Unrealized promises: Unequal access, affordability, and excellence at community colleges in Southern California

UnrealizedPromisesUnequalAccess,Affordability,andExcellenceatCommunityCollegesinSouthernCalifornia

MaryMartinezWenzlandRigobertoMarquez

January2012

2 UnrealizedPromises

CivilRightsProject/ProyectoDerechosCivilesJanuary,2012

TABLEOFCONTENTSAcknowledgements………………………………………………………………………………………………….3

ForewordbyGaryOrfield…………………………………………………………………………………………4

ExecutiveSummary ....................................................................................................6

Introduction ...............................................................................................................8

CaliforniaCommunityCollegeContext......................................................................10

TheMasterPlan’sUnrealizedPromises ............................................................................................. 10

ServingtheUnderpreparedatComparablyLowExpense .................................................................. 11

TheResourceFailure:RestrictedRevenueStreams,RisingCosts,andVolatileSpending .................. 12

AnIncreasinglyDiverseStateShiftandChangesinEnrollmentPatterns ........................................... 13

UnevenRacialandEthnicDiversityinPublicPostsecondarySystems ................................................ 14

FreshmenPathwaystoCommunityColleges:LocationMatters ................................17

FlowsofFirst‐TimeFreshmen ............................................................................................................. 17

PathwaysfromSchoolswithStrongandWeakPromotingPower ..................................................... 18

SegregatedPathwaysfromHigh‐andLow–PerformingSchools ....................................................... 20

TransferRatesandVolumebyRaceandEthnicity.....................................................25

TransferRatesbyCounty.................................................................................................................... 26

HighestandLowestTransferRatesintheRegion .............................................................................. 27

BlackandLatinoTransferTrends ....................................................................................................... 29

Findings ....................................................................................................................34

Conclusion................................................................................................................36

Appendix ..................................................................................................................40



Acknowledgements

Ourownexperiencesascommunitycollegestudentsdriveourinterestandpassionincommunitycollegeresearch.Webothbeganourcollegeeducationatcommunitycolleges,wherewebenefitedtremendouslyfromdedicatedinstructorsandstudentsupportsystems.Withthisinmind,wewouldliketothanktheOfficeofMulticulturalAffairsatLaneCommunityCollegeandTRIO:StudentSupportServicesprogramatSantaMonicaCollegeforhelpingusbecomesuccessfulcommunitycollegestudents,whotransferredandlaterwentontoearnMastersdegreesandnowaredoctoralstudents.WealsowouldliketoextendourgratitudetoProfessorGaryOrfieldforaffordinguswiththeopportunitytodelveintothisresearchproject.LittledidweknowuponenrollinginProfessorOrfield’scourse,“Immigration,RacialChange,andEducationina21stCenturyMetropolis,”thatwewouldbedivingdeeplyintoresearchthatwouldchallengeustoexaminetheinterplayofrace,segregation,andopportunityinthecommunitycollegesystem.ProfessorOrfield’smentorshipandsupportallowedustocontinuetodevelopourresearchbeyondtheboundsofthecourse.WealsoextendourthankstoDr.GenevieveSiegel‐Hawleyforherinvaluableassistanceandeditingeverystepoftheway.Finally,wewishtoacknowledgetheCouncilfortheStudyofCommunityCollegesforprovidingaforumtoshareourearlyfindingsandreceiveinsightfulfeedbackonourwork.MaryMartinez‐WenzlandRigobertoMarquez



ForewordbyGaryOrfield Earlierthismonth,PresidentBarackObamavisitedacommunitycollegecampusinNorthernVirginia,justoutsidethenation’scapital.“Lightingaspark—that’swhatcommunitycollegescando,”proclaimedthepresident,toutingtheindividualadvantagesofcommunitycollegeprograms—atickettothemiddleclasstraditionallyprovidedatsteeplydiscountedprices—aswellastheirimportanceinshoringupAmerica’seconomicfuture.Yet,despitethecriticalsparkthatcommunitycollegesarewell‐poisedtoprovide,Californiaisthreateningtoslashsupportforthestatesystembyupto10percent,amountingtoan$800‐millionreductioninnextyear’sfunding. InCalifornia,communitycollegeshavelongplayedacentralroleinthestate’shighereducationsystem.Datingbacktothe1960MasterPlan,allCaliforniastudentshavesupposedlybeenassuredofaccesstohighereducation.Communitycollegeswereslatedtocarrythelargestportionoftheload,responsibleforeducatingandtheneithergraduatingortransferringtwo‐thirdsofthestate’saspirantstoapost‐secondarydegree.Extraordinarilyseverefundingcuts(andtheaccompanyingriseinfees)will,ofcourse,dolittletomakegoodonthatlong‐standingpromise. Duringatimeofseriousdemographictransition,thestatecanillaffordtobackpedalonitspledgestoarisinggenerationofblackandLatinoyouth,whoareverydisproportionatelyconcentratedinthecommunitycollegesystem.ThesestudentswillmakeupamajorityofCalifornia’sworkforceinshortorder.Withoutaccesstohighereducation,theeducationaltrajectoryofmultitudesofstudentswillbetragicallystunted,andthestate’seconomicenginewillcontinuetosputter.

Beyondprovidingthebasicfundingandinfrastructuretosustainenrollmentincommunitycolleges,Californiamustworktoensurethattheprogramsareworkingtotransferand/orgraduatedegree‐seekingstudents.Areportlastfall,fromtheInstituteforHigherEducationLeadershipandPolicy,gavenoticethatthecommunitycollegesystemisfallingfarshortofthesecommitments:fully70%ofCalifornia’scommunitycollegestudentsarenotsuccessfullytransferringto4‐yearinstitutionswithinsixyears.Bothexternalandinternalchallenges,then,threatentoextinguishthepossibilitiesofanabsolutelyessentialelementofCalifornia’shighereducationalsystem.

Theanalysisthatfollowsbuildsonwhatweknowabouttransferratesinastatethatishome

tothecountry’slargestsystemofcommunitycolleges,inaregionthatisabellwetherfordemographicshiftsplayingacrosstheUnitedStates.Thisresearchaddsanimportantnewdimensiontothisconversation,byexaminingtherelationshipbetweenracialisolationandSouthernCaliforniacommunitycollegetransfers—inadditiontodocumentingthepathwaysbetweenhigh‐andlow‐performinghighschoolsandcommunitycollegesintheregion.Theauthorsfindthatstudentsfromweak‐performinghighschoolsaregoingontoattendraciallysegregatedcommunitycolleges,whichinturnarelesslikelytotransferstudentsto4‐yearinstitutionsthanmajoritywhiteorAsiancommunitycolleges.Inmorediversecommunitycolleges,aracialtransferrategappersists.Thereportalsohighlightsthespatialdimensionsoftheseunequalcircumstances,indicatingthatalloftheintenselysegregatedcommunitycollegesintheregionarelocatedintheLosAngelesCommunityCollegeDistrict.



ThisinvestigationofthewayracialisolationinfluencescommunitycollegepathwaysandtransferratesisthesecondinaseriesofreportsrelatedtoequityandopportunityintheSouthernCalifornia‐BajaMexicomegalopolis(http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/metro‐and‐regional‐inequalities/lasanti‐project‐los‐angeles‐san‐diego‐tijuana/the‐lasanti‐project‐description/?searchterm=lasanti).Fivemonthsago,wereleasedastudydetailingseverepatternsoftriplesegregation—byrace,classandlanguage—inSouthernCalifornia’sK‐12settings,alongwithavarietyofseriouseducationalopportunityandoutcomegapslinkedtothatsegregation.Takentogether,thesetworeportshelpillustratethedynamicsofastrongcycleoflimitingeducationalcircumstances,beginningintheK‐12systemandcontinuingintotheregion’scommunitycolleges. Theconsequencesofnotdealingwiththeseissuesarerising.Thisreportshowsthatitistimetodesignpolicyandallocatefundingthatdevelopsandextendseducationalopportunitytofuturegenerations,ratherthansignificantlycurtailingit.



ExecutiveSummary

Californiacommunitycollegesare,bydesign,theonlyentrypointtofour‐yearinstitutionsforthemajorityofstudentsinthestate.Yet,manyoftheseinstitutionsperpetuateracialandclasssegregation,thusdisruptingtheCaliforniaMasterPlanforHigherEducation’spromiseofaccess,equity,andexcellenceinhighereducation.ThisreportisanexploratoryanddescriptiveexaminationofthepipelinestoandfromSouthernCalifornia’s51communitycolleges.Twocentralquestionsguideouranalysisanddiscussioninthisreport.First,howdoeshighschoolperformancerelatetothelevelsofracialandethnicsegregationinreceivingcommunitycolleges?Second,howdotransferoutcomesrelatetotheethnicandracialcompositionofthecommunitycollege?Wefindevidenceofaharmfulcycleofsegregation,wherebystudentsfromlow‐performinghighschoolsarefunneledintoraciallyisolatedcommunitycolleges,whichinturnfailtotransferstudentsathighrates.Andatmoreintegratedcommunitycolleges,aracialtransfergappersists.

Weexaminetheflowsofstudentsintheregionfromthestrongest‐andweakest‐performinghighschoolstocommunitycollegesbytheirlevelsofsegregation.Thehighschools’performancesaremeasuredbythree‐yearpromotingpoweraverages,orsuccessfultransitionsfromonegradetothenext.Specifically,welookatthenumberoflargepathways(flowsofmorethan50studentsperyear)tocommunitycolleges.Thesepathwayscanbethoughtofaslargeroadsfunnelingstudentstospecificcommunitycollegesyearafteryear,andillustratehowcertaincommunitycollegesintheregionservelargenumbersofstudentsfromweak‐performinghighschools,whileotherslargelyserveonlythosefromhigh‐performinghighschools.

Thisreportalsoassesseshowtransferratesvarybetweencommunitycollegesthatarethemost‐andleast‐segregatedintheregion.Collegesaredividedintothefollowingcategoriesbytheirlevelsofsegregation:intenselysegregated(n=5),majorityunderrepresentedminority(n=17),highlydiverse(n=4),majoritywhite/Asian(n=14),andmajoritywhite(n=11).

Fivethemesemergedfromthisanalysis,summarizedasfollows:

1. StudentsfromweakhighschoolsareconcentratedincommunitycollegeswhereBlackandLatinostudentsareoverrepresented.At114highschoolsintheregion,only23to65%offreshmenpersisttothesenioryear,referredtointhisreportasdropoutfactories.Themajority(57%)ofthe78largepathwaysfromthesedrop‐outschoolsflowstomajorityBlack/Latinoorintenselysegregatedcommunitycolleges.AllofthefiveintenselysegregatedcollegesintheregionareintheLosAngelesCommunityCollegeDistrict.

2. StudentsfromstronghighschoolsareconcentratedincommunitycollegeswherewhiteandAsianstudentsareoverrepresented.Thereare115highschoolsintheregioninwhich85to100%offreshmenpersisttothesenioryear.Themajority(64%)ofthe98largepathwaysfromtheseschoolsaretomajoritywhiteormajoritywhite/Asiancommunitycolleges.Majoritywhiteschoolsdrawespeciallyheavilyfromhigh‐performinghighschools.

3. Mostofthelowesttransferratecommunitycollegesaremajorityunderrepresentedminorityorintenselysegregated.The13communitycollegeswiththelowestsix‐yeartransferrateshaveratesrangingfrom15to33%,withanaverageof28%.Themajority(85%)oftheseinstitutionsareintenselysegregatedormajorityunderrepresentedminority.Theselow‐



transferringcommunitycollegesarefoundthroughouttheregion,butareconcentratedinLosAngeles.

4. Communitycollegeswiththehighesttransferratesaremajoritywhiteormajoritywhite/Asian.Allofthecommunitycollegesintheupperquartileoftransferratesaremajoritywhiteormajoritywhite/Asian.Atthese13schools,theoverallsix‐yeartransferratesrangefrom45to58%,averaging49%.AsianandWhitestudentshavehighertransferrates,60%and51%,respectively.

5. Manyofthesehighesttransferratecommunitycollegeshaveracialdisparities.Severalofthecommunitycollegesintheregionthatareintheupperquartilefortheoveralltransferratehavelargediscrepanciesbetweenthetransferratesbyrace.Specifically,thereareeightschoolsintheregioninwhichBlackandLatinotransferratesare12to20percentagepointslowerthantheoveralltransferrate,andthisgroupincludessomeoftheinstitutionsthoughtofasflagshipcommunitycolleges.

Tosummarize,itisattheextremesthatoneseesthestarkestdifferencesinlevelsofsegregationandeducationalopportunity.Studentswholivenearandattendcommunitycollegesthatareintenselysegregated,ormajorityBlackandLatino,typicallyareincollegeswhereagreatnumberoffellowstudentscomefromweakpromotinghighschools.Studentsfromweakerhighschoolstendtohaveweakeracademicpreparationandrequiremoreremediation,andtheircollegesandfacultytendtofocusmoreonthoseneeds.Incontrast,studentsfrommajoritywhiteand/ormajoritywhite/Asiancollegeslargelyencounterstudentscomingfromschoolswithhighpromotingpower.Inconsiderationofthesechallenges,weofferthefollowingrecommendations:

1. Recognizeandrewardsuccess:Rewardingsuccessfulcommunitycollegeswillprovideanincentiveforcommunitycollegestoimprovetheirtransferrateamongthestudentswhoaremostinneedofattention.Recognitionfortransferequitybyraceshouldnotonlybedefinedbytheaggregatetransferrate,butalsobyhavingmoreequaltransferratesacrossracialgroups.

2. Streamlinethetransferprocess:Auniformarticulationagreementbetweenthe112communitycollegesinthestatewouldbeonestepclosertowardsequalaccess.

