Low college transfer rate dissected
Segregation blamed for dismal degree rate
President Obama has long been a champion of community colleges and he demonstrated that commitment Monday, when he traveled to Northern Virginia Community College to release his 2012-13 budget proposal, which calls for an $8 billion program to train students for jobs in high-demand industries.
One day later, the Civil Rights Project at UCLA released a series of reports warning that California’s economic future is threatened by abysmal transfer rates from community colleges to four-year colleges, especially for Latino and African American students. Those rates, according to the studies, are a direct result of extreme racial and economic segregation in high school.
“When you’re in 9th grade we can predict with high precision whether you’re going to be able to transfer from a community college, because of how far behind you’re going to be when you get to community college,” said Civil Rights Project co-director Patricia Gándara, who is co-author of Building Pathways to Transfer.
Transfer rates by level of high school resources. (Source: Civil Rights Project, UCLA). Click to enlarge.
Gándara and her team found that 30 percent of community college students who attended the lowest wealth high schools transferred to a four-year college, compared with more than 53 percent of students from high wealth high schools. The disparity is much larger when those numbers are broken down by race and ethnicity. Although nearly 75 percent of all Latino students and two-thirds of African American students who go on to higher education start at a community college, they comprised only 20 percent of all students who transferred to a four-year college or university.
At the other end, the authors write that “a handful of community colleges serving high percentages of white, Asian and middle class students are responsible for the majority of all transfers in the state.”
In a second report released by the Civil Rights Project, titled Unrealized Promises: Unequal Access, Affordability, and Excellence at Community Colleges in Southern California, the researchers found that the most segregated high schools with the fewest resources and weakest academic achievement tend to feed students into segregated community colleges, where many of them get stuck in years of remedial classes and never advance.
“Unfortunately, the community colleges tend to repeat the patterns of the low performing high schools, resulting in few transfers; this makes a mockery of the promise of equal opportunity,” said Gary Orfield, co-director of the Civil Rights Project.
Transfer rates from community college to four-year college, by race and ethnicity. (Source: Civil Rights Project, UCLA). Click to enlarge.
Student Success Task Force not enough
In California, community colleges are the backbone of the higher education system, serving more than two-and-a-half million students a year who have diverse needs and goals. Some are seeking an associate’s degree, some a certificate in a skilled profession such as nursing or welding, and others hope to transfer to a four-year college to earn a bachelor’s degree. The 1960 California Master Plan for Higher Education includes all those choices and more.
After half a century it became clear that the plan for community colleges needed revising. So last year, the Student Success Task Force on community colleges, established by the Legislature, developed a set of 22 recommendations to improve and accelerate the time it takes for students to earn credentials, earn degrees, or transfer.
Orfield wasn’t critical of the report – “I’m not belittling it,” he assured – but he was unenthusiastic, saying the recommendations tend to tweak around the edges of a problem that needs a full-scale structural reform. “It wasn’t a call for saying let’s redo the structure of higher education in California because it’s a catastrophe. It means that most of the kids who are growing up in this state aren’t going to have a reasonable chance to get what they need to be middle class families; that’s just absolutely critical to the future of California.”
Even colleges singled out in the Building Pathways to Transfer report for having a disproportionately high rate of transfers didn’t do it by making institutional changes. It was more a case where a group of faculty and staff took it upon themselves to help students, said Gándara.
“Somebody has to demonstrate the interest; there’s nothing systemic that’s happens here,” Gándara said. “So it isn’t like the chancellor’s office says, ‘Okay, this is something we’ve got to do, let’s get on board.’ It’s hit or miss.”
Giving Bachelor’s a chance
California doesn’t do too well on college completion even at four-year colleges and universities, according to Beyond the Master Plan: The Case for Restructuring Baccalaureate Education in California. First released in 2010, this report was also posted yesterday on the Civil Rights Project website. It’s co-authored by former University of California President Richard Atkinson. Among its findings:
- California ranks 43rd out of the 50 states in the proportion of its college-age population who earn baccalaureate degrees,
- California community colleges now enroll 40-to-50 percent of all students seeking a baccalaureate degree.
