Starting next fall, students will be reduced to a dollar amount.
Their academic performance will determine how much funding Citrus College receives.
California lawmakers will be responsible for the shift in how students are valued.
California community college reports student success rates inThe California Community College Student Scorecard. The database shows about 48 percent of California’s degree or certificate-seeking community college students completed college within six years.
An academic journal, Community College Review reported racial disparities in student success rates in California.
Compared to their Caucasian and Asian counterparts, 26 percent of African American students and 22 percent of Latino students earned degrees, certificates or transferred to a four-year institution within six years.
To address student completion rates and racial achievement gaps, California lawmakers introduced a new funding model called the Vision for Success to replace the previous model, which depended on the number of credits a student took.
Under the new plan, college funding will be determined by three factors:
- 20 percent will be based on the number of students who graduate, complete certificate programs or transfer.
- 20 percent will depend on the number of low-income students, students older than 25 years or first-generation students enrolled.
- 60 percent will be based on the number of full-time-equivalent students enrolled.
The number of full-time equivalent students is determined by the combined enrollment of part-time students to reflect full-time status, so three students taking four units each would equal one FTE student.
To further complicate the funding model, the 20 percent of school funding determined by student success will be based on a point system.
| How much are you worth? | |
| Students with associate’s degree for transfer | 4 points |
| Students with associate’s degree, only | 3 points |
| Students granted Baccalaureate degree | 3 points |
| Students with certificates or 18+ units | 2 points |
| Students completing transfer-level Math and English within one year | 2 points |
| Students who transfer to a four-year university | 1.5 points |
| Students who complete 9+ units | 1 point |
| Students who get a job that offers a living wage within one year of graduation | 1 point |
The more a student achieves, the more points that student is worth to the school. Therefore, the more funding the school will earn.
A school’s funding will now partially be based on performance.
Supporters of the new model argue it will incentivize schools to graduate more students.
In pursuing success results that would ensure the 20 percent completion-based funding, schools risk misplacing their priorities.
Linking funding to performance consistently fails.
University of South Dakota political science professor Ed Gerrish published a 2015 study showing performance-based funding had little impact on desirable outcomes.
The new funding model is also counterintuitive.
While supporters argue the new model will reduce gaps in racial equity and achievement, the new funding model risks widening those gaps. Some of California’s lowest-performing schools are in low-income, minority communities.
The 2018 California Student Success Scorecard data shows Compton College, which is about 59 percent Hispanic/Latino and 27 percent African American, only has an overall completion rate of 35.9 percent.
Rio Hondo College, which is 74 percent Hispanic/Latino only has a 39 percent overall completion rate.
The problems that hinder schools like Compton College and Rio Hondo have little to do with poor schooling.
The surrounding communities have historically been low-income, which resulted in resource disparities. In the case of Compton, KCET reported the city also faced racial segregation, which exacerbated economic disparities.
While these schools are not the lowest-performing schools in California, they are good examples of the challenges schools themselves face. Their low completion rates are starkly different to the success rates of colleges in more affluent districts.
Citrus College is a good example of this difference.
Scorecard data shows that Citrus’ completion rate is 51.3 percent, which is higher than the statewide average of less than 50 percent.
Citrus is about 61 percent Hispanic/Latino.
Despite coming from underrepresented communities, students at Citrus succeed because of investment from cities in the college district—cities that are affluent.
Municipal bond measures like Measure G allocated large sums of money to invest in Citrus College’s development, which provided students greater access to more resources.
Citrus is a good example of how underrepresented students can thrive when their schools receive adequate funding.
When entire communities are low-income, the amount of money schools can get from those communities is limited.
“Many of our nation’s lower-income, working class, and racial/ethnic minority students are enrolled in colleges that have the fewest financial resources,” states a report by New-York based nonpartisan think tank, The Century Foundation. “(Performance-based) funding models could exacerbate inequalities if they do not account for this context.”
California’s new community college funding model does not address these disparities in a school’s surrounding community.
And the new model cannot address them, which is the problem because the model is unfair in where it places the burden of responsibility.
Legislators are placing a heavier burden on schools to address achievement disparities when lawmakers should address underlying inequity in a school’s surrounding community.
Underperforming schools need more money, not less.
The new framework will risk further limiting funding for schools that already have little funding.
The 20 percent performance-based factor should be withdrawn from the new model since it does not—and cannot address racial and economic inequality in a school’s surrounding community.