3. Alignmentacrossinstitutionalsectors:Increasedalignmentsbetweensendinghighschoolsandreceivingcommunitycollegescanreducetheneedforremediation.Dualenrollmentprogramsforhighschoolstudentscanalsobegintobridgethegapbetweenthetwosectors,butwillonlydosoinameaningfulwayifaccessisextendedtoawiderangeofstudents,andnotsolelyhigh‐performingstudents.

4. Informationandintegration:Studentsandparentsshouldreceivemuchbetterinformationandthereshouldbeanexpansionofmagnetschools,aswellashonorsprogramswithseriouspre‐collegiatecourses,inallhighschools.Communitycollegestudentsshouldreceivemoreinformationabouttherelativetransfersuccessofvariouscampuses,inadditiontounderliningtheirrighttoenrollinmoresuccessfulcampusesthatmaybefurtherfromhome.

5. Increasefunding:CurrentfundingisnotsufficienttomeettheobjectivessetforthintheCaliforniaMasterPlanforHigherEducation,andtheseverereductionsduringtheeconomiccrisishaveintensifiedtheseproblems.



Introduction

CaliforniahasthelargestcommunitycollegesystemintheUnitedStates.Thestate’s112communitycollegesserveover2.9millionstudentsannually,onequarterofallcommunitycollegestudentsinthenation.1Nearly80%ofBlackandLatinostudentsinthepostsecondarysystemattendacommunitycollege.Theoretically,allCalifornianscanmatriculateintoanycommunitycollege,but,inpractice,studentstypicallyattendthecommunitycollegethatisclosesttowheretheylive.InCalifornia,whereLatinosaremoresegregatedthananyotherethnicgroupinschools,2apatternofsegregationcontinuesinthecommunitycollegesystem,andmanyoftheinequitiesoftheK‐12systemareperpetuated.

BlackandLatinostudentsareleastlikelytotransfer;bythemostoptimisticofestimates,only

threeoutof10transferwithinsixyears.3Thistroublingpatternoccurswithinabroadercontextofahighschooldropoutcrisis,with27%ofLatinoand37%ofBlackstudentsdroppingoutofhighschool.4OftheBlackandLatinoswhodograduate,abouthalfgoontoattendoneofthestate’spostsecondaryinstitutions,byandlargefindingthemselvesatacommunitycollege.5

Communitycollegesegregationappearstocorrespondtotheoveralltransferrates.In

SouthernCalifornia,theregionoffocusforthisreport,thecommunitycollegeswiththelowesttransferratesareintenselysegregated(morethan90%minority)ormajorityBlackandLatino.Incontrast,studentswhoattendcommunitycollegeswiththegreatestlikelihoodoftransferringfindthemselvesatinstitutionswhosestudentpopulationispredominantlywhiteandAsian.

Reducingcommunitycollegedropoutratesandracialdisparitiesmustbeginwithaclear

understandingatthelocallevel.ThisreportprovidessuchapictureforSouthernCalifornia.Twocentralquestionsguideouranalysisanddiscussioninthisreport.First,howdoeshighschoolperformancerelatetothelevelsofracialandethnicsegregationinreceivingcommunitycolleges?Toanswerthisquestion,weexaminetheflowsofstudentsintheregionfromthestrongestandweakestperforminghighschoolstocommunitycollegesbythecolleges’levelsofsegregation.SouthernCalifornia’shighschoolsarehighlysegregatedbyraceandpovertyandveryunequalintermsofthecourseofferingsandteacherexperience,providingverydifferentlevelsofgraduationandeventualsuccessincollege.Thesepathwaysrevealtheextenttowhichthemost‐andleast‐preparedstudents

1CommunityCollegeLeagueofCalifornia,FastFacts(2010)http://www.ccleague.org/files/public/FF2010_revNov10.pdf(accessedMarch2010).2L.ChavezandE.Frankenberg,IntegrationDefended:BerkeleyUnified’sStrategytoMaintainSchoolDiversity.UCLACivilRightsProject/ProyectoDerechosCiviles(2009).3CaliforniaCommunityCollege'sChancellor'sOffice,TransferVelocityReport,200304Cohort.http://webprod.cccco.edu/datamarttrans/dmtrnsstucsel.aspx(AccessedMarch2010).Thethree‐yeartransferratesinthissamecohortweremuchlower:9%amongLatinos,12%amongBlacks,24%amongAsians,and16%amongwhites. 4CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation.DropoutsbyEthnicDesignationbyGrade,200708FouryearDropoutRate(2010).5CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission.HigherEducationEnrollmentamongCaliforniaPublicandPrivateHighSchoolGraduatesbyRace(2008).



areintegratedandsegregatedincommunitycollegesintheregion,whichhasimportantimplicationsforbothstudentopportunityandinstitutionalburdens.

Oursecondresearchquestionis:Howdotransferoutcomesrelatetotheethnicandracial

compositionofthecommunitycollege?Hereweareinterestedinthehighestandlowesttransferratesbyrace/ethnicityacrossinstitutionsinourregion,and,inparticular,whichinstitutionsintheregionhavethehighestandlowesttransferratesforBlackandLatinostudents.Inadditiontopayingattentiontothedisparitiesacrosstheregion,weconsidertransferrategapswithinthesesameinstitutionsbyrace/ethnicity.Answeringthesequestionsisessentialtounderstandinghowlikelytransferisforstudents,dependingonone’sgeographiclocationinaresidentiallysegregatedregion.Thishasprofoundimplicationsforhowaccesstoeconomicandsocialmobilityviahighereducationvariesthroughouttheregion.Giventhecontinueddisparitiesinbotheducationalachievementbyraceandethnicityandthedemographicsofourregionofstudy,theracialdimensionsofcommunitycollegeaccessandopportunityareessentialtounderstandingthedistributionofeducationalopportunityandaccess.Ifnonwhitestudents,whoarethelargemajorityinSouthernCalifornia,aregoingfromunequalhighschoolsintolesssuccessfulcommunitycolleges,thatraisesfundamentalissuesofequityandthreatensthefutureforasignificantandgrowingsegmentofCalifornia’spopulation,aswellastheregionasawhole.

Theconsequencesforcommunitycollegedropoutsaredire.Whileitwasoncepossiblefor

highschoolgraduatestosecurealivingwageandgoodunionjobs,theseopportunitieshavedisappearedwiththelossofthemanufacturingbaseinSouthernCalifornia.6Postsecondaryeducationisincreasinglyaprerequisiteforeconomicandsocialmobility.Howeverthereissomeevidencetosuggestcommunitycollegestudentswithoutacredentialfindtheireducationhaslittlecurrencyinthelabormarketandearnaboutthesameashighschoolgraduates.7Earningdifferentialsbylevelofeducationhaveincreasedsteadilyoverthepast35years.8In2005,salariesofindividualswithfour‐yearcollegedegreeswereonaverage62%morethanthosewithonlyahighschooldiploma.9Inaddition,Californiaisprojectedtohaveashortageofonemillioncollege‐educatedworkersby2020,makingtheneedtoincreaselevelofpostsecondaryeducationalattainmenturgentforthestateaswell.10

SouthernCalifornia,withnearlyhalfthecommunitycollegesinthestateandawiderangein

termsofsize,demographics,andtransferpatterns,isanideallensthroughwhichtoexaminecommunitycollegesinthestate.Theareaishometothenation’slargestconcentrationofLatinostudents,aboutafifthofthetotalintheenormousSouthernCaliforniamegalopolis.Assuch,the

6Grant, D. M. 2000. “A demographic portrait of Los Angeles County, 1970 to 1990.” Prismatic Metropolis: Inequality in Los Angeles: 51–80. 7W.N.Grubb,WorkingintheMiddle:StrengtheningEducationandTrainingfortheMidSkilledLaborForce(SanFrancisco:Jossey‐BassPublishers,1996).8S.BaumandJ.Ma,EducationPays:TheBenefitsofHigherEducationforIndividualsandSociety(CollegeBoardTrendsinHigherEducationSeries,2007).9Ibid.10C.Moore,N.Shulock,andC.Jensen,CraftingaStudentCenteredTransferProcessinCalifornia:LessonsfromOtherStates(CaliforniaStateUniversity,Sacramento:InstituteforHigherEducationLeadership&Policy,2009).



lessonslearnedthroughthisregionhaveimportantimplicationsforthenation,asCalifornialargelyportendsthechangesonthehorizonfortherestoftheUnitedStates.

Thisstudy’sregionalapproach,lookingatall51communitycollegesinSouthernCalifornia,

affordscomparisonsbetweeninstitutionsintheregionandrevealstheimpactshousingandschoolsegregationhaveoneducationalopportunity.Todate,nostudyhasexaminedtheinterplayofsegregation,communitycolleges,andeducationalequityandaccess.Ourhopeinthisreportistofurtherdiscussionsaboutcreatingchangeinasystemthatcontinuestomarginalizelowincomeandstudentsofcolorfromaccesstoanequitableeducationandapromisingfuture.

ThispaperexaminesCaliforniacommunitycollegesintheSouthernCaliforniaregion(Ventura,LosAngeles,Riverside,SanBernardino,OrangeandSanDiegocounties).WebeginbyreviewingthemajorpoliciesimpactingCaliforniacommunitycolleges,beginningwiththeCaliforniaMasterPlanforHigherEducation,andconsiderthecurrentpolicyandeconomiccontext.Wethenexaminefreshmenpathwaysintheregion,specificallythelargestpathwaysfromstrongandweakpromotinghighschoolstocommunitycolleges.Next,weanalyzetransferratesandpatternsintheregion,focusingonthevariationsbetweenrace/ethnicgroupswithinandacrossinstitutions.Thepaperconcludeswithadiscussionofthefindingsandtheimplicationsforfutureresearch.

CaliforniaCommunityCollegeContextForCalifornia’slow‐incomestudentsandstudentsofcolor,communitycollegesoftenserveas

theinitialaccesspointtoafour‐yearuniversity.Assuch,theyplayacriticalroleinpreparingCalifornia’sfuture.Communitycollegeshavetheenormoustaskofprovidingandensuringaccesstofour‐yearuniversitiesforthemajorityofstudentsinthestateaswellassomeofitsmostmarginalizedandunderservedstudents.WithLatinosbecomingarapidlygrowinganddominantsegmentofthestate’scollege‐agepopulationandthemajorityoftheyoungadultpopulationby2014,11therehastobealargeinvestmentbythestatetoprovideaccesstoafour‐yearuniversityforLatinos.With80%ofBlackandLatinocollegestudentsincommunitycollege,thesecommunitiesaredisproportionatelyaffectedbythelackofopportunitiesandresourcesthatexistforstudentsinourcommunitycolleges.

TheMasterPlan’sUnrealizedPromises

California’sconcentrationofcollegestudentsincommunitycollegecanbetracedbacktothe1960MasterPlanforHigherEducation,whichcreatedathree‐tieredsystemofhighereducation:theUniversityofCalifornia,CaliforniaStateUniversityandCaliforniaCommunityColleges.Whencreated,themissionoftheMasterPlanwastoprovideallstudentsequalaccessthroughmultiplepathwaystoaqualitypostsecondaryeducationinthestate.Underthissystem,themostpreparedandqualifiedhighschoolstudentsdirectlyentertheUniversityofCalifornia(top12.5%)orCaliforniaStateUniversity(top33.3%),whiletheremainingtwo‐thirdsbegintheireducationatacommunitycollege.TheMasterPlanalsoassuresallcommunitycollegestudents,whomeetandfulfillasetnumberof

11TheCampaignforCollegeOpportunity,ReturnonInvestment:ALatinoSnapshot(2010)http://www.collegecampaign.org/assets/docs/res‐lib/ROI‐Latino‐Snapshot.pdf(accessedMarch16,2010)



minimumrequirements,guaranteedadmissiontooneofthe33publicfour‐yearuniversitiesinthestate.

WhentheMasterPlanwascreated,itwaspraisedbythenationasagreatstepforwardinequalizinghighereducationinthecountry;theMasterPlanprinciplesof“access,affordabilityandexcellence”resonatedwithmanypeopleinthecountry.Inthefirstyearsofimplementation,theMasterPlanopenedopportunitiesforlow‐incomeandminoritystudentstoearnacollegedegree.Atthetimeofitsinceptionstudentfeeswerelow,andforthosewhoneededfinancialassistancethestateprovidedgrantstohelpoffsetthecostofbooksandhousing.However,overtheyearsdifferentpropositionsandpolicyinitiatives,budgetconstraints,skyrocketingstudentfeeincreases,dismalinvestmentforenrollmentgrowth,andincreasingselectivitybyuniversitieshaveseverelycompromisedCalifornia’sabilitytoabidebytheprinciplesoftheMasterPlan.

TheMasterPlanhelpedproducearemarkablearrayofworldclassUniversityof

Californiacampusesclosetoalmostallstudentsinthestate.Butitrestedonsomeassumptionsthatwerenotcloselyexaminedforalongtime.First,theplanassumedthatstateandlocalpropertytaxeswouldprovidethefundingforuniversalaccesstocommunitycolleges.Itssecondpremisesuggestedthatallthecommunitycollegeswouldbegoodenoughtopermitqualifiedstudentstotransferandtofunctionsuccessfullyonfour‐yearcampuses.Third,thePlanpresumedthatopportunitywouldbeequalacrossthestate.Fourth,itsupposedthatstudentswhostartedoutinthecommunitycollegeswouldhaveanequalopportunitytofinishcollegeiftheysucceededintheirstudies.Andalthoughthestatehasproducedsomeremarkablygoodcommunitycolleges,noneoftheseassumptionshasbeenfulfilled.

ServingtheUnderpreparedatComparablyLowExpense

Communitycollegesfunctionasacriticalaccesspointtoapostsecondaryeducation,andbyextension,accesstoeconomicandsocialmobilityforpoor,workingclass,Black,Latino,andfirst‐generationcollegestudents.Communitycollegestudentsarealsomorelikelytobeunder‐preparedforhighereducation.InCalifornia,halfofenteringcommunitycollegestudentsaredirectedtobasicskillscourses.12Uponenteringthecommunitycollege,manyofthesestudentsfindthattheyneedextensiveremediationinordertosucceedincollegecredit‐bearingcourses.