Atkinson and co-author Saul Geiser of UC Berkeley, don’t lay all the blame for California’s anticipated shortage of qualified workers with college degrees on the favorite whipping boys of the economic downturn, the growing population of immigrants and the failure of community colleges. They point to a decision made in 1960, a time when enrollment in the state’s public four-year and two-year colleges was almost equally divided.
“But in a cost-cutting move, the framers of the Master Plan limited eligibility for admission to UC and CSU to the top eighth and top third, respectively, of the state’s high school graduates, diverting many students to 2-year institutions,” they wrote.
The Student Success Task Force report already recommends streamlining the transfer process and providing incentives for students to move quickly toward their goals. Orfield and Gándara would add to that allowing community colleges to offer B.A. degrees. It would create more spaces for students seeking four-year degrees without the added step of transferring. Geiser and Atkinson see too many challenges to that model, such as cost and accreditation problems, but do recommend a hybrid model through which four-year and two-year colleges would collaborate to offer B.A. degrees.
Such changes may not be an easy sell as the chair of the Assembly higher education committee found last session. Assemblyman Marty Block [D- San Diego] introduced a AB 661, a bill that would have created a pilot program for B.A. degrees in two community college districts. It died on the inactive file.
17 Comments
Trackbacks
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
These studies are confusing correlation with causation — as is so very common in the world of education research (and journalism).
Everyone involved in this discussion needs to have it emblazoned in their minds to what degree a college education is a financial burden on a family — as well as to what degree poverty influences student achievement.
Sometimes it seems like most of the people discussing this are operating in utter oblivion to the crushing financial cost of college. Perhaps it’s only obvious to those of us with kids currently attending and/or applying for college. But everyone who doesn’t get it needs to back out of the discussion until he/she gets it. Seriously.
The obvious response to the line below is: Duh.
Gándara and her team found that 30 percent of community college students who attended the lowest wealth high schools transferred to a four-year college, compared with more than 53 percent of students from high wealth high schools.
Again — four-year college is a massive financial burden on the student and/or family. How surprising is it that wealthy kids attend four-year college at a far higher rate than low-income kids? Wealthy kids also have trips to Europe and BMWs at a far higher rate than low-income kids.
In addition, of course, poverty closely correlates with lower academic achievement, and students who are less academically successful are less likely to attend college. And parental education is another huge factor — families without “college knowledge” are far less likely to support their kids’ attending college even if it were financially feasible.
I know that those who don’t have recent life experience with the college financing picture tend to breezily assume that it’s easy to get scholarships. Dispense with that notion. Of course we see deserving students, including low-income students of color, winning scholarships all the time — but not the total, blanket financial aid that covers four-year college, living expenses and reduced earning ability (and without loans that mean students graduate in crushing debt). As the moderate-income parent of a student at a pricey private college who does get serious financial aid, I can attest that it took considerable savvy, assertiveness and general empowerment to navigate that process. A low-income family with more challenges than mine simply would be far less likely to do it successfully.
In addition, I challenge the notion that students who don’t transfer and earn B.A.s are losers and failures. That’s just wrong. Community colleges offer valuable educational options in and of themselves, and that should be encouraged and celebrated, not branded as failure.
That said, of course all students who have the motivation, desire and academic firepower to attend four-year college should be supported and empowered to do so. And we need a much stronger social safety net to help mitigate the negative impact of poverty on student achievement. My own view is that those visions aren’t feasible until we transform our national culture of admiration for low taxes/less government/bare-bones services. We can’t have it both ways.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline, The conclusion of these studies is precisely that wealth is a huge issue, and wealth is highly correlated with race and ethnicity in California. Additionally, you’re reading into the article what’s not there when you say that students who don’t receive B.A. degrees are losers. Instead, the researchers say that it’s California that loses by not providing better pathways and better resources to enable students who want to transfer to a four-year institution to do so. The issues of Career Technical Education and A.A. degrees are included in the studies, but due to space, that was not the focus of my article. Those are critical topics which TOPed has and will continue to address.
Furthermore, if you read the reports, you will see that they are high-quality studies conducted by some of the leading education researchers in the state and in the nation. Thoughtful people can disagree with their conclusions and recommendations, but these are not people who mistake correlation with causation.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I echo CarolineSF here. How could anyone write this whole essay without even a single pause to consider how many of these kids are under severe financial stress?
