Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

R 609HJR

Authors

R 609HJR

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3711 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_609HJR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "475147" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(28431) "Hans Johnson Educating caLiFOR nia c HO icES FOR tHE Futu RE SHOR tcHanging Educati On ? Supported by funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. 1 Spending on education is the biggest-ticket item in the California state budget. Conse- quently, education funding is an obvious target when that budget must be cut. The current fiscal crisis has been no exception. School districts around the state are cutting jobs and programs. Recent proposed cuts in higher education funding have led both the California State University (CSU) system and the University of California (UC) to re - duce admissions. Although increased invest - ment alone will not solve all our educational challenges, cuts in education funding work against the state’s long-term interests. Califor - nia is already facing a “skills gap” that threat - ens its future economy. We need more—not less—support for education to narrow that gap, and more information about how to best target that support. Unless decisions and actions are taken soon to improve educa - tional outcomes for Californians, the state’s future economy and the prosperity of its resi - dents will be compromised. The good news is that modest improvements could lead to substantial long-term gains. 2 tHE SkiLLS g ap and W Hy it Matt ERS 3 California’s economy is becoming increasingly dependent on highly educated workers. But unless young adults’ college-going and college graduation rates increase substantially, the sup - ply of graduates is not likely to meet the de - mand. PPIC projects that by 2025, 41 percent of jobs will require at least a bachelor’s degree— but only 35 percent of California adults will have college diplomas. To put it another way, if cur - rent trends persist, the state will face a shortfall of one million college graduates. Moreover, adults with a high school diploma or less will outnumber the jobs available to people with that level of education. The gap between the demands of California’s economy and the supply of college-educated workers poses a serious threat to the state’s economic future. Over the past few decades, workers with a college degree have fared well in California’s economy, but those with a high school diploma or less have fared poorly. Dur - ing the current downturn, high school gradu- ates are more than twice as likely as college graduates to be unemployed, and high school dropouts are faring even worse—one out of W Hy it Matt ERS 30 – 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 – 5 – 0 – No high school diploma High school diploma Some college Bachelor’s degree Graduate degree Percentage n Projected demand n Projected supply CALIFORNIA WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH HIGHLY EDUCATED WORKERS BY 2025 Source: PPIC projections. – – – – – – 4 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 –5 – 0 – No high school diploma High school diploma Some college College graduate Percentage unemployment – – – – 100 – – 80 – – 60 – – 40 – – 20 – – 0 – Men Women UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ARE MUCH LOWER FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES WAGES ARE HIGHER FOR CALIFORNIA COLLEGE GRADUATES , AND THE GAP IS WIDENING Wage gap (%) between college and high school graduates (%) n 1980 n 1990 n 2000 n 2008 Source: PPIC wage model based on 2000 census data and 2008 Current Population Survey. Source: PPIC tabulations of March 2009 Current Population Survey. – – 5 every five is unemployed. Moreover, the differ - ence in wages between a college graduate and a high school graduate has grown dramatically and now stands at record levels. College gradu- ates in California earn almost twice as much per hour as high school graduates. As a result, income inequality has also reached record lev- els and is greater in California than in the rest of the nation. As the demand for higher-skilled workers increases, the employment prospects for Californians with low education levels will be even lower than they are now. This wage gap will likely worsen if the skills gap grows, jeopardizing the state’s well-being in other ways. Adults with less education not only earn less but they also work less and need more help from social services. Furthermore, if employers see that California does not have enough highly educated workers, they will be less likely to establish firms here—firms that could provide high-paying jobs to high-skilled workers. Fewer high-paying jobs mean less per - sonal income tax revenue for the state, creating a revenue shortfall that will affect funding for critical items like schools and transportation. As the demand for higher-skilled workers increases, the employment prospects for Californians with low education levels will be even lower than they are now. 6 WHy dO WE Hav E a Ski LLS g ap? 7 40 – 35 – 30 – 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 –5 – 0 – The skills gap in California arises not from fun- damental changes in the trajectory of the state’s economy but from significant demographic shifts. First, the baby boomers—born between 1946 and 1964—are a large, well-educated group that will be retiring in large numbers over the next couple of decades. This means that from 2005 to 2025, about three million college grad- uates in California will leave the workforce. This will be the first time that the United States and California have lost so many college graduates to retirement in such a short period. Second, in the past, less-educated retirees were replaced by younger, better-educated workers just entering the workforce. But there will not be enough young adults with a college education to meet the increase in demand for highly edu- cated workers after the baby boomers retire. In California, 35 percent of 55- to 59-year-olds are 25–29 30–3435–3940–4445–4950–5455–5960–64 Percentage with bachelor’s degree COLLEGE EDUCATION IS HIGHEST AMONG ADULTS REACHING RETIREMENT AGE college graduates, compared to only 26 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds. Further, increasing num- bers of new workers will be Latino. Although Cal- ifornia Latinos have made strong gains in educa- tion from generation to generation, those gains show up mainly in high school completion rates. U.S.-born Latinos attend college and graduate at far lower rates than other U.S.