Inadditiontoservingasanaccesspointforstudentsinneedofextrasupport,California

communitycollegefeesaretheoneofthelowestinthecountryat$36perunit.CaliforniaStateUniversityfeesarefourtimesthatcostperunit,theUniversityofCaliforniaisninetimesthecost,andprivateinstitutionsaremuchmoreexpensivestill.Manystudentsare,however,unawareofthedirectandindirectcostsaccruedinthetypicalfiveyearsCaliforniacommunitycollegetransferstudentsspendpriortotransferring.Muchofthisisduetothetimestudentsspendinremediation,whichofteninvolvesseriouslossofincome,drivesuptherealcostoftransferforstudents,andrepresentsaregressiveexpensedisproportionatelyaffectingthemostunder‐preparedstudents.13Moreover,non‐

12AcademicSenateforCaliforniaCommunityColleges,“IssuesinBasicSkillsAssessmentandPlacementinCaliforniaCommunityColleges(2004).13T.Melguizo,L.SHagedorn,andS.Cypers,“Remedial/DevelopmentalEducationandtheCostofCommunityCollegeTransfer:ALosAngelesCountySample,”TheReviewofHigherEducation31,no.4(2008):401–431.



tuitioncostssuchasbooksandhousingaresimilarforstudentsatcommunitycollegesandfour‐yearinstitutions.

Californiadataconsistentlyshowlowratesofsuccessfultransferfrommostcommunity

colleges,andpolicydiscussionsoftentreatthisasaproblemofcreatingbetteron‐campussupportsandagreementsbetweenthetwo‐yearandfour‐yearcampuses,butrecentresearchfindslittlesupportforthetheorythatbetterarticulationagreementsmakeadifference.14Obviously,ifitisamoredeeplyrootedsystemofinequalitythatisbuiltonsegregatedandunequalopportunitiesandpreparationbeforecollege,thenmorefarreachingremediesmustbeconsidered.

TheResourceFailure:RestrictedRevenueStreams,RisingCosts,andVolatileSpending

Overtheyears,taxpolicyandensuingbudgetcutshavecompromisedCalifornia’sabilitytoadheretotheprinciplesoftheMasterPlan.In1978,CaliforniavoterspassedProposition13,“ThePeoplesInitiativetoLimitPropertyTaxation,”whichradicallycappedpropertytaxratesforfamiliesandcompaniesandrequiredatwo‐thirdsmajorityforanyfuturetaxincreases.Asaresult,localfundingforcommunitycollegedistrictsbasicallydisappeared.15Futuretaxcutsonlyservedtocompoundtheproblems.Voter‐passedpublicsafetyinitiativesforjuvenileincarcerationandmandatorysentencinghaveinadvertentlyplacedadditionalcostburdensontheeducationsystem.Californiapresentlyspendsmoreonfundingprisonsthanonpublichighereducation.16

Californiahighereducationspendinghasalsobeenvolatile,varyingfromyeartoyearandused

asabalancewheelinthestatebudget.Tofurthercompoundmatters,communitycollegerevenuefromthestatehasbeenthemostunpredictable,beinglargelydependentonlocalrevenuestreams.17AlloftheselimitstorevenueforcommunitycollegeshavemadeCaliforniaincreasinglyunabletomeetthebasicneedsanddemandsofitsgrowinganddiversestate.

Thereisnosubstantialcommitmenttoincreasefundingtosupportgrowingenrollment,

especiallyforcommunitycolleges.Forinstance,thestate’sper‐pupilspendingforcommunitycollegestudentsin2007was$5,591(farlessthanisspentonhighschoolstudents),andforCSUandUCstudentsitwas$11,829and$21,778respectively.18Incomparisontoper‐pupilspendingforcommunitycollegesinotherstates,Californiaspendsapproximately$2,000lessperstudent,andthisisprojectedtodecreaseinthecomingyears.19Forthe2010‐2011year,thestatehasincreased

14JosipaRoksaandBruceKeith,“Credits,Time,andAttainment:ArticulationPoliciesandSuccessAfterTransfer,”EducationalEvaluationandPolicyAnalysis30,no.3(2008):236‐254.15Prop13states,“Districtsreceiveaportionofthe1%countywidepropertytaxbasedontheirproportionalshareofpropertytaxrevenuereceivedfromtheircommunitypriortotaxcontrol,”citedinCenterforCommunityCollegePolicy,EducationCommissionoftheStates,StateFundingforCommunityColleges:AFiftyStateSurvey(Denver,CO:2000).16PhillipReese,“HigherEducationvs.Prisons:SeeWhereCalifornia’sMoneyGoes,”TheSacramentoBeehttp://www.sacbee.com/2010/01/06/2442430/higher‐education‐vs‐prisons‐see.html17J.Santos.LatinoEducationSummit.UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles.2010.18CaliforniaLegislativeAnalyst’sOffice.“The2010‐11Budget:HigherEducation.”http://www.lao.ca.gov/laoapp/main.aspx(accessedMarch8,2010)19P.Burdman,“DoesCalifornia'sMasterPlanStillWork?”Change:TheMagazineofHigherLearning41,no.4(2009):28–35.



communitycollegefunding,20butitstillleavesabout60,000studentsunfundedacrossthecommunitycolleges.21Inadditiontothelackofsupportfromthestate,theUC,CSUandcommunitycollegeshavepassedontostudentssomeoftheburdenofbudgetshortfallsbysignificantlyincreasingstudentfees,nearlydoublingthecostintheUCsandCSUsinthelasttenyears,andalmosttriplingitinthelasttwodecadesforcommunitycolleges.22

Openingupthreesmalluniversitycampuses,theUniversityofCaliforniaandtheCalifornia

StateUniversityhaveincreasedenrollmentbyonlyafewthousandoverthelast10years,butcontinuetoreceivethemajorityofthestate’sfundingsupport.23Meanwhile,communitycollegescontinuetocontendwithsteadyincreasesinenrollmentandsimultaneouscutstofunding.Thisplacesanenormousamountofstressoncommunitycolleges.Inordertodealwithenrollmentgrowthanddecreasedfunding,communitycollegeshavealsotriedtobalanceshortfallsbyincreasingfees,cuttingclasses,anddecreasingservicestostudents.Asaresult,currentstudentsaretakingfewerclasses,havelittletonoguidancefromcounselors,andfinditdifficulttoenrollinrequiredcourses,oranycoursesatall.24

AnIncreasinglyDiverseStateShiftandChangesinEnrollmentPatterns

TheMasterPlanwascreatedtomeettheneedsanddemandsofwhatwasthenafarmorehomogenous,white,BabyBoomergeneration.Fiftyyearslater,Californiaisexperiencinganothersurgeofstudentsseekingapostsecondaryeducation‐‐themajorityofwhomarenonwhite.Bythemostrecentestimates,theCaliforniapopulationunder18yearsofageisnow50%Latino.In2008,Latinoscomposed44%ofthetraditionalcollegeagepopulation(thoseages18‐24),butonly38%ofhighschoolgraduates.

AsshowninTable1,whilewhitestudentscomposearelativelylargesegmentofhighschoolgraduateseligiblefortheUC/CSU,Asianstudentsleadallracial/ethnicgroups,graduatingwiththeUC/CSUrequirementsattwicetherateofBlackandLatinostudents.Asianstudentsmakeup14%ofallhighschoolgraduates,butcompose23%ofhighschoolgraduateswithUC/CSUrequirements.

20ForcommunitycollegesproposefundingI$219.4million,whilefundingforCSU/UCwillincreaseby$373millionforCSUand$423millionforUC.21CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOffice,CaliforniaCommunityCollegesChancellorJackScottCommentsontheStateBudgetPassedbytheLegislatureOctober8,2010222000students’feesforUCundergraduatestudentswere$5,300andforCSUstudents$2,460;todayUCstudentsarepaying$10,302infeeswhileCSUstudentsarepaying$4,429.CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission.“FeesatCalifornia’sPublicCollegesandUniversities.”Draftreport,March2009.http://www.cpec.ca.gov/SecondPages/CommissionReports.asp(accessedMarch14,2010)23CaliforniaStateUniversity,accessedonMay29,2009http://www.calstate.edu/pa/info/milestones.shtml24CaliforniaCommunityCollegesChancellor’sOffice.CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellorJackScottAnnounces200910EnrollmentDecline:ConcernsMountingasBudgetCutsImpactStudentAccess.http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/IntheNews/PressReleases/tabid/183/Default.aspx(accessedMay7,2010)



Table1.RacialCompositionofCalifornia’sYouth,2008

Lessthan18YearsofAge

(%) 18‐24Years(%)HighSchool

Graduates(%)

ProportionofAllGraduateswith

UC/CSURequirements(%)

Asian 10 12 14 23Black 6 7 7 5Latino 50 44 38 25White 29 34 38 44Multiracial 5 3 2 2Sources:StateofCalifornia,DepartmentofFinance,E‐3Race/EthnicPopulationEstimateswithAgeandSexDetail,2000–2008.Sacramento,CA,June2010,CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation.

Acrossallracial/ethnicgroups,malesarelesslikelytograduatefromhighschooleligibletoattendtheUC/CSU;statewide,30%ofmaleswereeligibleascomparedto38%offemales.OnlyoneinfiveofBlackandLatinomalehighschooldiplomaholdershasmettherequirementsforUC/CSUadmission.Table2illustratesthesegenderdiscrepanciesareprevalentacrossallracial/ethnicgroups.

Table2.HighSchoolGraduateswithUC/CSURequirementsbyRaceandGender Male

(%)Female(%)

Total(%)

Asian 49 59 54Black 20 27 23Latino 19 26 23White 36 44 40Multiracial/Other 29 35 32Average 30 38 34Source:CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation,2008

UnevenRacialandEthnicDiversityinPublicPostsecondarySystems

ThedemographicsacrossCalifornia’spublicpostsecondarysystemsvaryconsiderably(summarizedinFigure1bypostsecondarysystemsector).TheUniversityofCaliforniaenrolls226,040undergraduatestudentsacrossits10campuses.AsianstudentsarestronglyoverrepresentedintheUCsystem,whereBlacksandLatinosarestrikinglyunderrepresented.Asianstudentsare12%ofhighschoolstudentsyetcompose40%oftheUCstudentbody.BlackandLatinostudentscompose3%and13%,respectively,oftheUCstudentbody.25TheCaliforniaStateUniversitysystemenrolls437,008studentsat23campuses.ThedemographicsoftheCSUmorecloselyparallelthoseoftheK‐12system.TheCaliforniaStateUniversitysystemispredominantlywhite(36%)andLatino(24%),with

25CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,HigherEducationEnrollmenthttp://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/OnLineData.asp(2008)



AsianandBlackstudentscomposingasmallerportionofthestudentpopulation(17%and6%,respectively).26

Figure1.EnrollmentinSouthernCaliforniaPostsecondaryInstitutions,2008

California’scommunitycollegesserveabout2.9millionstudentsat112campuses.TheirdemographicsaresimilartothoseoftheCSU,butwithgreaterproportionsofLatinostudents.Whitestudentsareat35%ofthepopulationandLatinosare30%,representingthelargestgroups;Asian(15%)andBlack(8%)representthesmallest.27Figure2(below)summarizesenrollmentinSouthernCalifornia’scommunitycollegesbyracial/ethnicgroupbetween1998and2007.

Thepopulationofcollegestudentsinthestatehasincreasedbothinsizeanddiversityoverthe

last50years.EnrollmentcapacityattheUniversityofCaliforniahasgrownfarmoreslowlythanthepopulation.Inthepast10years,Californiaexperiencedsteadyincreasesinthenumberofcollegeboundstudents,withlittlecapacityforenrollmentgrowth,anddecreasedfundingfromthestate.Itisprojectedthatby2014,Californiawillhave640,000morestudentsseekingacollegeeducationthanitiscapableofserving.28Atthesametime,Californiahasbeguntofollowtheexampleofotherpublicinstitutions,suchastheUniversityofVirginiaandtheUniversityofMichigan,inpursuingmoreout‐of‐statestudentsasameansofincreasingrevenue—whichsomeresearcherssayisamovetowardprivatizationofpubliceducation.29

TheSouthernCaliforniaregionincludesfourUCcampuses(LosAngeles,Irvine,RiversideandSanDiego),nineCSUs(DominguezHills,Fullerton,LongBeach,LosAngeles,Northridge,SanBernardino,SanDiego,SanMarcosandPomona)andseveralprominentprivateuniversities(TheClaremontColleges,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia,LoyolaMarymount,OccidentalCollegeandtheUniversityofSanDiego)aswellasmanyfor‐profitpostsecondarycampuses.Thecommunitycollegesarebroadlydistributedtooffereducationwithincommutingdistancetoalmostallstudentsinthe

26Ibid.27Ibid.28TheCampaignforCollegeOpportunity,“2006FastFacts”www.collegecampaign.org29J.Santos,LatinoEducationalSummit(UniversityofCalifornia,LosAngeles,2010).



region.Giventheconcentratedpopulation,thereare21communitycollegesinLosAngelesCounty.SanDiegoCountyandOrangeCounty,whicheachhavepopulationscloseto3million,haveeightandninecommunitycolleges,respectively.Takentogether,itisanincrediblydiversesetofpostsecondaryinstitutionsthatenrollstudentsfromawiderangeofsocialclasses,racialandethnicgroups,andprioracademicexperiences.However,itisalsoahighlystratifiedarea,withthemajorityofBlackandLatinostudentsenrolledatcommunitycolleges.