Community college is ‘affordable’ at only a few thousand per year – tough enough for a troubled family. There are scholarships, yes. But those kids are also often trying to work part or even full time to pay their living expenses or to assist the larger family with theirs. They are unable to study thoroughly or to get enough sleep because of their job time. They may miss classes. Conversely, they may drop out of school because they can’t find a job that meshes with the class schedule or because when push comes to shove and they have to work or miss class, the job is more important.
Since I started college in the mid-80’s, the full estimated cost of CSU and UC has more than tripled, and then you have to multiply by 4 or 5. But… entry level salaries are at most up by 150%. I spoke with a woman who poo-pooed today’s slacker kids who had financial troubles: she had paid for her UC education solely by selling steers through 4H in high school. When I pointed out to her how many Grand Champion steers you’d have to raise now (not even counting the expense of buying and raising them), she finally got it.
Financial stress is a huge factor in achievement. Financial stress within the colleges and universities themselves is making it worse, as they cut needed classes and end up with scheduling bottlenecks that keeps students from getting the classes they need in a timely manner.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I haven’t read the studies, but this report really doesn’t make it clear that this research takes the cost of college into account. That needs to permeate all reporting on the issue of access to college.
And there is an overarching message in the education world that students who don’t go to college are losers and failures, and that it’s also a failure if one attends community college and doesn’t transfer to a 4-year institution and complete a 4-year degree. It’s a predominant, pervasive message, and it is reflected in this discussion.
I realize I’m harping on those two points (the cost of college and the pervasive all-students-must-attend-college-or-they’re-losers message), but it’s necessary harping. Apologies in advance for all future harping.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I absolutely agree with CarolineSF and el… Hmmmm, poor students just aren’t attending the universities where tuition has sky-rocketed, while the only feasible option, community college, is also jumping by leaps and bounds.
Not to mention that this “achievement gap” wasn’t fixed by open enrollment, as many would argue that the K-12 system should follow community colleges steps to achieve true competition.
You see, competition doesn’t work in education, because there are winners and losers. And a high cost to public education also perpetuate the haves and the have-nots.
Let’s not take the community out of community college. Let’s reduce the cost of a college education. And let’s provide real teacher training and professional development. That is the only way to make winners of us all.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Beginning to hold high schools accountable for preparing students who are college and career ready would help to move the focus of our high schools beyond the basic skills currently required on state tests. Steinberg’s bill SB 547 would have changed the focus of high schools in a way that would help more students be successful once they get to the community colleges.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Jeff you say “let’s reduce the cost of a college education.” I whole heartedly agree.
It doesn’t make sense that we can properly educate an 18 year old high school senior for ~$10k/year but as soon as the turn 19 and become a freshman at UC it costs ~$40k/year.
Is a freshman at UC really getting 4x the education of a high school senior? Are the professors at UC 4x better than CA’s high school teachers? Do UC professors spend 4x as much time with their students than high school teachers? My speculation is the answer to these questions is likely ‘NO.’
It seems the cost of our public and private universities has gotten a little crazy in the last twenty years comparatively speaking.
–CW
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I reread the article above, and it’s all about the failure of the high schools and those colleges, with the implication that they’re providing substandard resources and education. Nowhere is there acknowledgement that the problem may not be that the kids are going to the wrong high schools or colleges, but that that problem is probably far more related to the fact that these kids don’t have resources outside of school.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Chris, you’re comparing apples and oranges. Costs per student for high school don’t include health insurance and living expenses as they do for college, and college books go with the student instead of being reused over 5-10 years. Tuition at UC is running around $12k this year.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
<i>The conclusion of these studies is precisely that wealth is a huge issue, and wealth is highly correlated with race and ethnicity in California.</i>
If the studies concluded that wealth is a huge issue, they could only have done so legitimately if they controlled for test scores when they declare that lower income students aren’t going to college in the same percentages as high income students.
If they controlled for test scores and you didn’t mention it in the summary, that’s a big gap.
