Meanwhile, a 2023 study of 33,000 students found a Common App direct admissions initiative geared toward marginalized student groups increased applications among Black, Latinx, multiracial, first-generation and low-income students.

California joins a growing number of states incorporating direct admissions into the acceptance process for their public colleges. That list includes North Carolina, which this year offered 62,000 public high school students admissions into one of dozens of institutions through the NC College Connect Program, an expansion of a pilot launched last year.

“The process of applying to college, transferring between institutions, and navigating the maze of financial aid feels like an insurmountable series of hurdles,” Shun Robertson, the University of North Carolina’s senior vice president for strategy and policy, told Higher Ed Dive earlier this fall. “Eliminating these barriers has been a high priority.”

Institutions in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Hawai’i, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Utah and West Virginia also offer direct admissions programs.
Source link
October 10, 2025
Small District to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Decades Ago – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

On the eve of what was expected to be a long and gut-wrenching trial, a small school district in Santa Barbara County has settled a sexual abuse lawsuit for $7.5 million with two brothers, now 65 and 68 years old, who claimed a long-dead principal molested them in the 1970s.

The brothers had sought $35 million for the harm they said they suffered, an attorney for the youngest brother said.

The settlement equals about 40% of the 350-student district’s 2025-26 budget, although the district did not disclose the terms and timetable for the payment. The district’s superintendent acknowledged in a statement that there would be an impact on the budget.

Board members of the Montecito Union School District announced the settlement over the weekend. The trial was scheduled to start Monday.

The case was brought under a 2019 state law, Assembly Bill 218, that removed a statute of limitations for filing claims that employees of public agencies, including school districts and city and county governments, sexually abused children placed in their care.

Estimates suggest settlements and jury awards could cost California school districts as much as $3 billion by one projection, and possibly a lot more. Los Angeles County alone has agreed to pay $4 billion to settle abuse claims with more pending, mostly involving plaintiffs who were once in foster care.

With many larger lawsuits with multiple victims yet to be settled or go to trial, the financial impacts are hard to predict. Small districts are worried that multimillion-dollar verdicts could devastate budgets, if not lead to insolvency. Insurance costs, meanwhile, have soared by more than 200% in five years, according to a survey of districts.

In the Montecito case, the brothers were seeking $35 million in damages combined, John Richards, a lawyer representing one of them, said outside of court Monday.

Montecito is not alone in facing decades-old accusations. The San Francisco Unified School District is embroiled in an ongoing suit involving a teacher who allegedly molested a student in the mid-1960s, records show.

School boards association helps with legal fees

The Montecito case drew the attention of the California School Boards Association, which gave the district a $50,000 grant to help with legal costs, said spokesman Troy Flint.

Flint said Montecito Union Superintendent Anthony Ranii has “been a staunch advocate for AB 218 reform because he understands how this well-intentioned law carries such significant unintended consequences that compromise the educational experience of current and future students.”

Montecito Union “is just one example of what potentially awaits school districts and county offices of education statewide,” Flint added.

The settlement came just weeks after state Assembly members let a measure that would have restored a statute of limitations to such cases, Senate Bill 577, go without a vote in the final days of the legislative session. Its sponsor, Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said he would bring it back next year.

At a brief hearing Monday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle called the Montecito matter “a case of real consequence.” He had scheduled 17 days for trial, court records show. The district’s lawyers did not attend the hearing.

The brothers’ lawsuit was filed in 2022 and alleged that Montecito Union’s former superintendent and principal, Stanford Kerr, molested them in the early 1970s, including raping one of them. Kerr died in 2013 at 89. He never faced criminal charges.

A third plaintiff who also claimed Kerr abused him settled earlier with the district for $1 million. He had described a full range of abuse covering many types of conduct, which included rape, court filings state.

Just recompense for years of suffering

The brothers, identified in court documents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, pushed forward, Richards said, hoping to be compensated for years of agony. The younger of the two, Richards said, has suffered a lifetime of substance abuse, which is blamed on Kerr’s assaults.

“The money is nice,” Richards said, but the younger brother also seeks “social acknowledgment that what happened to (him) was terrible. He has a long way to go,” in recovering.

The district admitted no liability in making the settlement.

Montecito Union has no insurance coverage going back to the period the brothers said the abuse occurred — 1972 to 1978, Ranii said in a statement.

“We were prepared to mount a vigorous defense,” he said. But the possibility of a jury awarding far more than the district could afford pushed the idea of a settlement after years of pretrial maneuvering.

The superintendent’s statement did not directly address the brothers’ claims. It also did not mention Kerr.

“We are deeply mindful of the enduring pain caused by sexual abuse and feel for any person who has experienced such abuse,” Ranii said in the statement.

A large award in the event of a trial would have “diminished our ability to serve students now and well into the future,” Ranii said. “Continued litigation created exceptional financial vulnerability. Settling now allows us to stabilize operations and remain focused on today’s students.”

Montecito is an unincorporated oceanfront community just south of Santa Barbara in the shadows of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Its residents include Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The district is one of the state’s richest, with more than $40,000 per student in funding due to tax receipts from high-value properties.

The district will manage the costs through a hiring freeze, staff reductions “when natural attrition occurs,” and redirecting “funds previously designated for capital repair,” Ranii said. The settlement allows the district to avoid layoffs, he said.

The brothers’ case was built around the testimony they would have given about Kerr’s abuses, Richards said. There was no physical evidence. At one point, a district employee went to the brothers’ home and forced their parents to sign a document requiring them to make sure the boys came right home after school and avoided Kerr, according to court filings.

Richards said the district did not produce such a document in discovery. It had no records that the boys ever attended the school, he said, although their photos appear in yearbooks. The district also had no records that Kerr ever faced accusations of abuse or sexual misconduct.

Two school board members from Kerr’s time as superintendent said in depositions taken for the brothers’ suit that they would have taken action had they known he was abusing students, Richards said. But with the case settled, the elderly former members won’t be called to testify.

All that remains is a final hearing that the judge scheduled for Nov. 19 to make sure the payment has been received “and that the check’s been cashed,” he said.

Editor-at-Large John Festerwald contributed to this story.

This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

October 4, 2025
Newsom vows to pull state funding from California colleges that sign Trump’s compact
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- California Gov. Gavin Newsom on Thursday threatened to pull state funding from colleges that signed a proposed compact from the Trump administration seeking to impose sweeping policy changes in return for priority in research funding.
- “If any California university signs this radical agreement, they’ll lose billions in state funding,” Newsom said in a statement. “California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom.”
- First reported by the Wall Street Journal, federal officials offered the compact to the University of Southern California and eight other high-profile research universities this week.
Dive Insight:

Since taking office, President Donald Trump and his administration have waged a legal and financial campaign against colleges in an effort to transform them ideologically. It comes after Trump on the campaign trail described colleges as “dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics” and full of academics “obsessed with indoctrinating America’s youth.”

With the compact, the administration has gone from using mainly sticks — typically in the form of civil rights investigations and canceled research grants — to using carrots as a means of pushing institutions to make reforms.

The Trump administration offered to prioritize colleges for research grants and other funding if they agree to give the government unprecedented control over internal institutional decisions and governance.

That includes:
- Taking a position of institutional neutrality on events that don’t directly impact the college.
- Committing not to consider race, gender, religion and other characteristics “explicitly or implicitly” in admissions. (The compact would grant exceptions for religious and single-sex institutions to limit admissions based on religious belief and gender, respectively.)
- Conducting broad, public assessments of the viewpoints of employees and students.
- Changing governance structures and potentially dissolving or taking over departments that “purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”
- Adopting policies that recognize “academic freedom is not absolute” and prevent “discriminatory, threatening, harassing, or other behaviors that abridge the rights of other members of the university community.”
- Capping international undergraduate enrollment at 15% of the broader student body while screening out “students who demonstrate hostility to the United States, its allies, or its values.”
- Freezing tuition for five years.
- Requiring applicants to take standardized tests such as the SAT.
- Committing to using “lawful force” and “swift, serious, and consistent sanctions” to handle protests that “delay or disrupt class instruction or disrupt libraries or other traditional study locations.”
The compact would also require colleges with endowments worth $2 million or more per student to waive tuition for students studying hard sciences, though the memo didn’t define the field.

Along with USC, eight other colleges received the administration’s memo detailing the compact: the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia.

The compact has drawn alarm and stern rebukes throughout the higher education world.

“College and university presidents cannot bargain with the essential freedom of colleges and universities to determine, on academic grounds, whom to admit and what is taught, how, and by whom,” the American Association of Colleges and Universities said in a statement Friday.

Denise Forte, president and CEO of the policy analysis and advocacy organization EdTrust, described the compact in a statement as an “existential threat to all institutions of higher learning and the latest example of the federal government overexerting its power to intimidate colleges and universities viewed as ideological enemies.”

In a joint statement Thursday, top leaders of the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers described the compact as offering preferential treatment “in exchange for allegiance to a partisan ideological agenda” and said that it “stinks of favoritism, patronage, and bribery.” They urged all governing boards and administrators to reject the agreement.

American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell in an interview with The New York Times described the compact as a power play “designed to divide the higher education community.”

And then there is Newsom, who has been among the most vocal Democrats opposing Trump, especially since the president sent the National Guard into Los Angeles this summer, a move that a judge later ruled illegal.

In a press release, Newsom’s office described the compact as tying access to federal research funding to “radical conservative ideological restrictions on colleges and universities.” The governor also specifically threatened to “instantly” pull colleges’ eligibility for Cal Grants, a form of state aid for students from low- and middle-income families.

USC on Friday confirmed it had received and was reviewing the administration’s letter, but the university did not offer further comment.

Most of those institutions have remained quiet about their plans, if any, to sign or reject the agreement. A leader from one, however, voiced enthusiastic openness to the compact.

In a widely shared statement, Kevin Eltife, chair of the University of Texas Board of Regents, said that the system was “honored” that its flagship in Austin was selected among the nine to receive the compact.

“We enthusiastically look forward to engaging with university officials and reviewing the compact immediately,” said Eltife, a former Republican state senator.
Source link
October 3, 2025
Majority of California Community College Students Lack Basic Needs

Two in three community college students in California lack reliable access to food or housing, according to a new study.

The 2025 Real College CA Student Survey, led by the Community College League of California, found that 46 percent of students are food insecure and 58 percent are housing insecure, which is higher than national estimates: The most recent study from the Hope Center at Temple University found that 41 percent of all college students are food insecure and 48 percent indicated housing insecurity.

Community college students in California reported slightly lower rates of basic needs insecurity in this survey than in 2023, but the number of students needing help remains high.

“It is important to highlight when trends are moving in the right direction, but also that there’s still a lot of work to do,” Katie Brohawn, director of research, evaluation and development at the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, said in a Sept. 24 webinar.

Methodology

Over 76,000 community college students responded to the survey, 3,300 of whom completed it in Spanish. The respondents represented 102 of the 116 institutions in the California Community College system.

The background: For many community college students, financial and mental health concerns can be among the top barriers to completion.

“Before students can thrive academically, their basic needs must be met,” said Tammeil Gilkerson, chancellor of the Peralta Community College District in Oakland, during the webinar.

A fall 2023 study from EdSights found that students at public two-year institutions report the highest levels of financial distress, even though those are among the most affordable institutions across sectors.

One recent study from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that nearly 41 percent of community college students experienced food insecurity and 60 percent reported housing insecurity.

Compared to their four-year peers, community college students are also more likely to be from low-income families, racially minoritized, first-generation, immigrant and adult learners. Each of these groups faces unique challenges in their persistence and retention in higher education.

The previous Real College CA survey, administered in 2023, helped college leaders and others in the state identify the role basic needs insecurity plays in students’ academic progress and overall success, particularly as the state was recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, Gilkerson said.

“While we are no longer in the height of the pandemic, its ripple effects remain and they collide with record housing costs, persistent inflation in food and basic goods, and continued debates about the role of higher education, equity and access in our society,” Gilkerson said.

The data: The latest survey found that only 38 percent of students had high food security, while 46 percent had low or very low food security. The most common concerns students identified were worrying about food running out before they can afford to purchase more (52 percent) or being unable to afford balanced meals (49 percent).

Nearly three in five students said they experienced some level of housing insecurity, and one in five reported being homeless in the past 12 months. While only 8 percent of respondents self-identified as homeless, more said they were couch-surfing (16 percent) or staying at a hotel or motel without a permanent home to return to (6 percent).

Basic needs insecurity also varied by region and institution across the state, with the highest reported rates of food and housing insecurity at 70 percent and 78 percent, respectively. The report did not identify which colleges had the highest and lowest rates of basic need insecurity.

Basic needs insecurities disproportionately impact African American and Black students as well as American Indian or Alaska Native students, compared to their peers. Older students (ages 26 to 30), LGBTQ+ students, independent students, Pell Grant recipients, single parents, former foster youth and those with a history of incarceration were also more likely to indicate food or housing insecurity.

The data also points to a correlation between students’ grades and their rates of basic needs insecurity. While students at all levels had some degree of food or housing insecurity, those earning grades lower than B’s were much more likely to indicate they lacked essential resources.

“If we really are dedicated to improving the academic success of students in our colleges, it’s the basic means that we need to meet. Because if we don’t do that, it doesn’t matter how wonderful a student you are, you’re not going to be able to succeed at the rate that you would otherwise,” Brohawn said.

Not every student is aware of or utilizing campus resources that could address these challenges; over one-third of respondents said they were unaware of basic needs supports at their college, and only 25 percent had accessed the Basic Needs Center. Among students who used resources, most did so to obtain food.

Identifying solutions: Over the past five years, California has made strides to better support learners with basic needs insecurity, recognizing housing challenges as a significant barrier to student success.

The state launched a rapid rehousing program to support learners at public institutions including the CCC, California State University and University of California systems. A 2022 bill began requiring colleges to stock discounted health supplies, such as toiletries and birth control, addressing students’ basic needs in a new way.

A pilot program also provides cash to financially vulnerable students at California colleges, including those who were formerly incarcerated, former foster youth and parents.

The report’s authors recommended providing targeted interventions for vulnerable populations and enhancing accessibility and awareness of supports, as well as advocating for systemic changes, such as increased funding for basic needs initiatives or policies that provide living wages and affordable housing for students.

Source link

September 29, 2025
California School Board Member Stipends Could Change Under New Bill – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

There’s more to being a diligent school board member than attending a couple of meetings a month.

Those meetings require preparation, research and one-on-one conversations with school leadership. There are school site visits. Many districts require regular board training. Sometimes there are spinoff committee meetings about parcel taxes or school nutrition. There’s also an expectation that board members attend events like football games, PTA meetings and retirement ceremonies. Meetings with parents and other constituents are a core part of the role, too.

For all of this, Woodland Joint Unified School District board president Deborah Bautista Zavala says she earns a stipend of $240 a month, minus taxes — the maximum allowed by the state for her district with just under 10,000 students.

“You don’t do it for money, but to improve the education of students,” said Bautista Zavala.

But the lack of money, she said, is a real problem for attracting and retaining qualified school board members who truly represent the community.

That could change if Gov. Gavin Newsom signs Assembly Bill 1390, which would raise the maximum monthly stipend for school board members in both school districts and county offices of education.

This would be the first time in over 40 years that school board members’ compensation has been reconsidered — and the measure comes at a time when school boards are grappling with financial deficits, consolidation, uncertainty about federal funding and potential school closures.

Proponents of the bill have argued that while school board members dedicate large amounts of time to their position, they are not compensated adequately. Currently, school board members can earn no more than $60 each month in small districts or up to $1,500 for the state’s largest districts.

There is also a clause in the current law that allows board member stipends to be raised by 5% each year beyond the maximum, but 7 out of 10 boards still have stipends at or below the maximum, according to Troy Flint, chief information officer for the California School Boards Association.

Raising school board compensation has been a longstanding issue for the California School Boards Association, which sponsored the bill, but it has become more pressing in the years since the pandemic, Flint said.

“The job is vastly more complex than it used to be,” said Flint. “It requires a strong knowledge of finance, an aptitude for community engagement, a working knowledge of educational theory and an ability to deal with culture wars and political issues.”

The role is at an inflection point: More than 6 out of 10 school board members did not run for reelection over the past three cycles, Flint said.

Legislative analysis referenced an EdSource article, which found that 56% of 1,510 school board races across 49 California counties did not appear on a local ballot in 2024, either because there was one unopposed candidate who became a guaranteed winner or because there were no candidates at all.

The bill’s author, Assemblymember José Luis Solache Jr., D-Lynwood, argues that increasing board members’ compensation could lead to bigger, more diverse candidate pools. School boards often attract retirees or other professionals with stable income and spare time. Low stipends put the job out of reach for those from working families or younger people who are already struggling to make ends meet, Solache said.

Solache would know: He began serving on the board for the Lynwood Unified School District starting in 2003, when he was 23 years old. He has since worked with other young elected officials to find ways to recruit young people into office. Solache sees this bill as a way to improve recruitment for an important community role.

“It’s an underpaid job. We compensate the president, senators, Assembly members, state senators,” Solache said. “Why can’t you compensate the school board members that have jurisdiction over your child’s education?”

Raising the stipends of elected officials can raise eyebrows in Sacramento, Solache said. The bill set the maximums by setting an amount between inflation since 1984, when rates were set, and what the maximum would have been if the boards had raised the rates 5% annually as allowed by law.

Maximums for board members in the smallest districts saw the greatest increase. Currently, the maximum for a board member at a school district with fewer than 150 students is $60 a month. Under this bill, that same board member could earn up to $600 monthly, which Solache said is more equitable.

But board members won’t necessarily see raises, even if Newsom signs it into law. The bill merely raises the ceiling for compensation. The decision to actually offer raises to school board members will happen at the local level, and that could be a tough sell given the budget constraints school districts are facing in the coming year.

“There’s no getting around that: that in a time of limited resources, adding money for board members is taking money away from other places,” said Julie Marsh, a professor at USC’s Rossier School of Education, who recently served as the lead author of a study analyzing the experiences of 10 school board members across the state.

“We need to just really keep in mind the demands of that role and the decisions that they’re making around the superintendent, the budgets for these places, the curricular decisions that are being made. And as a state, there’s been a lot put on these positions in terms of making really important decisions,” she said.

Bautista Zavala believes it will be tough to make the case to some of her fellow board members at Woodland Unified, which is in a community 20 miles northwest of Sacramento. The district of 9,500 students struggled to pass a facilities bond last November, despite facilities in dire need of improvement. The optics of board members giving themselves a raise could be tricky if they’re also negotiating with teachers or classified staff.

“You have to be strategic about bringing this forward,” she said.

She encourages board members to raise stipends to bring new voices to school boards. She says members who believe they don’t need a raise can donate the stipend.

Some people believe serving on a board is a civic duty, and compensation shouldn’t factor into the role, said Jonathan Zachreson, board member at Roseville City School District. But he said that’s not realistic for many people. He hopes that raising the stipends for board members will also mean raising the expectations for board members.

Zachreson is concerned that some boards outsource policymaking to groups, including the California School Boards Association, rather than doing in-depth research themselves to find a solution that works best for the community.

“It’s worth the time commitment to actually learn and not just rubber-stamp proposals,” said Zachreson.

But some believe there could be unintended consequences in raising the stipends of board members.

“The worst-case scenario, I think, from a superintendent’s point of view, would be if the increase in pay becomes attractive to the wrong kind of people, who want to micromanage the superintendent and want to be well compensated for that,” said Carl Cohn, a former superintendent of the Long Beach Unified School District and State Board of Education member.

Some boards are exempt

Some school districts and county boards of education are exempt from this model because they have their own local charter. This includes the Los Angeles Unified School District, the state’s largest school district with an $18.8 billion budget this academic year; it won’t be impacted by the bill should it become law. A separate LAUSD Compensation Review Committee outlines board members’ salaries — a strategy that Marsh said makes the district appear less self-serving.

In 2017, Los Angeles Unified school board members who didn’t work elsewhere received a 174% pay increase.

“With the increase in compensation in Los Angeles Unified, we saw candidates earlier in their careers, single parents, women of color, immigrants and others with similar lived experience to our students step up,” said board member Tanya Ortiz Franklin in a statement to EdSource. “I hope that will be the trend across the state and improve decision-making for California’s public schools.”

According to a 2023 committee resolution, Los Angeles Unified board members made $127,500 annually if they weren’t employed elsewhere and $51,000 if they had another source of income. And on July 1 until 2027, board members would receive a 1% annual increase — leading most recently to salaries of $128,775 and $51,510, depending on outside employment.

Meanwhile, compensation in the San Francisco Unified School District, currently $500 monthly for board members, is governed by the city and county and is also exempt. The board of supervisors must approve compensation for county board members in Alpine, San Benito and San Bernardino counties.

Beyond compensation

Increasing school board members’ compensation might help address issues such as poor recruitment and retention, Marsh said. But professional development and other non-financial support could go a long way, since board members come in with varying degrees of knowledge on data, governance and technology.

“With the rapidly changing context around us — whether that’s around the politics and the political climate and the divisiveness, or shifting technology — I think there’s a need to further support folks,” Marsh said.

This story was originally published on EdSource.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

September 28, 2025