Figure2.EnrollmentinSouthernCaliforniaCommunityCollegesbyRace,1998‐2007

Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission

Thecountiesintheregionrangewidelyinracialandethnicdistributionsandbythewealthandaverageeducationallevelsofthecommunitiestheyserve,summarizedbelowinTable3.LosAngeles,whichhasapopulationthreetimesthesizeofOrangeCountyand12timesthesizeofVenturaCounty,hasthesmallestproportionofwhiteinhabitants.Orange,SanDiego,andVenturaCountieshavehigherpercapitaincomesandlevelsofeducationthanLosAngeles,Riverside,andSanBernardinoCounties.LosAngeles,Riverside,andSanBernardinohavegreaterproportionsoffamilieslivingbelowthepovertylevelandarelargelyLatinoandBlack(combinedBlackandLatinopopulationsrangefrom49to56%).Incontrast,thepopulationsofOrange,SanDiego,andVenturaCountiesarepredominantlywhiteandAsian(combinedrangesfrom58to64%).

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

1998199920002001200220032004200520062007

Asian/PacIslander

Black

Filipino

Latino

NativeAmerican

White



Table3.DemographicandEconomicCharacteristicsofSouthernCaliforniabyCounty,2008

LosAngeles Orange RiversideSan

Bernardino SanDiego VenturaDemographics

TotalPopulation 9,832,137 2,985,995 2,055,232 1,999,753 2,965,943 793,814Asian(%) 13 17 5 6 10 6Black(%) 9 2 6 9 5 2Latino(%) 47 33 43 47 30 37White(%) 29 47 43 36 51 52

Education HighSchoolGraduateorHigher(%)

78 83 79 77 85 82

CollegeGraduateorHigher(%)

28 35 20 18 34 30

Income PerCapitaIncome $27,264 34,550 24,836 22,243 30,898 32,555FamiliesBelowPovertyLevel(%)

15 7 9 11 8 6

Geography LandArea(Sq.miles) 4,084 789 7,207 20,052 4,200 1,845NumberofCities 88 34 26 24 18 11

Source:U.S.CensusBureau,2006‐8AmericanCommunitySurvey3‐YearEstimates.

FreshmenPathwaystoCommunityColleges:LocationMatters

FlowsofFirst‐TimeFreshmen

TheCaliforniastatewidehighschoolgraduationrateisjustover70%,andonly60%amongBlackandLatinostudents.30Amongthe376,393studentswhograduatedfromCaliforniapublichighschoolsin2008,morethanhalfofthesestudents(55%)enrolledinapublicpostsecondaryinstitution,andofthesestudents,61%wenttoacommunitycollege(seeFigure3forasummaryofpostsecondaryoutcomesforCaliforniahighschoolstudentsin2008).31Infact,theflowoffirst‐timefreshmenfromCaliforniahighschoolstocommunitycollegeshasincreasedsteadilyoverthelast15years.In1994,therewere92,393first‐timefreshmenenrollingincommunitycollege;by2008,thisfigurehadgrownto119,937,foranoverallincreaseofnearly30%.32InSouthernCalifornia,120,348first‐timefreshmenenrolledinapostsecondaryinstitutionin2008,with66%enrollingincommunitycollege.33Nationally,Californiarankslastintheproportionofcollegestudentsatfour‐yearinstitutionsandisnearlyatthebottomintheproportionofstudentsobtainingabachelor’sdegree.34WithcappedenrollmentsattheUniversityofCaliforniaandCaliforniaStateUniversity,themajorityof

30CaliforniaDropoutResearchProject,StatisticalBrief11.http://cdrp.ucsb.edu/(accessedMarch14,2010)31CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,“First‐TimeFreshmen1994‐2008.”(2010).http://www.cpec.ca.gov/OnLineData/FreshmenTotals.asp?Seg=C(accessedMarch15,2010).32Ibid.33Ibid.34SaulGeisher,“BeyondtheMasterPlan:TheCaseofRestructuringBaccalaureateEducationinCalifornia.”UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley:CenterforStudiesofHigherEducation,November2010).



studentsarerelegatedtocommunitycolleges,wherethelikelihoodofcompletionand/ortransferisbleak.

Figure3.OutcomesforCaliforniaHighSchoolStudents,2008

Sources:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission&CaliforniaDepartmentofEducation

PathwaysfromSchoolswithStrongandWeakPromotingPower

Wenowexaminetheflowstocommunitycollegefromtheregion’sschoolswiththestrongestandweakesthighschoolcompletionrates,measuredbysuccessfultransitionsfromonegradetothenext(promotingpower),whichisstronglyrelatedtograduationrates.Manyofthepatternsofeconomicandracialsegregationfoundinhighschoolspersistinthecommunitycollegesystem.Thecrisisofhighschoolcompletioninthenationisstronglyconcentratedinasmallfractionof“dropoutfactory”highschools,whichareoverwhelminglyconcentratedinlargelysegregatedurbanschoolswithveryhighconcentrationsofimpoverishedstudents.35Largenumbersofstudentswhograduatedfromsomeofthelowest‐performinghighschoolsarenowattendingsomeofthecommunitycollegeswiththelowesttransferratesinthestate.Likewise,studentsfromsomeofthehighest‐performinghighschoolswhodidnotgodirectlytoafour‐yearuniversityarenowattendingsomeofthehighest‐performingcommunitycollegesinthestate.Whiletherearemanycommunitycollegesintheregionthatservelargenumbersofstudentsfrombothhigh‐andlow‐performinghighschools,therearetoomanyschoolsthattendtoserveprimarilyonegroupoveranother.

35R.BalfanzandN.Legters,“LocatingtheDropoutCrisis:WhichHighSchoolsProducetheNation’sDropouts?”inDropoutsinAmerica:ConfrontingtheGraduationRateCrisis,ed.GaryOrfield(Cambridge,MA:HarvardEducationPress,2004)85‐106.

DoNotGraduateHighSchool;40%

EnrolledinCommunityCollege;20%

EnrolledinPublic4‐yr

PostsecondaryInstitution;13%

HighSchoolGraduatesNotEnrolledin

PostsecondaryInstitution;27%



Weusedmeasuresofpromotingpowertoidentifythehighest‐andlowest‐performinghighschoolsintheregion.Measuresofpromotingpowerarewell‐establishedproxiesforhighschoolgraduationrates.Schoolsintheregionwithweakandstronglevelsofpromotingpowerwereidentifiedviathree‐yearaveragesofpromotinglevelsbetween2005and2007.36TheschoolsinthebottomquartileofpromotingpowerinSouthernCaliforniaincludetheregion’s“dropoutfactories,”definedasthosewithpromotingpowerof60%orless,aswellasschoolsthatarefaringslightlybetter,withpromotingpowerbetween60and65%.

InSouthernCalifornia,thebottomquartileincluded114schoolswithpromotingpowerlevels

rangingfrom23to65%.Attheseschools,onaverageonly50%ofstudentswhobegantheirstudiesasfreshmenwerestillenrolledbytheirsenioryear.Theselow‐performingschoolsareconcentratedinLosAngelesCounty,where72highschoolsrepresent63%ofallschoolsintheregioninthebottomquartileofpromotingpower.ThenextlargestconcentrationsoflowpromotingpowerschoolsarefoundinSanBernardinoandSanDiegoCounties,wherethereare15and16oftheseschoolsrespectively.Figure4showsthedistributionofthehighest‐andlowest‐performinghighschoolsbycounty.

The115schoolsintheupperquartilehadlevelsofpromotingpowerbetween87and100%andweremoredispersedthroughouttheregion.Inthenextsection,weexaminethedifferentiatedpathwaystocommunitycollegefromlow‐andhigh‐performinghighschools.

Figure4.HighSchoolsintheTopandBottomQuartilesofPromotingPowerbyCounty,2005‐2007

36Seehttp://www.all4ed.org/promotingpowerfordetailsonthecalculationofpromotingpower.

72

3 715 16

1

45

24

8 10

21

7

01020304050607080

NumberofSchoolsinBottomQuartile

NumberofSchoolsinTopQuartile



SegregatedPathwaysfromHigh‐andLow–PerformingSchools

CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommissiondatawerecollectedonfreshmenpathwaystocommunitycollegesintheregion.Werestrictouranalysistolargeflows,definedas50ormorestudentsannually,andusetheaverageflowsfrom1994‐2008toidentifyconsistentpatternsforthehighschoolsintheupperandbottomquartilesofpromotingpower.Amongthehighschoolsinthebottomquartileofpromotingpower,thereare78largepathwaystocommunitycollegesintheregion.However,manyofthesehighschoolswithweakpromotingpowerdonothaveanylargepathwaystoinstitutionsofhighereducationwhatsoever.Incontrast,amongthestrong‐promotinghighschools,therearenotonlymanymorelargepathwaystocommunitycolleges(98inall),butalsomanyhighschoolsthatsolelyhavelargepathwaystofour‐yearinstitutions.Thesehighschoolsessentiallyactassuperhighwaystocollege.

Schoolsinthebottomquartileofpromotingpoweraremorelikelytosendlargenumbersof

studentstocommunitycollegeswithgreaterproportionsofBlackandLatinostudents.Conversely,studentsfromhighschoolswiththestrongestlevelsofpromotingpowertendtoenrollincommunitycollegesthatarelargelywhiteandAsian.Todemonstratethesepatterns,weexaminecommunitycollegesbytheirlevelsofsegregation,andcomparethenumberofpathwaysfromstrongandweakhighschoolsforcommunitycollegesinthefollowingcategories:37

• Intenselysegregated:90to100%minority• Majorityunderrepresentedminority(URM):morethan50%BlackandLatino• Highlydiverse:lessthan50%URMandlessthan50%whiteandAsian• MajoritywhiteandAsian:morethan50%whiteandAsian• Majoritywhite:morethan50%white

Figure5.PathwaysfromHighandLowPerformingHighSchools

37CategoriesmodifiedfromG.OrfieldandC.LeeRacialTransformationandtheChangingNatureofSegregation.(Cambridge,MA:TheCivilRightsProjectatHarvardUniversity2006)



Figure5summarizestheproportionoflargepathwaysfromdropoutfactoryhighschoolsandhigh‐performinghighschoolstocommunitycollegesaccordingtothecommunitycolleges’levelsofsegregation.FiveofthecommunitycollegesinSouthernCaliforniaareintenselysegregatedinstitutions,90to100%minority.AllareinLosAngelesCountyanddrawdisproportionatelyfromhighschoolsinthebottomquartileofpromotingpower,witheightlargepathwaysfromthesehighschoolsandonlytwopathwaysfromthoseintheupperquartileofpromotingpower(seeTable4).Thus,studentsatintenselysegregatedcommunitycollegesaremostlikelytofindthemselvesamongstudentsfromdropoutfactoryhighschools.

Table4.PathwaystoIntenselySegregatedCommunityColleges(90to100%Minority)

Two‐YearInstitution County

StrongPromotingPower

Pathways

WeakPromotingPower

PathwaysWhite(%)

Black(%)

Latino(%)

ComptonCommunityCollege LosAngeles 0 0 10 54 36EastLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 2 5 9 4 70LosAngelesMissionCollege LosAngeles 0 2 6 5 78LosAngelesSouthwestCollege LosAngeles 0 0 3 61 36LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege

LosAngeles 0 1 1 27 59


Thepathwaysfromtheweakestandstrongesthighschoolsintheregiontothe17communitycollegesthataremajorityunderrepresentedminorities(morethan50%BlackandLatino)arecomparativelymorebalanced(seeTable5).Therewere31largepathwaysfromhighschoolswithstrongpromotingpower,and37fromthosewithweakpromotingpower.However,whileasagroupthesemajorityURMcommunitycollegesseemtobedrawingamorebalancedmixofstudents,closer

10%

47%

5%

32%

5%

ShareofLargePathwaysfromDropoutFactories

2%

33%

26%

38%

1%

ShareofLargePathwaysfromHighPerformingHighSchools

IntenselySegregated

URM

MajorityWhite

White/Asian

HighlyDiverse



examinationrevealsthat,infact,fiveoftheinstitutionsinthisgroupdrawlargepathwaysexclusivelyfromthehighschoolswithstrongpromotingpower.ThetrendismostpronouncedatSouthwesternCollege,whichistwo‐thirdsLatinoandhasfourlargepathwaysfromstrongpromotingpowerhighschools.Similarly,fiveofthecommunitycollegesthataremajorityunderrepresentedminoritieshavelargepathwaysonlyfromhighschoolswithweakpromotingpower.TheseschoolsarealmostallinLosAngeles,and,insomeinstances,thepatternisespeciallypronounced:LosAngelesValleyCollegehassixlargepathwaysfromtheweakesthighschoolsintheregionandnonefromthestrongest.

AquarterofthecommunitycollegesinSouthernCaliforniahaveamajorityofwhiteandAsianstudents(14institutions).PathwaystotheseinstitutionsaresummarizedinTable6.SixoftheseinstitutionsareinOrangeCounty.InLosAngeles,SantaMonicaCollegeandPasadenaCityCollege,someofthemostsuccessfulschoolsintheregion,areincludedinthisgroup.Largepathwaysfromthestrongest‐performinghighschoolsintheregionoutnumberthosefromlow‐performinghighschools(35versus25).Inaddition,halfoftheseschoolssolelyhavelargepathwaysfromthestrongest‐performinghighschoolsintheregion(andnonefromtheweakest).However,therearealsotwocollegesinthisgroupthathaveonlylargepathwaysfromtheweakest‐performinghighschools,and,infact,PierceCollegeinLosAngeleshasalargenumberofpathwaysfromthelow‐performinghighschools(9).