If they didn’t control for GPA and test scores, then despite your assurances to the contrary, Caroline is correct and the study is just a political exercise in reproaching us for not doing more to help low income kids, regardless of ability.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Rob (and El, to a lesser extent), what about holding the students themselves accountable? Do they do homework, or seek help when they do not understand it? Do they bring materials — including materials provided for free by the school system, such as textbooks — to class every day? Do they attend daily and come to each class on-time? Do they study for quizzes, tests, and exams? Do they listen, follow directions, and participate in classroom activities? Do they take notes? Do they treat administrators, teachers, and peers with respect?
I will read the reports over the weekend, but I am willing to bet that they take the position that bad things are being do to the students — that external factors such as family poverty, effective segregation of schools, and variations in school funding account for academic failure. I am willing to bet that the reports make no mention of individual effort, of what the students do to themselves.
Both externalities and individual choice should be considered in this debate. Externalities may make it harder for students to make good choices — but they don’t make it impossible.
On a separate note, the comment about the Master Plan is false. Lower-performing students were not channeled to lesser academic institutions (community colleges, the California State University system, and the second-tier UC campuses) for the sake of saving money, but rather for the sake of protecting the academic integrity of the top-tier UC campuses, chiefly Berkeley. (See quotes from correspondence between McHenry, Kerr, and other Master Plan architects, in Nicholas Lemann’s The Big Test.) For the better public universities to maintain their standing in the academic world, it was necessary (a) to shield them from universal admissions and (b) to establish alternative educational pathways. Thus, the Master Plan is a brilliant amalgam of elitism and egalitarianism. With some institutions admitting anyone who is still breathing (when I checked a year or two ago, CSU Monterey Bay was admitting more than 80% of those who applied), and providing remedial courses to a majority of their students, I am glad that the public higher education system still features different pathways for students with different goals.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m not sure it passes muster to “hold the students accountable” when college is voluntary and there are all manner of reasons for dropping it, or not enrolling at all. One student may drop out because he needs to get a job to support the family, and another drops out because he’s just a stoned slacker, but how are we to judge which is which? Plus the idea of holding them accountable goes back to the pervasive notion that students are losers and failures if they don’t go to 4-year college. Which is just wrong.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Poor schools aren’t failing because they’re poor- there must be another reason: the data only show a correlation; we have to consider personal accountability; what about test scores; maybe these kids don’t need college, but job training; college is too expensive anyway; etc.
Most of these comments only serve to further convince me of the effectiveness of the educational reform agenda that discounts or ignores any evidence of class-based, income-based, or race-based inequality, thus removing any obligation on society to seek balance, fairness, or social justice on any of those criteria.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@Paul, a classmate of mine on a full scholarship to an elite university used to try to sleep through entire weekends his first term because he only had enough cash for a single can of ravioli to get himself through to breakfast on Monday. Yes, terribly self destructive and obviously a loser from a loser high school.
A lot of these kids feel it would be selfish of them to spend time and money on their college education when they should be working to help support their younger siblings and struggling parents here and now. Whether that is a “good choice” or not is somewhat dependent on your point of view… but IMHO it’s pretty awful that any 18 year old has to make that choice at all. If we’re concerned about them attending and completing a college degree, we have to look at that issue square in the face.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
@CarolineSF, I agree completely that college-for-all should not be the goal. Thanks for continuing to say this, because it’s not a fashionable viewpoint. Still, whatever classes a student chooses, I think she should be required to demonstrate a high level of effort while she remains in school. Low grades and test scores are blamed on schools and teachers, not on the more proximate cause — students.
@El, I sympathize with cases like the one you mentioned, but in my own teaching experience, those cases have been very rare. I have, on the other hand, noticed many students who goof off during the day, then go home to play video games. One of my students today expressed delight at the prospect of a day’s suspension ahead of the long weekend. Students like that are victims of their own poor attitude toward schooling, not of external constraints. Whatever their means, students who put in sufficient effort should be given an opportunity to attend college, complete apprenticeships, or receive other post-secondary training appropriate to their career goals. It doesn’t bother me, however, when doors are closed to students who are not willing to put in the effort.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m not defending poor attitudes, goofing off or misbehavior, but @Paul, if those students had the opportunity to get meaningful career education in school, do you think they might take it more seriously? The (fashionable) effort to fit all students into an academic, college-track mold is obviously going to alienate some who might be engaged if they saw school as more useful.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity