DOCSLIB.ORG

Early Childhood Education in California

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Early Childhood Education in California RESEARCH BRIEF | SEPTEMBER 2018 Early Childhood Education in California Deborah Stipek Stanford University About: The Getting Down to Facts project seeks to create a common evidence base for understanding the current state of California school systems and lay the foundation for substantive conversations about what education policies should be sustained and what might be improved to ensure increased opportunity and success for all students in California in the decades ahead. Getting Down to Facts II follows approximately a decade after the first Getting Down to Facts effort in 2007. This research brief is one of 19 that summarize 36 research studies that cover four main areas related to state education policy: student success, governance, personnel, and funding. This brief summarizes findings from Early Childhood Education in California (September 2018), an extensive, multipart report examining the overall landscape of early childhood education (ECE) in California. For each topic listed below, the brief summarizes key findings and their implications for California policies related to young children and their families: The Early Learning Landscape Deborah Stipek and Peggy Pizzo Early Learning for Children with Disabilities Nancy Hunt Preparation and Training for Professionals in Early Childhood Education Deborah Stipek Strengthening California’s Early Childhood Education Workforce Lea J. E. Austin, Marcy Whitebook, and Raúl Chávez Program Quality Monitoring and Improvement Deborah Stipek and Sarah Ruskin Bardack PreK-3 Alignment Deborah Stipek Early Child Care Data Systems Deborah Stipek and Madhuvanti Anantharajan These and all GDTFII studies can be found at www.gettingdowntofacts.com. Introduction More than 24 million children ages 5 and younger live in the United States, and about one in eight of them—a little over 3 million—lives in California. Compared to the rest of the country, California has about twice as many children ages 5 and under who are first- or second-generation immigrants and live in families in which the adults are not fluent in English. About one in five of all children ages 5 and younger in California live in poverty, and nearly half of California’s children live in households that are at or near the poverty level. While their parents are at work or in school, about 1.2 million of California’s young children are cared for by relatives or attend preschool, a child-care center, family home care, Head Start, or a combination thereof. Given the rapid brain development during a child’s first five years of life, which lays the foundation for all future learning, California has a compelling interest and responsibility to ensure that these programs provide a safe, socially supportive, and effective educational environment for young children. Considerable research shows that children attending high-quality preschool programs receive significant benefits. California has many good providers; but for a state that once led the nation in early childhood education, ECE today is marked by diminished investments in quality, low wages, and highly fractured oversight. 2 | Early Childhood Education in California KEY FINDINGS • Early childhood education in California is a dizzying array of programs, funding sources, and reg- ulations. • Children attending high-quality preschool do better in school and in life. • Child care is prohibitively expensive for many families and does not meet the needs of nonstan- dard work schedules. • California has a large proportion of children in care with no standards. • California has a poor record of identifying young children with disabilities and providing them with needed services. • Wages are so low that nearly 60% of child-care workers rely on some form of public assistance. • California has low and uneven teacher-training requirements for early childhood education pro- grams. • The process for monitoring quality and improvement is fragmented, inconsistent, and insuffi- cient. • The state has no centralized data collection system, limiting the ability to evaluate improvement efforts. Summary of Key Findings Early childhood education in California is a dizzying array of programs, funding sources, and regulations Early childhood education in California is a fragmented system of many federal, state, and local agencies that administer, license, regulate, and fund the various programs. As Figure 1 illustrates, California oversees state-funded preschool and child care programs for low-income families. The federal government adminis- ters Head Start; local school districts provide some preschool programs as well as transitional kindergarten (TK), a state program for children who will turn 5 within three months of the age cutoff date for kindergarten each school year; for-profit and nonprofit organizations run private centers; and individuals offer care in fam- ily child care homes (FCCH). There is little coordination