Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
July 22, 2019 California State University Board of Trustees c/o Trustee Secretariat 401 Golden Shore Long Beach, CA 90802 Dear CSU Board of Trustees, RE: Opposition to CSU Proposal to Require Four Years of Mathematics/Quantitative Reasoning for Incoming Students
The undersigned 50 educational equity and civil rights organizations oppose the CSU’s proposed change to admission which would require a fourth year of mathematics or quantitative reasoning for incoming students. As you will recall, we wrote to the Trustees in March with appreciation for the CSU’s interest in addressing incoming students’ academic preparation and raised a number of critical questions for consideration (Appendix A) as the Chancellor’s Office worked to move this proposal forward. Many of our organizations were eager to work closely with the Chancellor’s Office to answer those questions and help inform viable paths forward and further inform our official positions on the proposal. Unfortunately, CSU still has not provided compelling evidence to demonstrate that its proposal would not have a disparate impact in further constraining access to the CSU system. We firmly believe that all students, no matter racial or ethnic identity and socioeconomic status, should have access to high-‐quality, rigorous coursework that prepares them for college and career opportunities. We also recognize California must commit to improving the academic preparation of all students and addressing existing inequities in access to rigorous, college preparatory (“a-‐g”) coursework that have been documented by the California State Auditor and The Education Trust—West. We are not certain that CSU’s proposed change to admission, and in particular the additional mathematics or quantitative reasoning requirements, won’t have a disproportionate impact on low-‐income students of color or exacerbate the existing barriers to eligibility they face from the unequal access to college preparatory courses. Without evidence demonstrating that the proposed admission change will improve existing inequities without causing additional harm to already underserved communities, any movement forward with the proposal is premature, lacking in evidence, and will potentially further discriminate against low-‐income students of color in the admission process. It is also not clear whether changing the mathematics requirement for admission is a logical solution to removing existing barriers to a-‐g coursework and improving academic preparation. College admissions requirements are already out of sync with high school graduation requirements. Following CSU’s logic, one might expect all high schools and districts to have fully aligned with the current college admissions requirements and increase the number of a-‐g courses offered. Some districts have, but many districts have not. In fact, a smaller percentage of mathematics courses are a-‐g approved in low-‐income high schools than in more affluent high schools. This suggests that making such admissions changes
2
unilaterally without exploring all options with school and district leaders and the California Department of Education (CDE) is not an equitable option for improving academic preparation and removing barriers in access to a-‐g coursework. Finally, while we appreciate the CSU's suggested approach of utilizing a waiver process to ensure the new requirements aren’t a barrier for students, we are unconvinced that a waiver satisfies equity concerns without further data and analysis of existing access across the system. This is especially important given the prevalence of CSU impaction. The need for a waiver also suggests the system recognizes inequities exist (discussed above) that may prevent certain students from accessing and completing a-‐g coursework -‐ these inequities should be addressed before the proposal moves forward. We commend the CSU’s commitment to more deeply exploring the academic preparation of incoming students, but without compelling evidence demonstrating the CSU’s proposed change to admission is the best option for improving academic preparation and access to a-‐g coursework, we must oppose this effort. We still encourage the CSU to further review the critical questions in Appendix A and to address, answer, and make public findings or plans for additional consideration of the proposal to require a fourth year of mathematics or quantitative reasoning for applicants and incoming students. Many of our organizations possess a wealth of knowledge and expertise in the areas of access to rigorous courses, remedial pathways, and equitable student success initiatives, and are happy to speak with you more on these issues, as well as to provide additional research and data if helpful. Sincerely,
The Education Trust-‐West 10,000 Degrees A Black Education Network
Alliance for a Better Community Asian Americans Advancing Justice -‐ Los Angeles
Barrio Logan College Institute
BLU Educational Foundation California Competes California LULAC
3
Californians Together The Campaign for College Opportunity
Canal Institute
Career Ladders Project Center for Leadership, Equity, and Research (CLEAR)
Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth
Community Coalition Congregations Organized for Prophetic Engagement
Council of Mexican Federations in North America (COFEM)
Desertsong Group Ed100.org Educators for Excellence-‐Los Angeles
Empowering Pacific Islander Communities
Faith In The Valley Families in Schools
Full Circle Fund GO Public Schools Inland Empire -‐ Immigrant Youth Collective
4
InnerCity Struggle Latino and Latina Roundtable of the San Gabriel and Pomona
Valley
Los Angeles United Methodist Urban Foundation/Kid City
Program
Mission Graduates NAACP Pomona Valley Branch The Opportunity Institute
Parent Organization Network Partnership for Los Angeles Schools
Promesa Boyle Heights
Reading and Beyond SOMOS Mayfair Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Southern California College Access Network
Stockton Schools Initiative Students for Education Reform
Students Making a Change UC Student Association Umoja Community Education Foundation
5
UnidosUS United Way of Greater Los Angeles
United Way’s Young Civic Leaders Program
The Village Method Young Invincibles
6
Appendix A
To better understand these issues and opportunities for improvement, it is also critical that the CSU work with K-‐12 educators and leaders, researchers, nonprofit partners, and other advocates to assess the severity of inequities in access to college preparatory coursework -‐ particularly for students of color and low-‐income students. In addition, we urge the CSU to address other critical equity issues and questions, including:
Teacher Shortage / K-‐12 Alignment • There is currently a teacher shortage in California, especially in STEM fields -‐ and research has
found that marginalized students are the least likely to have access to a fully-‐prepared STEM teacher. What sort of assessment has the CSU done to ensure that we have the K-‐12 teacher workforce to accommodate such a policy change, particularly in our highest-‐need schools and districts?
• What proportion of California high schools currently do not offer four years of a-‐g mathematics/quantitative reasoning? What proportion of California high schools currently do not offer a-‐g computer science courses? What is the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic composition of those high schools?
• What kinds of support will CSU offer to K-‐12 schools and districts in crafting additional a-‐g math courses?
• How does CSU plan to collaborate with K-‐12 students, schools, and districts to ensure students are offered ample supports to succeed in four years of math, including opportunities for remediation and credit recovery?
Potential Applicant Pool • What is the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background of CSU applicants without four years
of a-‐g mathematics/quantitative reasoning? • If UC moves forward with its potential admission change, this would be two additional a-‐g
requirements students will have to meet. What sort of assessment has the CSU done to uncover the potential impact on access of two additional a-‐g requirements?
• If the CSU moves forward with this proposal, and in subsequent years, data show a decline in the percentage of students of color and low-‐income students who are eligible, what will be done to address these inequities?
Matriculants • What is the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background of the 25% of students who enroll at
the CSU without four years of mathematics/quantitative reasoning? • Among the 75% of students who already take four years of mathematics/quantitative
reasoning,what proportion of those students were placed into remediation previously or identified for co-‐requisite support? What is the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic background of those students?
• Among the 75% of students who already take four years of mathematics/quantitative reasoning,how does their academic success differ from the 25% of students who do not already complete four years of mathematics?
• Is there a clear connection between an additional mathematics/quantitative reasoning and success in academic majors?