Table5.PathwaystoMajorityUnderrepresentedMinorityCommunityColleges(morethan50%underrepresentedminority)



Pathways

WeakPromotingPower

PathwaysWhite(%)

Black(%)

Latino(%)

AntelopeValleyCollege LosAngeles 1 0 37 22 33CerritosCollege LosAngeles 1 4 16 9 60ChaffeyCommunityCollege

SanBernardino 2 2 28 12 48

CitrusCollege LosAngeles 1 0 34 6 47CollegeOfTheDesert Riverside 1 1 30 3 59ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 6 4 22 20 36LongBeachCityCollege LosAngeles 1 0 28 15 37LosAngelesCityCollege LosAngeles 0 3 20 12 45LosAngelesHarborCollege LosAngeles 0 4 17 15 47LosAngelesValleyCollege LosAngeles 0 6 32 6 45Mt.SanAntonioCollege LosAngeles 10 4 19 5 46OxnardCollege Ventura 2 0 18 4 68RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 0 3 13 3 72RiversideCityCollege Riverside 2 4 35 12 41SanBernardinoValleyCollege

SanBernardino 0 2 24 20 47

SouthwesternCollege SanDiego 4 0 13 5 66WestLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 0 0 15 43 31Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission

Aboutafifthoftheregion’scommunitycollegesaremajoritywhite,listedinTable7.Theseschoolsaremuchmorelikelytohavelargepathwaysfromthestrongest‐performinghighschoolsintheregion.Thereare24pathwaysfromhighperforminghighschoolsintomajoritywhitecommunitycolleges,comparedtoamerefourfromthelower‐performingschoolsintheregion.Eachofthecountiesintheregionhasatleastonemajoritywhitecommunitycollege,andinSanDiegotherearefour. Onlyahandfulofcommunitycollegesintheregionarenotintenselysegregated,majorityunderrepresentedminority,ormajoritywhiteand/orAsian.TheseschoolsarehighlydiverseandhavefewlargepathwaysfromanyoftheweakestorstrongesthighschoolsandarelistedinTable8.Althoughtheseschoolsareregardedashighlydiverse,allare48to50%underrepresentedminority,andveryclosetomeetingthethresholdforclassificationasmajorityunderrepresentedminority.



Table6.PathwaystoMajorityWhiteandAsianCommunityColleges(morethan50%whiteandAsian)



Pathways

WeakPromotingPower

Pathways White(%)Black(%) Latino(%)

Asian(%)

BarstowCollege SanBernardino 0 0 49 14 28 30CoastlineCommunityCollege Orange 0 0 43 10 17 7CollegeoftheCanyons LosAngeles 0 0 48 6 30 24CypressCollege Orange 3 0 31 6 32 28FullertonCollege Orange 5 0 37 4 39 4GoldenWestCollege Orange 3 0 42 2 20 13Mt.SanJacintoCollege Riverside 2 0 48 8 33 17OrangeCoastCollege Orange 7 0 47 2 22 25PasadenaCityCollege LosAngeles 9 8 19 6 38 6PierceCollege LosAngeles 0 9 40 7 33 15SanDiegoMesaCollege SanDiego 0 2 45 7 22 21SanDiegoMiramarCollege SanDiego 2 0 45 5 17 17SantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 2 6 40 12 29 11SantiagoCanyonCollege Orange 2 0 43 2 42 4Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission

Table7.PathwaystoMajorityWhiteSchools,2008(morethan50%white)


StrongPromoting

PowerPathwaysWeakPromotingPowerPathways

White(%)

Black(%) Asian(%)

Latino(%)

CopperMountainCollege

SanBernardino 0 0 67 7 3 17

CraftonHillsCollege


CuyamacaCollege SanDiego 1 0 57 7 4 22GlendaleCommunityCollege LosAngeles 3 1 59 2 9 24GrossmontCollege SanDiego 1 2 53 9 7 21IrvineValleyCollege Orange 1 0 51 2 29 12MiraCostaCollege SanDiego 3 0 57 5 6 26MoorparkCollege Ventura 5 0 65 3 8 19PaloVerdeCollege Riverside 0 0 52 10 5 30PalomarCollege SanDiego 4 1 54 4 6 31SaddlebackCollege Orange 5 0 70 2 9 15Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission



Table8.PathwaystoHighlyDiverseCommunityColleges



Pathways

WeakPromotingPower

PathwaysAsian(%)

Black(%)

Latino(%)

White(%)

SanDiegoCityCollege SanDiego 0 1 8 13 36 33SantaAnaCollege Orange 0 2 11 3 47 34VenturaCollege Ventura 0 0 4 3 45 43VictorValleyCollege



Manyofthecommunitycollegesintheregionserveconcentrationsofstudentsfromweak‐orstrong‐performinghighschools,andfewerservesignificantnumbersofbothtypesofstudents.Theoverallpictureshowsthataboutafifthofthecollegesservesignificantnumbersofstudentsfromonlyweakhighschools,anothergroupservesonlyhighlysuccessfulhighschoolsandathirdgroupservesonlyschoolsthatareinthemiddle.Inshort,itisahugesystemwithverydifferentiatedpathways.ThecollegesservingtheweakhighschoolshaveasubstantiallyhigheraverageenrollmentofBlackandLatinostudents.

TransferRatesandVolumebyRaceandEthnicity

CommunitycollegesarecriticaltoprovidingaccesstohighereducationforthemajorityofCaliforniastudents,yetthereislittletransparencyoraccountabilityregardingstudentoutcomes.Uncoveringtransferratesrequiresdecipheringthemethodologydevelopedbythestateforcalculatingthetransferrate.TheCaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission(CPEC)providesdataonenrollmentandtransferflowsofstudentsfromcommunitycollegestofour‐yearinstitutions,andtransferratesarecalculatedforcohortsofstudentsbytheCaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOffice.Therearemyriaddifficultiesincalculatingthetransferrate.Thenumberofstudentstransferring(thenumerator)isrelativelystraightforward.However,withsomestudentstakingcoursesatcommunitycollegeandfour‐yearinstitutionssimultaneously,orstartingoutatafour‐yearcollegeandtransferringtoacommunitycollege,andthenbackagain,determiningwhomtocountasatransferstudentisabitmorecomplicated.Butitisthedenominatorofthetransferrate,determiningwhichstudentstocountaspotentialtransferstudents,thatisthemostcomplicated.Thisisrelatedtothefactthatthegreatmajorityofstudentswhoentercommunitycollegessayingtheywanttotransferneverdoso.Asaresult,moststatisticalstudiescalculateatransferrateonlyforstudentswhohavemadesomesignificantinitialstepstowardsdoingso.



CliffordAdelman,long‐timefederaldataanalyst,hasdevelopedawidelyusedapproach.Hesuggeststhatonlystudentswhoearned10collegecreditsormoreatthecommunitycollegeandthentransferredandearnedatleast10creditsatthefour‐yearinstitutioncanbecountedaspartofthetransferpopulation.38Importantly,thistechniqueomitsverylargenumbersofstudentswhobelievetheyareonthepathtoearnaB.A.whentheyenrollincommunitycollege,butwhoendupmakingnorealsignificantprogress.

California’sreportedtransferratesarecalculatedinarelatedway.Thestatetrackscohortsof

first‐timecollegefreshmenwhoenrolledinatransferlevelmathorEnglishcourse,enrolledinaminimumof12attemptedunits,andtransferredwithinsixyearsofinitialenrollment.Thestateadjuststheratesforvariablesorfactorsconsideredoutsidethecontrolofthecolleges:thepercentageofstudents25yearsorolder,thebachelordegreeattainmentofthepopulation,andthepercentage25yearsorolderinacollege’sservicearea.39CaliforniaalsoprovidesastatewideStudentRight‐to‐KnowRate,40whichreportscompletionandtransferratesoverathree‐yearperiodforcohortsoftransfer‐seekingfirst‐time,full‐timestudents.TheaveragetransferrateinSouthernCaliforniacommunitycollegesusingthefirstmethodis39%,whileunderthesecondmethoditis17%.

TheCaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOfficeTransferVelocityProjectprovides

transferdataforcohortsofstudentswhobegantheirstudiesataCaliforniacommunitycollegebetween1997and2003.WerelyontheTransferVelocityreportdatahere,usingthesix‐yeartransferrates,asitistheonlytransferratedatareadilyavailablethatcanbedisaggregatedbyrace/ethnicity.

SomeofthestrongesttransferschoolsinthestatearefoundinSouthernCalifornia.Santa

MonicaCityCollege,PasadenaCityCollegeandOrangeCoastCollegeconsistentlytransferthehighestnumberofstudentstoUCandCSU.Takentogether,one‐quarterofallcommunitycollegestudentsintheregiontransferringtoaUCcamefromoneofthesethreecampuses,andalmostone‐eighthcamefromSantaMonicaCollegealone.

TransferRatesbyCounty

Forthecohortoffreshmenenteringcommunitycollegein2003‐04,anaverageof38%transferredwithinsixyears.Table9liststhesix‐yeartransferratesbyrace/ethnicityforeachofthe

38C.Adelman,“MovingintoTown–andMovingOn:TheCommunityCollegeintheLivesofTraditionalAgeStudents”(Washington,DC:USDepartmentofEducation,2005)202.http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED496111&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=ED496111(accessedMarch6,2010) 39CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOffice,TransferRateStudyofCaliforniaCommunityColleges(2005‐06Report).http://www.cccco.edu/ChancellorsOffice/Divisions/TechResearchInfo/ResearchandPlanning/ResearchReports/tabid/299/Default.aspx40AccordingtotheCaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,“IncompliancewithDepartmentofEducation'sStudentRight‐to‐KnowAct,allcollegesanduniversitiesreceivingTitleIVfundsarerequiredtoreportvariouspointsofinformationtostudents,employeesandprospectivestudents.TheStudentRight‐to‐KnowActrequiresaninstitutionthatparticipatesinanyfederalstudentfinancialassistanceprogramtodiscloseinformationaboutgraduationorcompletionratestocurrentandprospectivestudents.”http://www.cpec.ca.gov/CollegeGuide/InfoForStudents.asp(accessedMarch6,2010).



countiesinSouthernCalifornia.Bycounty,thetransferrateaverageswerehighestinOrangeCountyat46%,andlowestinRiversideat30%.TransferratesforBlackstudentsbycountyrangedfromalowof27%inSanBernardinotoahighof39%inSanDiego.Similarly,Latinotransferratesbycountyrangedfromaverage(38%)inVenturatowellbelowaverage(2%)inSanBernardino.WhiteandAsianstudentsweremorelikelytotransfer,exceptinRiversideandSanBernardino.Thehighesttransferrateforanysinglegroupswas61%forVenturaCountyAsianstudents.SanBernardinoCountyhadthelowestaveragetransferratesforbothLatinoandBlackstudents.

Table9.Six‐YearTransferRatesbyCountyandRace/Ethnicity,2003‐04Cohort

CountyBlack(%)

Asian(%)

Filipino(%)

Latino(%)

PacificIslander(%)

White(%)

Total(%)

LosAngeles 33 54 31 29 35 41 37Orange 34 57 32 37 33 45 46Riverside 36 35 22 27 16 32 30SanBernardino 27 36 28 26 30 34 32SanDiego 39 51 40 34 27 42 40Ventura 37 61 37 38 47 42 41Source:CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOfficeTransferVelocityReport

HighestandLowestTransferRatesintheRegion

Withoutexception,thecommunitycollegeswiththehighestoveralltransferratesaremajoritywhiteandAsian(seeTable10).However,evenintheseinstitutionswithrelativelyhightransferrates,BlackandLatinostudentstransfermuchlessfrequently.LosAngelesCounty’s21communitycollegesareamongthehighest‐andlowest‐performinginthestate.LosAngelesSouthwestandLosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollegetransferredfewerthan10studentseachtoaUCin2008‐09,whileSantaMonicaCollegeoccupiedtheotherextreme.OrangeCountyhasninecollegeswithsomeofthehighesttransferstoCSUandUC.ThestrongestschoolsinOrangeCountyincludeOrangeCoastCollegeandSaddlebackCollege,whichtransferlargenumbersofstudentstoCSU.RiversideCountyhasjustfourcommunitycolleges,withRiversideCityCollegeasitsstrongesttransferschool.SanBernardinohassixcommunitycollegesandallhaverelativelylowtransferratestobothUCandCSU.InSanDiego,SanDiegoMesaCollegeandPalomarCollegesendlargenumbersofstudentstoCSUandUC.

Thecommunitycollegesintheregionwiththelargestnumberoftransferstudents

eachyeararelistedinTable11.SantaMonicaCollegeleadstheregioninthenumberofstudenttransfers,withcloseto2,000studentstransferringeachyear.ThemajorityofSantaMonicaCollegetransferstudentswenttoUCLAin2008,averyhighlyselectivecampus,followedcloselybyCalStateNorthridge.Thefollowingtableshowsthetransferdestinationsandvolumeforthetopfivetransferringinstitutionsintheregion.