among the agencies, significant variations in funding, and no standardized licensing or educational requirements for staff. Even within programs overseen by the state, 4-year-olds experience significantly different standards, depending on whether they are enrolled in a TK class, state preschool, or a subsidized day care program. Getting Down to Facts II | 3 Figure 1: Control of California’s Early Childhood Education Programs Federal U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services U.S. Dept. of Education Temporary Office Office of Child Health Office of Spe- Office of Assistance of Head Start Care Resources cial Education Elementary to Needy and Services Programs and Families Organization Secondary Bureau Education CA Dept. of CA Dept. of CA Dept. of Pub- CA Dept. of Dev. First 5 State Social Services Education lic Health Services California Special County Alternative County First 5 School Education Welfare Payment Departments of County Local Districts Local Plan Departments Providers Health Commissions Areas Private License- Licensed Licensed Home Service Schools Exempt Provider Centers Family Homes Visitors Providers Homes Programs Source: California Department of Education. Child Development (2017). http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cd/ Note: This graphic shows the multiple agencies that administer California State Transitional Kin- Head Start state- and federally-funded ECE programs in California. Administrative Preschool dergarten oversight includes setting regulations, allocating resources, Program managing contracts, and overseeing program quality, among other responsibilities. Administrators may, but do not always, provide General Child Care Alternative Pay- Title 1 Funded funding. ECE programs (the colored lines shown in the key) may and ment Preschool be offered by various kinds of local providers, some of whom offer Development Program multiple programs at a given time. Several other organizations— particularly First 5, resource and referral agencies, and Quality Rating Special Home Visiting and Improvement System (QRIS) consortia—also provide considerable Education support providers and programs, although their role varies by county. Source: Learning Policy Institute, June 2017. Note: QRIS stands for Quality Rating and Improvement System. 4 | Early Childhood Education in California In the 2017-18 budget year, California allocated a little more than $4 billion in state and federal funds to about a dozen subsidized programs (see Table 1), serving more than 437,000 children, including transitional kindergartners. Funding for each program depends on which department oversees it. As a result, similar programs may receive vastly different allocations. Table 1: Child Care and Preschool Budget (Dollars in Millions) 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 Change from 2016-17 Revised Revised Enacted Amount Percent Expenditures CalWORKs Child Care Stage 1 $334 $418 $361 -$57 -14% Stage 2 $419 $445 $519 $74 17% Stage 3 $257 $284 $306 $21 8% Subtotals ($1,010) ($1,147) ($1,185) ($38) (3%) Non-CalWORKs Child Care General Child Care $305 $308 $360 $52 17% Alternative Payment Program $251 $283 $292 $10 3% Migrant Child Care $29 $31 $35 $4 12% Bridge Program for Foster Children $0 $0 $19 $19 — Care for Children with Severe Disabilities $2 $2 $2 $0 12% Infant and Toddler QRIS Grant (one-time) $24 $0 $0 $0 0% Subtotals ($611) ($623) ($708) ($85) (14%) Preschool Programs State Preschool—part day $425 $447 $503 $55 12% State Preschool—full day $555 $627 $738 $111 18% Transitional Kindergarten $691 $739 $755 $17 2% Preschool QRIS Grant $50 $50 $50 $0 0% Subtotals ($1,721) ($1,863) ($2,046) ($183) (10%) Support Programs $76 $89 $93 $4 4% Totals $3,418 $3,722 $4,032 $310 8% Funding Proposition 98 General Fund $1,576 $1,713 $1,878 $164 10% Non-Proposition 98 General Fund $885 $984 $1,088 $104 11% Federal CCDF $573 $639 $635 -$4 -1% Federal TANF $385 $385 $427 $42 11% Federal Title IV-E $0 $0 $4 $4 — Data: California Legislative Analyst’s Office. Note: QRIS stands for Quality Rating and Improvement System. Getting Down to Facts II | 5 Children attending high-quality preschool do better in school and in life High-quality ECE experiences play a critical role in reducing the gaps seen when children start kindergarten. For example, children who attend high-quality preschools are less likely to be retained in a grade or placed in a special education setting. They are also less likely to become involved in crime and more likely to graduate from high school, go to college, and achieve higher earnings. Some forms of professional development are also associated with better quality. A study conducted in Santa Clara County found that
Load more

Recommended publications
  • From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance & Policy in California
