Recently, the Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) released a Gates Foundation-funded report: Has Universal Access to Transfer-Level Courses Changed Student Outcomes at California Community Colleges? Many positive trends are noted in the report, including completion rates for transfer-level math courses, especially statistics and liberal arts math. The authors also point out that more students are earning their associate’s degree and transferring to four-year institutions. However, two underlying issues identified in this report could undermine these otherwise encouraging headlines: selection bias and grade inflation.

This report brings up the issue of selection bias in footnote #17. It points out that students post-AB 705 are earning a higher overall grade point average (GPA) in their first year in college. The authors go on to state: “This indicates possible selection effects—specifically, that lower-performing students were more likely to stop enrolling, which may explain the improved long-term outcomes.”

Two critical sets of federal regulations, AHEAD and AIM, signal a profound and existential shift in higher education policy that threatens the comprehensive mission of community colleges. Both of these regulations establish new punitive accountability metrics that judge institutions strictly by workforce-aligned return on investment (ROI) across all academic programs, not just Career and Technical Education (CTE). For faculty, these metrics are not abstract policy debates; they are a direct threat to job security, academic freedom, and the survival of programs that serve our communities' most vulnerable populations.

The weight of these regulations cannot be overstated. The AHEAD regulations rely on an inflexible "earnings premium" metric that will likely force the closure of programs in essential but chronically underpaid fields, specifically early childhood education, human services, and the visual and performing arts. Recent data from American University indicates that students in traditional transfer-oriented degree programs, specifically liberal arts and general studies, are also highly concentrated in the set of programs at risk of losing federal loan eligibility under these tests. Meanwhile, the upcoming AIM regulations will weaponize and fundamentally disrupt the accreditation process as we know it, stripping away historical peer evaluation models and mandating that accreditors enforce these same narrow ROI and program-level workforce outcomes.

The California Community College system recently entered into partnerships with Google, Microsoft, and Instructure, the parent company of Canvas. These partnerships have led to a suite of artificial intelligence (AI) tools being directly integrated into the Canvas Learning Management System. While these tools have the potential to enhance teaching and learning, their implementation also raises important questions about faculty workload, intellectual property rights, data privacy, and academic freedom. It’s imperative that faculty are aware of these issues and actively engage in discussions about them, including at the bargaining table.

Academic senates must address aspects of these AI tools through 10+1, particularly as they relate to student success, retention, and professional development. At the same time, it is essential not to overlook that these tools carry significant implications for faculty working conditions.

If you’re like me and enjoy spending winter break analyzing data from the state Chancellor’s office, then you might be interested in the effects of AB 705 on completion levels in math and English. 

AB 705 was legislation that prohibited, except under very narrow circumstances, colleges from requiring students to enroll in remedial math and English. The logic was that if not enough students were completing transfer-level math and English classes within a one-year timeframe because they were taking remedial classes, then if we eliminate remedial classes they will finish  faster, correct? The main data source is their Management Information Systems Data Mart. I was interested in looking at enrollment trends over the last several years, and, not surprisingly, we see a downward trend in enrollment. Below are the enrollment totals statewide and in General Math (TOP Code 170100) and English (TOP Code 150100)

California's AB 1705 (2022) legislation and the corresponding Community College Chancellor’s Office guidance mandated that community colleges directly place students into transfer-level math and English courses rather than requiring stand-alone pre-transfer courses. The goal was to increase the number of students completing transfer-level requirements. A recent FACCC survey seeking qualitative data from students provides insight into how this policy change has impacted students taking math and English courses for the first time in community college.

First, approximately one-third of survey respondents completed their first transfer-level math course with an A, B, or C grade. Over half completed their first English course successfully. Direct placement allowed these students to bypass pre-transfer courses and make progress towards their degree. We celebrate these students and want to build on their successes.

AB 1705 is bad policy and will cause a significant set-back to both equity and education for California’s most-underserved students.

Imagine yourself in a restaurant. You know what you want to eat and you know what condiments you want to add.  But the menu says you can only do that after you’ve consumed ten servings of ketchup.  That was the basic skills scenario ten years ago when students were often required to take a long sequence of remedial courses that resulted in poor success rates and low transition into college transfer courses.

Just a few years ago it was agreeable that equity meant everyone gets what they need as opposed to equality, where everyone gets the exact same thing. Yet today, equity is the buzz word sprinkled in our rhetoric to make anything more palatable, just as we might sprinkle cinnamon in black coffee and then claim it’s been sweetened. The problem is, adding cinnamon to coffee doesn’t actually sweeten it– it’s still bitter. And adding the word equity to something doesn’t make it equitable if it doesn’t actually do the nuanced work of addressing individual need. 

AB 1705 follows a pattern that we’re familiar with in education. Educators, who have never stopped saying we need smaller class sizes in addition to a multitude of requests to better support students, are finally relieved when legislators pay attention. Except they’re only half paying attention and instead of supporting the solutions educators have been requesting for over three decades, they have their own ideas about who’s to blame and what the solution is. This leads to the next phase: Sweeping reform without substance that calls on the buzz words of its era– equality, meritocracy, and promises that no child will be left behind, or every student will succeed. Not only do these not achieve the desired outcomes, they actually cause harm in the long run and educators are left holding the metaphorical bill and are scapegoated for the failure of the reform.

Have you or your family ever taken a course at your community college? Earned a certificate or degree at a community college? Has a community college faculty member inspired you, supported you, and championed your success? I am a proud community college faculty member teaching at Gavilan College for the past 17 years. As a classroom instructor who has interacted with students daily throughout the pandemic, it is very clear students need and want community college education now more than ever.

According to the California Education Code, the mission of the California Community Colleges is defined in four parts: remedial education, career education (technical skills programs), transfer to four-year colleges or universities, and lifelong learning. 

I consider myself a community college success story.  I began my journey at a small, rural, community college as a returning student and 37-year-old mother of two children (not unlike many of the students I have had in my classes).  I had decided to attend college to seek a degree in mathematics after having positive experiences volunteering in my children’s classrooms, where I was usually assigned to the math table.  Seeing the children’s faces light up when they understood a math concept in a new way got me hooked.

I was nervous when I took the first steps to enroll at my local community college.  I signed up for the placement testing and did better than I thought I might after years of primarily using math in a bookkeeping capacity.  I was actually excited that I could take Intermediate algebra, a class I had previously had in high school more than 20 years before.  Because I wanted to teach math, I did not want to miss the opportunity to understand the concepts (not just he algorithms I remembered) and I chose to enroll in Elementary algebra.  From there, I worked my way to transfer level math and, eventually, a degree in mathematics.