Table10.Six‐YearTransferRatesfor2003‐04Cohort,UpperQuartileofSchoolsintheRegion


Asian(%)

Black(%)

Filipino(%)

Latino(%)

White(%)

Total(%)

RacialMajority

SantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 68 46 47 41 64 58 White/AsianIrvineValleyCollege Orange 62 48 35 44 55 55 WhiteMoorparkCollege Ventura 62 39 33 47 54 53 WhiteGlendaleCommunityCollege LosAngeles 62 31 25 32 57 50 WhiteCoastlineCommunityCollege Orange 64 29 0 39 37 49 White/AsianSaddlebackCollege Orange 58 51 35 38 51 49 WhiteSantiagoCanyonCollege Orange 54 0 48 44 50 49 White/AsianOrangeCoastCollege Orange 57 30 40 37 49 48 White/AsianSanDiegoMesaCollege SanDiego 56 46 44 41 50 48 White/AsianFullertonCollege Orange 64 43 44 38 48 47 White/AsianPasadenaCityCollege LosAngeles 61 36 38 31 50 47 White/AsianPierceCollege LosAngeles 51 31 40 32 50 45 White/AsianSanDiegoMiramarCollege SanDiego 55 41 43 42 42 45 White/Asian

Average 60 36 36 39 51 49 Source:CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOfficeTransferVelocityReport

Table11.SouthernCaliforniaCommunityCollegeswithLargestNumberofTransferStudents,2008

CommunityCollege County

TotalEnrollment

TransferstoUC&CSU

LargestReceivingInstitutions

6‐YearTransferRate

(%)

Racial

Majority

SantaMonicaCollege

LosAngeles54,878

UC(919)CSU(1,011)

UCLA(516)CSU‐Northridge

(510)

58 White/Asian

OrangeCoastCollege Orange 34,790

UC(555)CSU(1,303)

UCLA(235)CSU‐Fullerton

(602)

48 White/Asian

PasadenaCityCollege LosAngeles 45,324

UC(565)CSU(1,222)

UCLA(206)CSULA(500)

47 White/Asian

Mt.SanAntonioCollege LosAngeles 69,627

UC(332)CSU(1,258)

UCLA(90)CalPolyPomona

(471)

40 URM

ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 41,700

UC(296)CSU(1,031)

UCLA(113)CSU‐Dominguez

Hills(385)

35 URM

Source:2008CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,HigherEducationData



ThecommunitycollegeswiththelowestnumberoftransferstudentsarelistedinTable12.Withrespecttoinstitutionstransferringsmallnumbersofstudents,PaloVerdeCommunityCollegetransferredthefewest;only12studentstransferredtoaUC/CSUin2008.ThehighesttransfercollegesseemtobeconcentratedinLosAngelesonthewestsideandjustnorthofthecity(withtheexceptionofElCaminoCollege).CollegestransferringthesmallestnumbersofstudentsareconcentratedincountiesdirectlysouthandeastofLosAngelesandtendtohaveasmallertotalenrollment.

Table12.SouthernCaliforniaCommunityCollegeswithLowestNumberofTransferStudents,2008

CommunityCollege County

TotalEnrollment

TransferstoUC&CSU

LargestReceivingInstitutions

6‐YearTransferRate

(%)

Racial

MajorityPaloVerdeCommunityCollege

Riverside 6,290UC1CSU11

UC‐SantaCruz(1)CSU‐San

Bernardino(8) 16 WhiteCopperMountainCommunityCollege SanBernardino 3,330

UC8CSU41

UC‐Riverside(3)CSU‐San

Bernardino(18) 15 WhiteBarstowCommunityCollege SanBernardino 6,310

UC7CSU44

UC‐Riverside(4)CSU‐San

Bernardino(22) 34 White/AsianComptonCommunityCollege LosAngeles 10,060

UC0CSU84

CSU‐DominguezHills(62) 19 Black

CoastlineCommunityCollege Orange 22,768

UC10CSU105

UC‐Irvine(5)CSU‐Fullerton(69) 49 White/Asian

Source:2008CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,HigherEducationData

Verylowtransferratecollegesforthe2003‐04cohortwerefoundinallareasexceptOrangeCounty.TheinstitutionswiththelowesttransferratesintheregionarelistedinTable13.Theabsolutelowesttransferrateswereatsomeofthesmallestinstitutionsintheregion,butEastLosAngelesCollege,whichisoneofthelargestcommunitycollegesintheregion,madethelistoftheleastsuccessful.

BlackandLatinoTransferTrends

Almostallofthe51communitycollegesintheregionhadLatinotransferrateslowerthantheoveralltransferrate(foracompleteanddetailedlistoftransferpattersforBlackandLatinostudentspleaseseeTables19‐22inAppendix).41Onaverage,theLatinotransferratewas31%,sevenpercentagepointsbelowtheregionalaverageof38%.Somewhatsurprisingly,SantaMonicaCollege,whichhasthehighestsix‐yeartransferrateforthe2003cohortat58%,hastheoneofthegreatest

41Alltransferratedatainthisreportaresix‐yeartransferratesfromtheTransferVelocityreport,availablefromtheCaliforniaCommunityCollegesChancellor’sOfficeathttp://webprod.cccco.edu/datamarttrans/dmtrnsstucsel.aspx



disparities,withtheLatinotransferrate17pointslowerthantheoveralltransferrate.Mt.SanJacintowasanotableexceptionasbeingtheonlycommunitycollegeintheupperquartileofLatinotransferratesandhavingaLatinotransferrateonparwiththeoveralltransferrate. Table14liststheinstitutionswithLatinotransferratesintheupperquartileoftheregion,listedindescendingorderaccordingtotheLatinotransferrateforthe2003‐04cohort.Takentogether,theLatinotransferrateacrossthisgroupofschoolswasaboutthesameastheoverallstateaverageatalmost40%.Onaverage,115studentsfromeachoftheseschoolstransferredwithinsixyears.

Table13.SouthernCaliforniaCommunityCollegeswithLowestOverall6‐YearTransferRates,2003‐04Cohort

Two‐YearInstitution County Black(%)

Asian(%)

Filipino(%) Latino(%) White(%)

Total(%)

RacialMajority

CopperMountainCollege

SanBernardino 5 0 0 14 17 15 White

PaloVerdeCollege

Riverside19 20 0 14 18 16 White

ComptonCommunityCollege

LosAngeles

17 33 0 19 0 19IntenselySegregated

LosAngelesSouthwestCollege

LosAngeles

28 67 ‐‐ 28 100 29IntenselySegregated

LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege

LosAngeles

32 49 25 27 10 29IntenselySegregated

RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 28 50 40 24 27 29 URMCollegeOfTheDesert

Riverside52 32 23 28 33 30 URM

OxnardCollege Ventura 33 65 35 27 31 30 URMSouthwesternCollege

SanDiego32 55 42 28 36 32 URM

CerritosCollege LosAngeles 25 57 30 27 28 32 URMEastLosAngelesCollege

LosAngeles28 47 33 26 39 32

IntenselySegregated

VictorValleyCollege

SanBernardino 33 35 25 26 36 33 HighlyDiverse

LosAngelesCityCollege

LosAngeles25 48 33 25 36 33 URM

Average 27 43 24 24 32 28

In2009,9,370LatinostudentstransferredtoaCSUorUCfromoneofthecommunitycollegesintheregion.Eighty‐threepercenttransferredtoaCSU.LosAngelescommunitycollegestransferred



thegreatestnumbersofLatinostoaCSU,withEastLosAngelesCollege,Mt.SanAntonioCollege,andCerritosCollegeeachtransferringupwardsof400students.42Table14.HighestSix‐YearTransferRatesforLatinosfromthe2003‐04Cohort


NumberofLatino

StudentsTransferring

LatinoTransferRate

(%)

OverallTransferRate

(%)MoorparkCollege Ventura 112 47 53SantiagoCanyonCollege Orange 118 44 49IrvineValleyCollege Orange 47 44 55SanDiegoMiramarCollege SanDiego 35 42 45SanDiegoMesaCollege SanDiego 121 41 48SantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 191 41 58VenturaCollege Ventura 154 39 40

Source:CaliforniaCommunityCollegeChancellor’sOfficeTransferVelocityReport

Thesix‐yeartransferrateforBlackstudentsinthe2003‐04cohortwas34%,higherthanthatofLatinos,butlowerthantheoverallaverageintheregion.Blackstudenttransferratesrangedfrom0%atSantiagoCanyonCollege(table18)toahighof52%attheCollegeoftheDesert(table15).IncontrasttoLatinostudents,therewereseveralinstitutionsinwhichthesix‐yeartransferratesforBlackstudentswerehigherthantheoveralltransferrate(table15).SeventeenofthecommunitycollegesintheregionhadaBlackstudenttransferratethatwasthesame(4)orbetterthantheoveralltransferrate(13).Almosthalfoftheseinstitutions(8)werealsointheupperquartileofBlackstudenttransferrates,presentedinthefollowingtable.Table15listedtheinstitutionsintheregionwiththehighesttransferratesforBlackstudents.

Table15.HighestSix‐YearTransferRatesforBlackStudents,2003‐04Cohort


NumberofBlack


BlackTransferRate(%)

OverallTransferRate

(%)

RankinginNumberof

BlackTransfers

CollegeOfTheDesert Riverside 16 52 30 33SaddlebackCollege Orange 22 51 49 26IrvineValleyCollege Orange 11 48 55 38LosAngelesValleyCollege LosAngeles 32 48 42 19CitrusCollege LosAngeles 23 47 40 23SanDiegoMesaCollege SanDiego 56 46 48 9SantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 86 46 58 4PalomarCollege SanDiego 34 46 42 18Mt.SanAntonioCollege LosAngeles 61 44 40 8FullertonCollege Orange 22 43 47 24CuyamacaCollege SanDiego 21 42 36 27SanDiegoMiramarCollege SanDiego 67 41 45 35

42CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,Enrollment—FullYearTransferstoPublicInstitutions(2009).



CollegeoftheCanyons LosAngeles 43 41 43 32WestLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 94 41 37 2


Severalofthecommunitycollegesintheregionthatareintheupperquartilefortheoverall

transferratehavelargediscrepanciesbetweenthetransferratesbyrace,andactuallyhavemuchlowertransferratesforBlackandLatinostudents.Table16includestheinstitutionsintheregionwithdiscrepanciesofmorethan10percentagepointsbetweenBlackandLatinotransferratescomparedtotheoverallaverage.SinceBlackandLatinostudentsareincludedinthecalculationoftheoveralltransferrate,thegapbetweenBlackandLatinostudentsandAsianandwhitestudentsisgreaterstill.Allbutoneofthesecommunitycollegesismajoritywhite/Asian.

Table16.InstitutionswithGreatestTransferRateDiscrepanciesbyRace



LatinoTransferRate(%)

OverallTransferRate(%)

RacialMajority

GlendaleCommunityCollege LosAngeles 31 32 50 WhiteCoastlineCommunityCollege Orange 29 39 49 White/AsianOrangeCoastCollege Orange 30 37 48 White/AsianSantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 46 41 58 White/AsianPierceCollege LosAngeles 31 32 45 White/AsianLosAngelesHarborCollege LosAngeles 29 26 41 URMPasadenaCityCollege LosAngeles 36 31 47 White/AsianCraftonHillsCollege SanBernardino 25 26 38 White


TheaveragetransferrateforAsianstudentsintheregionwas51%,wellovertheregional

average,whileforwhitestudentsitwas41%.NativeAmerican,Filipino,andPacificIslandertransferratesweresimilartothoseofLatinosat31‐32%.43Includedinthisgroupofinstitutions,withthegreatesttransferratediscrepanciesbyrace,aresomeoftheinstitutionsservingthemoststudents:PasadenaCityCollegehadthelargestcohortin2003‐4,andOrangeCoastCollegeandSantaMonicaCollegebothhadcohortsthatweremuchlargerthattheregionalaverage.Theselargediscrepanciesimpactparticularlylargenumbersofstudents.Thesediscrepanciesrequirefurtherinvestigationbutdonot,ofcourse,showthattheyarecausedbythecommunitycolleges,sinceallgroupsdonotcometocollegewithequalpreparation.Evenbeingfarbelowtheaveragetransferrateinthestrongestcolleges,studentsofcoloraremuchmorelikelytotransferfromtheseinstitutionsthanfromlow‐transfercolleges.

MostinstitutionsinthebottomquartileforLatinosix‐yeartransferratesarealsointhebottomquartileforoveralltransferrates.Table17liststheinstitutionsintheregionwiththelowesttransferratesforLatinostudents.Inthisgroup,thetransferratesrangefromalowof14%toahighof

43NativeAmerican,Filipino,andPacificIslandertransferratesforthemostpartarenotincludedinthisreportduetospacelimitations.Thesedateareavailableuponrequestfromtheauthors,andalsoaccessibleviatheTransferVelocityProjectathttp://webprod.cccco.edu/datamarttrans/dmtrnsstucsel.aspx



27%.Interestingly,amongtheselow‐transferringinstitutionsaresomeoftheinstitutionsthatareactuallytransferringthegreatestrawnumbersofLatinostudentsrelativetotheregion.EastLosAngelesCollege,CerritosCollege,RioHondo,ChaffeyCollege,ElCaminoCollege,andOxnardCollegealltransferredmoreLatinostudentsthantheregionalaverage.Thatmeans,ofcourse,thattheyhadlargeLatinoenrollmentsandveryhighproportionsofLatinostudentswhofailedtotransfer.LosAngelesCountycommunitycollegeshavethemajorityofthecollegeswiththelowestLatinotransferrates.Indeed,halfofthecommunitycollegesinLosAngelesCountyareinthebottomquartile.AllbutoneofthesixcommunitycollegesinSanBernardinoareinthebottomquartileaswell(SanBernardinoValleyCollegeistheexception).

Table17.LowestTransferRatesforLatinos


NumberofLatinos

Transferring

LatinoTransferRate

(%)

OverallTransferRate

(%)

RankinginNumberofLatino

TransfersCopperMountainCollege SanBernardino 5 14 15 51PaloVerdeCollege Riverside 8 14 16 50ComptonCommunityCollege LosAngeles 41 19 19 44ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 172 24 35 12RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 199 24 29 8LosAngelesCityCollege LosAngeles 97 25 33 30CraftonHillsCollege SanBernardino 36 26 38 45EastLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 309 26 32 3LosAngelesHarborCollege LosAngeles 76 26 41 37VictorValleyCollege SanBernardino 54 26 33 39CerritosCollege LosAngeles 245 27 32 5ChaffeyCommunityCollege SanBernardino 186 27 34 10LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege LosAngeles 112 27 29 26OxnardCollege Ventura 133 27 30 18BarstowCollege SanBernardino 26 27 34 47AntelopeValleyCollege LosAngeles 88 27 34 33WestLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 44 27 37 43


AswiththebottomquartiletransferrateschoolsforLatinos,someoftheinstitutionswithrelativelyhightransferrates(SantiagoCanyonCollege)actuallyhavequitelowtransferratesforBlackstudents.Table18liststheinstitutionsintheregionwiththelowesttransferratesforBlackstudents.ElCaminoCollege,whichtransferredthegreatestnumberofBlackstudentsinthe2003‐04cohort,alsohadoneofthelowesttransferratesforBlackstudentsat26%.Similarly,LosAngelesSouthwesttransferredarelativelyhighernumberofBlackstudents,thefifthhighestintheregion,buthadalowoverallandBlacktransferrate.ThesewereschoolswithlargeBlackenrollmentswithhighpercentagesofstudentsleftbehind.



Table18.LowestTransferRatesforBlackStudents


NumberofBlack



OverallTransferRate

(%)

RankinginNumberof

BlackTransfers

SantiagoCanyonCollege Orange 0 0 49 51CopperMountainCollege SanBernardino 1 5 15 50ComptonCommunity

College LosAngeles 38 17 19 14PaloVerdeCollege Riverside 5 19 16 46CraftonHillsCollege SanBernardino 5 25 38 44

LosAngelesCityCollege LosAngeles 27 25 33 21CerritosCollege LosAngeles 30 25 32 20ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 98 26 35 1SantaAnaCollege Orange 6 27 35 43

EastLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 7 28 32 42RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 5 28 29 47

LosAngelesSouthwestCollege LosAngeles 71 28 29 5


Findings ThisstudyaimedtoanswertwoquestionsconcerningtheopportunitiesBlackandLatinostudentsfromsegregatedcommunitieshaveinaccessinganequitableeducationthroughthecommunitycollegesystem.Herewesummarizeanddiscussthefindingsastheyrelatetoeachofourresearchquestions.Question#1:Howdoeshighschoolperformancerelatetothelevelsofracialandethnicsegregationinreceivinginstitutions?

Weusedthepathwaysfromhighschoolswithstrongandweakpromotingpowerasameasureofequitableaccesstotheeconomicandsocialmobilityaffordedviathecommunitycollegesystem.Inordertodeterminepatternsinstudentflowsofhighschoolstudents,weexaminedcommunitycollegesbytheirlevelsofsegregationandcomparedthepathwaysfromstrongandweakhighschoolstocommunitycollegesthatwereeitherintenselysegregated,majorityunderrepresented,highlydiverse,majoritywhiteandAsian,ormajoritywhite.Thedatashowthatmanyofthecommunitycollegesintheregionareservinglargeconcentrationsofstudentseitherfromweak‐orstrong‐performinghighschools.Collegesservinglargenumbersofstudentsfromweak‐promotinghighschoolshaveasubstantiallyhigherenrollmentofBlackandLatinostudents,whilethosethataremajoritywhiteand/orAsianhavelargeconcentrationsofstudentsfromsomeofthestrongest‐performinghighschoolsintheregion.Inaddition,manycollegesarereceivingstudentsfrombothhigh‐andlow‐performinghighschools.Figure6summarizestheproportionoflargepathwaysfromstrong‐andweak‐performinghighschoolstocommunitycollegesaccordingthelevelofsegregationinthecommunitycollege.



AlloftheintenselysegregatedcollegesarepartoftheLosAngelescommunitycollegedistrict,and,withtheexceptionofEastLosAngelesCollege,nonehavelargepathwaysfromstrong‐promotinghighschools.Theseareclearlyinstitutionswherestudentsfacecumulativeisolationandunequaleducationalopportunity.Communitycollegesthathavemajorityunderrepresentedminoritystudentenrollmentarecomparativelymorebalancedintheirpathwaysacrosstheregion,with55%ofthepathwaysweexaminedcomingfromhighschoolswithweak‐promotingpower.Conversely,majoritywhiteandAsiancollegesarealsomorebalancedwith58%ofthepathwaysweexaminedfromstrong‐promotinghighschools.Lastly,majoritywhitecollegesarestrikinglydifferent,with86%ofthepathwaysweexaminedfromstrong‐promotinghighschools.Attheextremesofthesecategoriesiswhereweseethestarkestdifferencesinlevelsofsegregationandeducationalopportunity.Studentswholivenearandattendcommunitycollegesthatareintenselysegregated,ormajorityBlackandLatino,typicallyareincollegeswhereagreatnumberoffellowstudentscomefromweak‐promotinghighschools,whereasstudentsfrommajoritywhiteand/ormajoritywhite/Asiancollegeswillencounterstudentscomingfromschoolswithhighpromotingpower.Studentsfromweakerhighschoolstendtohaveweakeracademicpreparationandrequiremoreremediation,andtheircollegesandtheirfacultytendtofocusmoreonthoseneeds.

Figure5.PathwaysfromLow‐andHigh‐PerformingHighSchoolsbyLevelofSegregation


Question#2:Howdotransferoutcomesrelatetotheethnicandracialcompositionofthecommunitycollege?Specifically,whichinstitutionsintheregionhavethehighestandlowesttransferratesforBlackandLatinostudents?

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

IntenselySegregated

MajorityURM MajorityWhiteandAsian

MajorityWhite

HighPerformingHighSchools

Low‐PerformingHighSchools



Wefindaclearrelationshipbetweenlevelsofsegregationincommunitycollegesandrespectivetransferrates.Allofthecommunitycollegesintheupperquartileoftransferratesaremajoritywhite/Asianormajoritywhite.Mostofthecollegesinthebottomquartileoftransferratesaremajorityunderrepresentedminorityorintenselysegregated(morethan90%minority).However,twooftheseschools(PaloVerdeCollegeandCopperMountain)aremajoritywhite,andarelocatedinlow‐incomeneighborhoodsofRiversideandSanBernardinoCounties.ThereareissuesclearlyneedingfurtherexaminationinsomeoftheInlandEmpirecolleges,perhapsrelatedtotherelativelylessaffluentandlesseducatedwhiteandAsianpopulationsinthosecounties.

Turningourattentiontoinstitutionaldiscrepanciesintransferrates,wefoundlargegapsinthe

numberofBlackandLatinostudentsatsomeoftheleadingtransfercollegesintheregion.Thus,BlackandLatinostudentsatthesehigh‐transferinstitutionsarestilllesslikelytotransferthanwhiteandAsianstudentsfromthesamecollege—thoughmorelikelythantheircounterpartsinthesegregatedinstitutions.Inadditiontoneedingtoaddressthesegregationacrossinstitutions,thereisevidenceofsegregationwithintheinstitutions‐‐oftenreferredtoas“secondgenerationsegregation.”44

SomeofthecommunitycollegesintheregionservingsomeofthegreatestnumbersofLatino

students,andabletotransferthegreatestnumberofLatinosstudentseachyear,actuallyhavesomeofthelowestoveralltransferratesintheregion.Forexample,EastLosAngelesCommunityCollegehasa26%Latinotransferrate,oneofthelowestLatinotransferratesintheregion,yettransferred309students(fromthe2003‐04cohort),whichwasthethirdhighestnumberofLatinotransfersintheregion.Similarly,ElCaminoCommunityCollegehadalowtransferrateforBlackstudents(at26%),buttransferredmoreBlackstudentsthananyotherinstitutionintheregion.Thistellsusthatcommunitycollegesthatareservingsomeofthelargestnumbersofminoritystudents,andconsistentlytransferringmoreBlackandLatinostudentsacrosstheregion,havedismaloveralltransferratesforbothofthesegroups.

Conclusion

“Nowisthetimetobuildafirmer,strongerfoundationforgrowththatwillnotonlywithstandfutureeconomicstorms,butonethathelpsusthriveandcompeteinaglobaleconomy.It'stimetoreformourcommunitycollegessothattheyprovideAmericansofallagesachancetolearntheskillsandknowledgenecessarytocompeteforthejobsofthefuture.”

‐PresidentBarackObama

InJuly2009,PresidentBarackObamaoutlinedaplantoreformournation’scollegesinanaddressatMacombCommunityCollegeinMichigan.ThePresident’sAmericanGraduationInitiativecalledforanadditionalfivemillioncommunitycollegegraduatesby2020.Tohelpachievethisgoal,thepresidenthascalledfor$12billiondollarstoincreasegraduationrates,improvefacilitiesanddevelopnewtechnology.45Unfortunately,theAmericanGraduationInitiativefundingwas

44R.A.Mickelson,“SubvertingSwann:First‐andSecond‐GenerationSegregationintheCharlotte‐MecklenburgSchools,”AmericanEducationalResearchJournal38,no.2(2001):215.45M.ShearandD.DeVise,“ObamaAnnouncesCommunityCollegePlan,”TheWashingtonPost(July2009)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp‐dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071400819.html



significantlyslashedbythetimetheHealthcareandEducationReconciliationActwaspassed,butitisstillregardedaslandmarkhighereducationlegislation,particularlyforcommunitycolleges.Communitycollegeswillreceive$2billioninsupportfromtheCommunityCollegeandCareerTrainingInitiative,whichwillhelpcommunitycollegesincreasecompletionofdegrees,certificates,andotherindustry‐recognizedcredentials;morethan$3.5billionisaddedinstudentfinancialassistanceintheformofPellGrants,$1billioninworkforcetrainingprograms,and$40millioninworkstudyprograms.46TheHealthcareandEducationReconciliationActalsoprovides$2.55billionforHistoricallyBlackCollegesandUniversitiesandotherminorityservinginstitutions,$750millioningrantsthatstatescouldapplyfortobolsteraccessandgraduationratesand,mostimportantly,theinitiationoftheFederalDirectLoanprogramthatremovedthemiddlemenfromstudentloanprograms.Thesecomprehensivehighereducationreformsare,however,notuniquetotheObamaAdministration.DuringPresidentClinton’sadministration,therewasalsoasignificantpushtorecommittohighereducationbyincreasingPellgrantsandcreatingtheHOPEandLifetimeLearningcredits,whichprovidedmoreopportunitiesforstudentstoaccessacollegeeducation.OnemajordifferenceinPresidentObama’sinitiativeisanexplicitcommitmenttosupportinggrowthinourcommunitycolleges.InOctoberof2010,PresidentObamahostedthefirst‐everWhiteHouseSummitonCommunityColleges,highlightingtheimportantandcriticalrolecommunitycollegesplayindevelopingourworkforce,andreaffirminghisgoalofproducingfivemillionmoredegreesandcertificatesinthenext10years,inwhichcommunitycollegeswillplayasignificantrole.

Californiaisamongthestateswherecommunitycollegereformshavethepotentialtomakeasignificantimpact.By2020Californiawillneedonemillionneweducatedworkerstomeetthedemandsofourgrowingeconomy.IfCaliforniaistopreparesufficientworkerstomeettheneedsofthelabormarket,andtofulfillthepromiseofaccess,excellenceandaffordabilitysetforthintheMasterPlan,thenthereisnoalternativebuttoimprovetransferratestofour‐yearuniversitiesthroughoutthestateandespeciallyinSouthernCalifornia.

Systemicproblems,increasedenrollmentanddecreasedfundinghaveseverelycompromised

California’scommitmenttothecommunitycollegesystem,aspromisedintheMasterPlanforHigherEducation.Nowmorethanever,wehavetocallintoquestionthestate’spromiseofaccesstohighereducation,especiallyforBlackandLatinostudentswhosemajor‐‐andsometimesonly‐‐accesspointtoafour‐yearuniversityisthroughalocalcommunitycollege.

Californiahasahighlyselectiveandstratifiedhighereducationsystemthatreliesheavilyonits

communitycollegestoeducateandtransferstudentstoafour‐yearuniversity.Therealityisthatformoststudentswholiveandattendschoolsinraciallysegregatedcommunities,theiropportunitiesandaccesstoanequitableeducationareseverelycompromised.Intheabsenceofrealaccesstoeducation,inequalitiesareperpetuated.

Thereareseveredifferencesinaccessandopportunitiesthatexistacrossourregion.Whilethe51communitycollegesspreadacrossseveraldistrictsinourregionaretheoreticallypreparing

46WhiteHouseSummitonCommunityColleges,FactSheethttp://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/White_House_Summit_on_Community_Colleges_Fact_Sheet.pdf



studentsforthesamelabormarketandthesameinstitutionsofhighereducation,therealityisthatourdistrictshavefracturedcommunitiesalongraceandincomelines,creatingapoliticalstrugglethatharmsthecommunityingeneralandvulnerablegroupsinparticular.47LatinosinCaliforniaaresegregatedmorethananyotherethnicgroupinourcommunitycolleges,whichisbeginningtohavesevereconsequencesforourstudents.Forinstance,EastLosAngelesCollege,whichenrollsthemostLatinostudentsoutofanycommunitycollegeintheregion,bothintermsofthetotalnumberofstudentsandpercentageoftheoverallpopulation,hadthelowesttransferrate(8.6%)in2005.

California’sMasterPlanhasplacedtheresponsibilityofeducatingthemajorityofcollegestudentsinthestatetothemostfragmentedanddecentralizedofthethreesystems.Asitstands,theMasterPlanisbroken;itprovidesthemajorityoflow‐income,BlackandLatinocollegestudentswithaccessonlytoacollegeofferinglittlehopeforsuccess.Withcommunitycollegesinthestateprovidingstudentsdifferenttypesofopportunitiesfortransfer,differentlevelsofaccesstoaUCorCSU,astudent’ssuccesshasmoretodowithwhatcommunitycollegetheyattendandwheretheylivethananindividualstudent’sdrive.Withthemajorityoflow‐income,BlackandLatinostudentsattendingoverpopulatedcommunitycollegesthatofferlittlesupportorguidance,theopportunitiesthemajorityofstudentsinthestatehavetoasystemthatis“accessibleandaffordable,”nomatterhowexcellentitmaybe,isadistantanddismalreality.