    ~ Perin,],'J ,!,., ,,, ,, I INSTITUTE for RESEARCH on HIGHER EDUCATION From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance & Policy in California Joni E. Finney, Christina Riso, Kata Orosz, and William Casey Boland Graduate School of Education, University of Pennsylvania April 2014 0 INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH ON HIGHER EDUCATION Contents Preface 2 Introduction 4 The Golden State: Its People, Economy, & Politics 5 The People of California 5 The California Economy 5 The Political Environment of California 6 The State’s Higher Education Structure 6 University of California 7 California State University 7 California Community Colleges 7 Gubernatorial and Legislative Powers over California’s Higher Education System 8 California Higher Education Performance 9 Preparation 9 Participation 9 Affordability 10 Completion 10 Research 11 Gaps in Performance 12 What Policies Explain Higher Education Performance Over Time? 13 The Complex Political Environment and Political Indifference 14 The Indirect Costs of a “Direct Democracy” 14 The Limitations of Term Limits 15 The Cost of Political Indifference and Short-Term Fixes 15 Absence of Statewide Higher Education Goals 16 Absence of Statewide Finance Strategy for Higher Education 18 State Appropriations Are Not Targeted to Performance 18 Tuition Setting Is Not Tied to Finance Policy 20 Financial Aid Is Increasingly Not Meeting Student Needs 21 Easing Student Transitions 23 Alignment Concerns between K-12 and Higher Education 23 College Transfer: The Unfulfilled Mission of the Master Plan 25 Inadequate Incentives for Improving the Career-Technical Education Pathway 27 Conclusion 27 Notes 29 References 36 About the Authors 48 1 FROM MASTER PLAN TO MEDIOCRITY: HIGHER EDUCATION PERFORMANCE AND POLICY IN CALIFORNIA Preface From Master Plan to Mediocrity: Higher Education Performance and Policy in California is the result of the hard work and persistence of nine graduate students enrolled in my Advanced Public Policy Seminar at the University of Pennsylvania in the spring semester of 2013.
    [Show full text]
  • Student and School Indicators for Youth in California's Central Valley
    Student and School Indicators for Youth in California’s Central Valley ••• Anne Danenberg Christopher Jepsen Pedro Cerdán 2002 PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Danenberg, Anne, 1954- Student and school indicators for youth in California’s Central Valley / Anne Danenberg, Christopher Jepsen, Pedro Cerdán. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 1-58213-060-4 1. Educational indicators—California—Central Valley (Valley) 2. Education—California—Central Valley (Valley)—Statistics. I. Jepsen, Christopher. II. Cerdán, Pedro, 1978- III. Public Policy Institute of California. IV. Title. LB2846 .D26 2002 370'.9794'5021—dc21 2002012852 Copyright © 2002 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or state and federal legislation nor does it endorse or support any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Preface ________________________________________________________________________ This study was commissioned by The James Irvine Foundation as the first of two reports documenting the condition of youth
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education in California
    PPIC HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM EXPANDING COLLEGE ACCESS IMPROVING COLLEGE COMPLETION INCREASING EQUITY AND DIVERSITY INVESTING IN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION MAKING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE MEETING CALIFORNIA’S WORKFORCE NEEDS STRENGTHENING CAREER EDUCATION California’s Higher Education System PPIC HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER OCTOBER 2019 California’s system is the largest—and among the most diverse— in the nation California’s higher education system has three public segments: the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges. It also includes more than 150 private nonprofit colleges and about 160 for-profit institutions. In total, the state’s colleges and universities enroll almost three million students from a wide range of backgrounds. An additional 170 private for-profit trade schools (postsecondary institutions that award vocational certificates but do not offer degrees) enroll about 30,000 students. Eight out of every ten college students in California attend a public institution—and more than half are enrolled in the community college system. Even so, the share attending private schools is sizeable. Indeed, private nonprofit colleges enroll slightly more students than the University of California. Enrollment in private for-profit colleges has been declining after increasing sharply for many years. Unlike most other states, California has not had a coordinating body for higher education over the past several decades. This has made goal setting, oversight, and coordination more challenging. The structure and principles established almost 60 years ago by the Master Plan for Higher Education remain largely unchanged. The Master Plan allowed the state’s public system to accommodate dramatic increases in enrollment for several decades while providing broad access and charging little or no tuition.
    [Show full text]
  • Education in California Today
    EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA TODAY Consider these facts: 100 of California’s nearly 2,500 high schools account for nearly half of the state’s dropouts; residents of coastal counties are two‐thirds more likely to have a bachelor’s degree than those of inland counties; 45 in 100 Latino adults in the Los Angeles metro area never completed high school. Education is one of three areas, along with health and standard of living that make up the American Human Development Index used to measure the well‐being of Californians in A Portrait of California. Based on the most recent available U.S. Census Bureau data on both school enrollment starting from age 3 and degree attainment of all adults age 25 and older, A Portrait of California explores the education attainment level of the Golden States’ residents by neighborhood and county, metro area, racial/ethnic group, and for women and men. STRIKING FINDINGS IN EDUCATION FROM A PORTRAIT OF CALIFORNIA: o The Bay Area region, stretching from Sonoma County in the north to San Benito in the south is the leader in higher education degree attainment. San Diego and greater Sacramento are next, with Northern California and the San Joaquin Valley at the bottom of the eight regions (see figure). o A resident of the San Joaquin Valley is only one third as likely to have graduated from college as one in the Bay Area. o In the San Joaquin Valley, over 28 percent of adults have not completed high school, about the level of the nation as a whole over a quarter century ago.
    [Show full text]
  • California's Economic Payoff
    California’s Economic Dr. Jon Stiles, Dr. Michael Hout, Dr. Henry Brady Institute for the Study of Payoff Societal Issues, UC Berkeley Investing in College Access & Completion EXECUTIVE SUMMARY April 2012 The benefits of higher education extend well beyond the direct payoff for students and include substantial gains to the state Californians with a college degree will earn $1,340,000 more than their peers with only a high school For every $1 California diploma invests in higher education, it will receive a net return on The state would have to increase its investment in $ investment of $4.50 higher education 3X $$$$ before it would fail to return its original investment The return is double for those who COMPLETE COLLEGE—$4.80 than for those who enter but fail to complete college—$2.40 By entering and completing college, the average Californian will spend $12 billion 4 years less in poverty, IOU reducing the expected number of years they receive cash aid By the time a graduate by more than 2 years reaches 38 years old, Past graduates of UC and the state’s initial investment CSU return $12 billion ECONOMIC is repaid in full annually to the state WELL-BEING California’s Economic Payoff Investing in College Access & Completion he State of California is looking to resolve the ongoing budget crisis in order to secure our economic future and the opportunity for all citizens to realize the California Dream. The continued budgetary challenges raise many questions about the most effective ways to secure these goals. What are the benefits of investing in higher education?In this report, And, conducted is it worth by itresearchers for Californians? at the Institute for the Study of Societal Issues at the University of California,T Berkeley, two of these questions are addressed: This study concludes that the benefits of higher education extend well beyond the direct payoff for students and include substantial gains to the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Increase the Percent of SFUSD Graduates Who Complete a Post-Secondary Degree Within 6 Years
    Increase the percent of SFUSD Graduates who complete a Post-Secondary Degree within 6 years High School Graduates who Enroll in College and Complete within Six Years Source: National Student Clearinghouse 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 The above chart shows the percentage of SFUSD students who graduated between 2007 and 2011 who completed a post-secondary degree within six years of graduating from high school. Data Definition & the San Francisco Trend line The chart above shows the percentage of San Francisco Unified School District (SFUSD) graduates that completed degrees at two and four-year institutions within six years of graduation. Each year on the chart represents the year in which a group of SFUSD students graduated from high school. For each year, the number of SFUSD graduates that enrolled in and completed a degree within six years is shown as a percentage of total SFUSD graduates from that year. For example, the last data point on the chart shows that 52% of the 3,885 students graduating from SFUSD high schools in 2011 completed either an Associate’s, Bachelor’s or advanced degree by 2017. Certificate programs are not included in the dataset. The percent of students who complete a post-secondary degree within six years is calculated using a service provided by the National Student Clearinghouse, StudentTracker. It is important to note that data for approximately 10% of each graduating cohort in not available through the National Student Clearing House. SFUSD uses StudentTracker to identify its graduates at U.S. colleges and universities.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education in California
    ATTACHMENT 1 PPIC HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA’S HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM ADDRESSING CALIFORNIA’S SKILLS GAP EXPANDING COLLEGE ACCESS IMPROVING COLLEGE COMPLETION INCREASING EQUITY AND DIVERSITY INVESTING IN PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION MAKING COLLEGE AFFORDABLE California’s Higher Education System PPIC HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER SEPTEMBER 2017 California’s system is the largest—and one of the most diverse— in the nation California’s higher education system includes three public segments—the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU), and the California Community Colleges. It also includes more than 150 private nonprofit colleges and about 200 for-profit institutions. In total, the state’s colleges and universities enroll more than two million students from a wide range of backgrounds. Most students attend public colleges, but a sizable share (25%) attend private schools. Indeed, private nonprofit colleges enroll more students than the University of California. Enrollment in private for-profit colleges has started to decline after increasing sharply for many years. Unlike most other states, California has no coordinating body for higher education. This makes goal setting, oversight, and coordination more challenging. The Master Plan for Higher Education, adopted by the state legislature in 1960, established a structure and a set of principles for public higher education that are still largely in effect. Through the Master Plan, the state’s public system was able to accommodate dramatic increases in enrollment for several decades while providing broad access and charging little or no tuition. But over the past two decades, tuition has risen sharply and enrollment has not kept up with demand—largely because of reductions in state support.