Ourstateneedsvastsystemicreform;weofferthefollowingrecommendationsforfulfillingthepromiseofaccess,affordability,andexcellence:1. RecognizeandRewardSuccess.Itisalsoimportanttorecognizeandrewardcommunitycolleges

thattransferandgraduatelargenumbersofstudents,particularlystudentsfromunderrepresentedgroups,first‐generationcollegestudents,andthosematriculatingwhoneedremediation.Rewardingsuccessfulcommunitycollegeswillprovidecommunitycollegesanincentivetoimprovetheirtransferrateamongthestudentswhoaremostinneedofattention.Recognitionfortransferequitybyraceshouldnotonlybedefinedbytheaggregatetransferrate,butalsohavingmoreequaltransferratesacrossgroups.Existingstatesystemspayforenrollmentanddonotfinanceorrewardthehardworkofhelpingstudentsfromweakhighschoolstosucceedandtransfer.

2. StreamlinetheTransferProcess.Auniformarticulationagreementbetweenthe112community

collegesinthestatewouldbeonestepclosertowardsequalaccess.Currentlytherearemyriadpoliciesandinitiativesthatuseapiecemealapproachtomakesenseofthetransferprocessforstudentsseekingtransfertoawiderangeofinstitutions.Althoughtherearemechanismsinplacetohelpstudentsaccesstheinformationneededtomakesenseofthetransferprocess(suchaswwww.assists.org),itisstilloverwhelmingforastudenttokeeptrackofthedifferenttransferrequirementsneededforeachinstitution.InSeptember2010,GovernorSchwarzeneggersignedintolawaunifiedtransferprocessforcommunitycollegestudentsseekingtransfertoaCSU,althoughitisstilltooearlytomeasuretheeffectiveness.TheUCshouldalsoinstitutesuchaninitiative.

47G.Orfield,“MetropolitanSchoolDesegregation:ImpactsonMetropolitanSociety,”MinnesotaLawReview896(1995‐1996):836



3. AlignmentAcrossInstitutionalSectors.Fartoomanystudentsaresurprisedwhentheyareplaced

inremedialcoursesuponenteringthecommunitycollege.Increasedalignmentsbetweensendinghighschoolsandreceivingcommunitycollegescanreducetheneedforremediation.Specifically,theendofcourserequirementsforseniorsshouldataminimumapproximatetheentry‐levelcourserequirementsatthecommunitycollege.Thiscanbefacilitatedthroughthedevelopmentofcoursesthatarejointlydevelopedbyhighschoolsandcommunitycolleges.Dualenrollmentprogramsforhighschoolstudentscanalsobegintobridgethegapbetweenthetwosectors,butwillonlydosoinameaningfulwayifaccessisextendedtoawiderangeofstudents,andnotsolelyhigh‐performingstudents.

4. InformationandIntegration.Sincemanyoftheproblemsarerootedinseparateandunequal

highschoolsfeedingseparateandunequalcolleges,itisimportanttoincreaseopportunitiesforhighschoolstudentstotransfertostrongerhighschools.TherightofstudentsinweakhighschoolstotransfertootherschoolsisabasicpartofNoChildLeftBehind,butverylittlehasbeendonetoopenupopportunitiestoenrollinschoolswithamuchbettergraduationrateandpathwaytocollege.Studentsandparentsshouldreceivemuchbetterinformationandthereshouldbeanexpansionofmagnetschoolsaswellashonorsprogramswithseriouspre‐collegiatecoursesinallhighschools.Communitycollegestudentsshouldreceivemoreinformationabouttherelativetransfersuccessofvariouscampuses,inadditiontounderliningtheirrighttoenrollinmoresuccessfulcampusesthatmaybefurtherfromhome.

5. IncreaseFunding.Californialeadersandcitizensmustrealizeitisunrealistictoexpectourinstitutionstogrowandexpandifthereisnofundingtosupportthatgrowth.California’svoters,especiallythosewhobenefitedfromtheearlyyearsoftheMasterPlan’simplementation,needtorecognizethatwehavetoreinvestinourcolleges.CurrentfundingisnotsufficienttomeettheobjectivessetforthintheMasterPlan,andtheseverereductionsduringtheeconomiccrisishaveintensifiedtheseproblems.TheUCandCSUsystemaredemandingsubstantiallymoretuitionfromstudents,andtheUCcampusesareacceleratingfundraisingeffortsanddrawinginmorehigh‐payingoutofstatestudents.Thecommunitycollegescannotdoanyofthesethingsandreceivefarlessmoneyperstudentthanhighschools.Demandissoaringwhilecourseofferingsaredroppingsharply,creatingadditionalbarriersandcoststostudentswishingtoobtaindegrees,certificatesortransfers.Counselingresourcesarefartoolimited,especiallyforstudentswhohaveagreatdealofcatchinguptodoandlittleunderstandingofthetransferprocess.

Ifthestatedoesnotactnowtoaddresstheinadequaciesofthehighereducationsystem,andincreasethelowtransferratesfromcommunitycolleges,therewillbesevereandlastingconsequencesforthevitalityofitsyouthandnextgenerationofworkers.Tomakemattersworse,theseconsequenceswillbemostprofoundlyfeltamongLatinoyouth,whowillcomposethemajoritypopulationwithin10yearsandrelyoverwhelminglyoncommunitycollegestoaffordaccesstopostsecondaryeducation.Ifthestateisinterestedinpreparingthenextgenerationofskilledworkers,thenithastoinvestnowinourcommunitycollegesandtoinsistthatthesepatternsbechanged.



Appendix

Table19.Six‐YearTransferRatesbyRace/Ethnicity,2003‐04Cohort

Two‐YearInstitution CountyBlack(%)

Asian(%)

Hispanic(%)

White(%) Total(%)

AntelopeValleyCollege LosAngeles 39 49 27 37 34BarstowCollege SanBernardino 33 50 27 35 34CerritosCollege LosAngeles 25 57 27 28 32ChaffeyCommunityCollege SanBernardino 32 48 27 38 34CitrusCollege LosAngeles 47 55 30 46 40CoastlineCommunityCollege Orange 29 64 39 37 49CollegeoftheCanyons LosAngeles 41 58 36 44 43CollegeOfTheDesert Riverside 52 32 28 33 30ComptonCommunityCollege LosAngeles 17 33 19 0 19CopperMountainCollege SanBernardino 5 0 14 17 15CraftonHillsCollege SanBernardino 25 40 26 41 38CuyamacaCollege SanDiego 42 40 29 38 36CypressCollege Orange 39 53 32 34 37EastLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 28 47 26 39 32ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 26 54 24 40 35FullertonCollege Orange 43 64 38 48 47GlendaleCommunityCollege LosAngeles 31 62 32 57 50GoldenWestCollege Orange 38 48 28 44 43GrossmontCollege SanDiego 34 51 32 42 40IrvineValleyCollege Orange 48 62 44 55 55LongBeachCityCollege LosAngeles 31 45 32 38 36LosAngelesCityCollege LosAngeles 25 48 25 36 33LosAngelesHarborCollege LosAngeles 29 49 26 41 41LosAngelesMissionCollege LosAngeles 29 59 32 34 35LosAngelesSouthwestCollege LosAngeles 28 67 28 100 29LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege LosAngeles 32 49 27 10 29LosAngelesValleyCollege LosAngeles 48 57 32 47 42MiraCostaCollege SanDiego 37 48 29 46 42MoorparkCollege Ventura 39 62 47 54 53Mt.SanAntonioCollege LosAngeles 44 58 30 41 40Mt.SanJacintoCollege Riverside 36 39 36 36 36OrangeCoastCollege Orange 30 57 37 49 48OxnardCollege Ventura 33 65 27 31 30PaloVerdeCollege Riverside 19 20 14 18 16PalomarCollege SanDiego 46 48 36 43 42PasadenaCityCollege LosAngeles 36 61 31 50 47PierceCollege LosAngeles 31 51 32 50 45RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 28 50 24 27 29



Table19.continued,Six‐YearTransferRatesbyRace/Ethnicity,2003‐04Cohort

Two‐YearInstitution CountyBlack(%)

Asian(%)

Hispanic(%)

White(%) Total(%)

RiversideCityCollege Riverside 38 48 31 42 38SaddlebackCollege Orange 51 58 38 51 49SanBernardinoValleyCollege SanBernardino 34 43 34 34 35SanDiegoCityCollege SanDiego 32 58 32 42 38SanDiegoMesaCollege SanDiego 46 56 41 50 48SanDiegoMiramarCollege SanDiego 41 55 42 42 45SantaAnaCollege Orange 27 49 29 38 35SantaMonicaCollege LosAngeles 46 68 41 64 58SantiagoCanyonCollege Orange 0 54 44 50 49SouthwesternCollege SanDiego 32 55 28 36 32VenturaCollege Ventura 39 55 39 40 40VictorValleyCollege SanBernardino 33 35 26 36 33WestLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 41 53 27 42 37


Table20.TransferstoUCandCSUfromCollegeswithatLeast20%BlackEnrollment,2008

CommunityCollege CountyTotal

Enrollment

BlackStudent

Enrollment(%)

BlackPortionofTransfers

(%)Total

TransfersLosAngelesSouthwestCollege

LosAngeles 8,026 60.9 81 184

ComptonCommunityCollege LosAngeles 4,694 54.4 58.6 99WestLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 10,850 43.2 49.5 206LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege

LosAngeles 17,144 27 32.4 219

AntelopeValleyCollege LosAngeles 14,449 21.7 12.7 559ElCaminoCollege LosAngeles 24,352 20.5 12.8 1,237SanBernardinoValleyCollege SanBernardino 13,581 19.8 21.2 386Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,HigherEducation

Table21.TransferstoUCandCSUfromMajorityLatinoCommunityColleges,2008

CommunityCollege CountyTotalEnrollment

LatinoStudentEnrollment(%)

LatinoPortionofTransfers

(%)Total

TransfersLosAngelesMissionCollege LosAngeles 9,833 77.6 78.0 232RioHondoCollege LosAngeles 16,692 72 70.0 520EastLosAngelesCollege LosAngeles 30,096 70 66.5 813OxnardCollege Ventura 7,313 68.1 71.9 224SouthwesternCollege SanDiego 16,710 66 62.0 727CerritosCollege LosAngeles 22,517 60 54.1 860CollegeOfTheDesert Riverside 10,924 59.4 47.0 355LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege LosAngeles 17,144 58.9 56.6 219Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission,HigherEducation



Table22.Racial/EthnicCompositionofSouthernCaliforniaCommunityCollegesbyCounty,2008

Asian(%)

Black(%) Filipino(%)

Latino(%)

White(%)

LOSANGELESCOUNTY AntelopeValleyCollege 3 22 3 33 37CerritosCollege 11 9 4 60 16CitrusCollege 7 6 3 47 34CollegeoftheCanyons 7 6 4 30 48ComptonCommunityCollege 3 54 2 36 3EastLosAngelesCollege 15 4 1 70 9ElCaminoCollege 14 20 5 36 22GlendaleCommunityCollege 9 2 5 24 59LongBeachCityCollege 12 15 4 37 28LosAngelesCityCollege 15 12 6 45 20LosAngelesHarborCollege 9 15 10 47 17LosAngelesMissionCollege 3 5 2 78 10LosAngelesSouthwestCollege 1 61 1 36 1LosAngelesTrade‐TechnicalCollege 5 27 2 59 6LosAngelesValleyCollege 7 6 4 45 32Mt.SanAntonioCollege 21 5 5 46 19PasadenaCityCollege 28 6 4 38 19PierceCollege 11 7 5 33 40RioHondoCollege 8 3 2 72 13SantaMonicaCollege 13 12 3 29 40WestLosAngelesCollege 7 43 2 31 15

LosAngelesAverage 13 12 4 45 26ORANGECOUNTY CoastlineCommunityCollege 25 10 2 17 43CypressCollege 21 6 8 32 31FullertonCollege 15 4 3 39 37GoldenWestCollege 30 2 3 20 42IrvineValleyCollege 29 2 3 12 51OrangeCoastCollege 24 2 2 22 47SaddlebackCollege 9 2 2 15 70SantaAnaCollege 11 3 1 47 34SantiagoCanyonCollege 6 2 2 42 43

OrangeCountyAverage 17 3 3 31 46RIVERSIDECOUNTY CollegeOfTheDesert 3 3 2 59 30Mt.SanJacintoCollege 4 8 4 33 48PaloVerdeCollege 5 10 2 30 52RiversideCityCollege 6 12 3 41 35

RiversideCountyAverage 5 10 3 43 39



Table22.continuedAsian(%)

Black(%) Filipino(%)

Latino(%)

White(%)

SANBERNARDINOCOUNTY BarstowCollege 4 14 2 28 49ChaffeyCommunityCollege 6 12 3 48 28CopperMountainCollege 3 7 3 17 67CraftonHillsCollege 4 5 2 28 59SanBernardinoValleyCollege 5 20 2 47 24VictorValleyCollege 3 13 2 35 45

SanBernardinoCountyAverage 5 14 2 42 37

SANDIEGOCOUNTY CuyamacaCollege 4 7 3 22 57GrossmontCollege 7 9 5 21 53MiraCostaCollege 6 5 3 26 57PalomarCollege 6 4 3 31 54SanDiegoCityCollege 8 13 5 36 33SanDiegoMesaCollege 17 7 6 22 45SanDiegoMiramarCollege 17 5 11 17 45SouthwesternCollege 3 5 12 66 13SanDiegoCountyAverage 9 7 6 32 46

VENTURACOUNTY MoorparkCollege 8 3 3 19 65OxnardCollege 4 4 5 68 18VenturaCollege 4 3 3 45 43

VenturaCountyAverage 6 3 3 40 48Source:CaliforniaPostsecondaryEducationCommission

Unrealized promises: Unequal access, affordability, and excellence at community colleges in Southern California

Documents