    [Show full text]
  • Higher Education in California
    August 2020 HIGHER EDUCATION IN CALIFORNIA An introduction to the state’s public colleges & universities Since the Spring of 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has upended the lives of billions of people worldwide. Seemingly overnight, our colleges and universities transitioned their entire operations online. There is no playbook for how to best respond to this global pandemic. While it is virtually impossible to predict the lasting impact that COVID-19 will have on our students and our state, we must collectively ensure vulnerable students do not fall off their college pathways and that state leaders understand that investing in higher education is critical, especially in times of crisis. This publication provides a summary of higher education in California with specific information on enrollment, tuition/fees and financial aid, governance, and state funding in our public community colleges and universities. We also offer recommendations for how to strengthen college opportunity and student success. California’s college graduates provide the healthcare, science innovation, and safety net needed to get through this COVID-19 pandemic. They will be the ones who help the state recover from the economic downturn. Severe cuts to California’s colleges and universities will threaten access, financial aid, and college completion, ultimately hurting the state’s long-term economic future. The Legislature and Governor Newsom must work together to prevent the disproportionate impact higher education cuts will have by race/ethnicity and income on our most vulnerable students, including undocumented students. Leaders should not balance the budget on the college dreams of our students. 2 California State University, Chico CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HIGHER EDUCATION AT A GLANCE Enrollment Coordination Governance 3,029,856 The 1960 Master Plan for Accomplished through college students, making Higher Education defines separate boards with our public higher education each segment by its mission various levels of autonomy.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education – Kindergarten Through University
    Joint Committee to Develop a Master Plan for Education – Kindergarten through University Senator Dede Alpert, Chair Assemblywoman Elaine Alquist, Co-Vice Chair Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, Co-Vice Chair The California Master Plan for Education July 2002 Draft Comments and suggestions may be sent to the Joint Committee through the following means: Write to: 1020 N Street, Suite 560; Sacramento CA 95814 Submit electronic testimony via website: http://www.sen.ca.gov/masterplan Check Master Plan website for local town hall meetings in your area Table of Contents Section Page INTRODUCTION 1 THE VISION 4 THE PLAN 8 ACCESS TO HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION 10 Conditions that Promote Learning 11 Qualified and Inspiring Teacher in the Classroom 15 Rigorous Curriculum that Prepares All Students for Success 28 Participation in California’s Public Universities 30 Current Textbooks and Instructional Materials 32 Adequate Learning Support Services 33 Qualified School or Campus Administrators 36 School or Campus Physical Plant that is Safe and Well Maintained 40 ACHIEVEMENT OF STUDENTS 43 Assessment of Student Learning Needs 45 Course Alignment and Articulation 49 Teacher and Faculty Preparation and Professional Development 53 ACCOUNTABILITY FOR LEARNER OUTCOMES AND INSTITUTIONAL PERFORMANCE 56 Governance – Aligning Responsibilities, Authority, Accountability 57 Shared Accountability 73 AFFORDABILITY OF A HIGH QUALITY EDUCATION SYSTEM 79 CONCLUDING COMMENTS 93 The California Master Plan for Education Introduction – California’s Challenge ublic education is a vital interest of our state in that it provides Californians with the capacity, knowledge, and skills to sustain our system of government, to foster a thriving P economy, and to provide the foundation for a harmonious society.
    [Show full text]
  • How California Ranks
    SEPTEMBER 2010 REPORT How California Ranks Public education supports California’s eco- HigHligHts nomic growth and creates opportunities for EdSource examined the available data sources and n That year California ranked 28th among the states the state’s youth. Given that, it is important for interpretations with care and also consulted exten- in its per-pupil expenditures. Californians to understand how much the state sively with experts when we encountered questions n When the expenditure numbers are adjusted for differ- is investing in its schools and how that money or inconsistencies. Throughout this report, you will find ences in labor costs (the major component in a cost- is being spent. Comparing California with the straightforward explanations of what we found and— of-living comparison), California’s rank falls to 43rd. nation and other similar states does not indi- as necessary—notes about the data we chose and why we chose it. Based on our research, we feel cate whether the state is spending enough, but California’s high labor costs and modest per-pupil confident in reporting the following: it does provide a perspective. expenditures mean that its school districts have A wealth of data is available for comparing California’s public schools serve the country’s low staff-to-pupil ratios compared with the California’s investment in public education largest student population, one that is quite diverse country as a whole, with some staff categories with that of other states. State officials typically and faces substantial challenges. (Page 3) particularly low. (Page 8) n submit data to the National Center for Educa- California school district offices operate with 40% California’s effort to support its schools financially of the administrators found nationally.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Technical Report
    Technical Report Aims and Purposes of a State Schooling System: The Case of California Harry Brighouse University of Wisconsin-Madison Kailey Mullane University of Wisconsin-Madison September 2018 About: The Getting Down to Facts project seeks to create a common evidence base for understanding the current state of California school systems and lay the founda�on for substan�ve conversa�ons about what educa�on policies should be sustained and what might be improved to ensure increased opportunity and success for all students in California in the decades ahead. Getting Down to Facts II follows approximately a decade a�er the first Getting Down to Facts effort in 2007. This technical report is one of 36 in the set of Getting Down to Facts II studies that cover four main areas related to state educa�on policy: student success, governance, personnel, and funding. Aims and Purposes of a State Schooling System: The Case of California Harry Brighouse University of Wisconsin-Madison Kailey Mullane University of Wisconsin-Madison Evaluating a school system requires benchmarks of success. In order to know whether it is successful we need to know not only what is happening, but what should be happening. This paper interprets, and comments on, the aims California has for its public school system, and offers ways of thinking about the evidence in the light of those aims, and about how to set goals over the coming decade. California’s constitution, adopted in 1879, requires that the state provide a system of public education for the purpose of the “general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence” and explicitly mentions the promotion of “intellectual, scientific, moral, and agricultural improvement.” The constitutional text does not provide much detail about the content or distribution of education.
    [Show full text]
  • The State of Higher Education in California—Latino Report
    The State of Higher Education in California Blacks Asian Americans LATINOS Native Hawaiians Pacific Islanders April 2015 Increasing college graduates to strengthen California CONTENTS Introduction 3 Recommendations 4 California’s Latinos 5 Educational Attainment 6 College Readiness 8 College Enrollment 11 First-Time Freshmen Enrollment 11 Transfer Student Enrollment 12 Undergraduate Enrollment 13 Latinos & Proposition 209 14 Higher Education Finance & Affordability 16 College Completion 19 California Community Colleges 19 California State University 21 University of California 23 Undocumented Students 25 Barriers to Access & Success 26 Recommendations 27 Conclusion 30 The State of Higher The State About This Report 31 Education in California Education Acknowledgments 31 Methodology 32 Infographic Notes and Sources 32 Endnotes 33 Introduction California is home to more than 15 million Latinos, the largest weaknesses—and not the dedication of individual students— racial/ethnic group in the state. When one in two children such as lack of adequate preparation from high school, a under the age of 18 in California is Latino, one conclusion broken remedial education system in college, and weak is clear: the future of our economy and the state will rise coordination between our high schools and colleges. For or fall on the educational success of Latinos. To secure the three million students already enrolled in the state’s the economic future of California we need to significantly public colleges and universities, college costs continue to increase the number of Latino students who are prepared for, soar, student supports are lacking, and course offerings are enroll in and graduate from college. limited—all leading in part to more dropouts and a longer time to degree for those who do get to walk across the graduation California’s economic strength and current position as the stage.
    [Show full text]