-born residents. At the other end of the educational spectrum, the number of working-age adults who are not high school graduates will decline—but there will be far more of them than will be needed in the workforce. One in four California high school students fails to graduate. Some of these students eventually earn a GED, but most do not. Dropout rates are even higher among Latino students, with one in three failing to complete high school. Con- tinued inflows of immigrants, some with low 2006 California faces a skills gap because policymakers, including the state’s voters, have not made the tough decisions necessary to develop an effective education system. Age group Source: PPIC tabulations based on 1990 census data and 2006 American Community Survey. – – – – – – – – – 8levels of education, will also add to the number of less-educated adults. Although population projections show some improvements in edu- cational attainment, these improvements are slower than in the past and will not keep up with workforce demands. California is facing a skills gap in part because pol- icymakers, including the state’s voters, have not made the tough decisions necessary to develop an effective education system. By almost any ac- counting, California has fallen behind other states in K–12 funding—and students who do not get a good high school education are less likely to go to college. Among the 20 most populous states, California ranks 19th in the percentage New York Massachusetts New Jersey Minnesota Georgia Virginia Maryland North Carolina Michigan Tennessee Indiana Pennsylvania Wisconsin Illinios Florida Ohio Missouri California Texas Washington CALIFORNIA’S C OLLEGE-G OING R ATES O F R ECENT H IGH S CHOOL G RADUATES A RE L OW of high school graduates who enroll directly in a four-year college or university; 18th in the per- centage who enroll in any college, including com- munity colleges; and 18th in the ratio of bache- lor’s degrees awarded to high school graduates. The state’s commitment to funding higher edu- cation has also declined. In 1980, 17 percent of the state budget went to higher education. In 2007, education got only 10 percent. This is an especially important trend because higher edu- cation is largely a public undertaking in Califor- nia. Private colleges and universities enroll less than 20 percent of students in the state; public institutions award 75 percent of all bachelor’s degrees earned each year. 74.4 % 71.7 69.6 68.4 68.2 67.2 65.6 65.6 65.2 63.5 63.4 62.1 61.2 60.7 60.2 60.0 57.1 55.8 % 55.2 48.0 Source: National Center for Higher Education Management System. There will not be enough young adults with a college education to meet the increase in demand for highly educated workers after the baby boomers retire. 10 WHat can W E dO a bO ut t HE Ski LLS g ap? 11 First, one potential source of help must be dis- counted. For years, California benefited from a substantial in-migration of skilled workers, con- sistently experiencing net inflows of college graduates from other states and net outflows of less-educated adults. For example, in 1980, two- thirds of the state’s college graduates were born in other states or other countries. But those days are over. In an increasingly competitive global market, California has to compete with other states and other countries for highly educated workers. Since 2000, California has lost slightly more college graduates to other states than it has gained from those states. California does at- tract highly skilled workers from other countries, but not enough to meet the need. Given these trends, can California possibly home-grow enough college graduates to close the skills gap? Currently, state public institu- tions award slightly more than 110,000 bach- elor’s degrees each year and private institutions award 40,000. To meet the projected demand by 2025, the state would need to immediately increase the number awarded by almost 60,000 per year—about 40 percent above current lev- els. This is a daunting challenge that is, in the short run, very unlikely to be met. It would in- volve not only improvements and expansions of the state’s higher education systems but also greater investments in the state’s K–12 system to slow the high school dropout rate and in- creases in the number of high school graduates who are equipped for college-level work. W Hat can W E dO a bO ut t HE Ski LLS g ap? We cannot easily erase the projected shortfall of one million college graduates projected for 2025, but we can narrow the gap. 12We cannot easily erase the projected shortfall of one million college graduates projected for 2025, but we can narrow the gap. The state could add more than 500,000 new college graduates to the population by 2025 through relatively modest increases in three areas: the college- going rates of high school graduates, the trans- fer rates from community to four-year colleges, and degree-completion rates, primarily in the CSU system. Of course, the projected shortfall of highly educated workers is mirrored by the projected surplus of less-educated adults. Cali- fornia must work to improve K–12 outcomes in order to improve outcomes in higher education. Increase the college-going rates of high school graduates. An obvious way to get more college graduates is to increase the number of students who go to college. This is certainly an area that can be improved: only 56 percent of California high school graduates go directly to college, compared to 62 percent nationally. In- creasing California’s rate to match the national rate would lead to 20,000 additional college degrees awarded in 2025 (assuming current completion rates).. One impediment to increasing college-going rates is the high school dropout rate. The Cali- fornia Department of Education estimates that 24 percent of students drop out of high school. Decreasing that rate by half would add about 60,000 more high school graduates, on aver - age, between now and 2025. Another major impediment is inadequate preparation for col- lege: even students who do graduate are not always ready for college-level work. Increasing college-going rates would therefore require im- provements in preparation, so that high school graduates can succeed at college-level work. There are no simple solutions to these prob - lems. A recent review of the state’s K–12 system concluded that “no one program or interven- tion will fix the system.” Interventions in early grades seem to be more effective than later in- terventions. Certainly, the state’s complex K–12 financing and governance systems should bet - ter support state goals. And although funding alone will not improve outcomes, it is notable that the state lags behind many other large states and is below the national average in per- student expenditures. The programs that show promise in keeping children in schools include career technical education and early college commitment programs in which middle school students learn about college entrance require - ments and funding opportunities, and com- mit to a rigorous set of courses in high school. Programs that help high school students assess their ability to do college-level work should help reduce the need for remedial classes in college. Unfortunately, the state lacks the information necessary to evaluate policy interventions. The new state student data system is promising, but it must be designed in a way that allows policy– makers to identify the best ways to improve stu- dent outcomes. Other impediments to college-going are infor - mation deficits and costs. Many California fami- lies have no college experience (this is especially true of immigrant families) and limited access to information about what it takes to prepare a child for college. And although tuition fees are relatively low in California, the full cost of attend- ing college also includes living expenses, such as room and board. In a recent PPIC survey, more than half of adults and more than half of parents with children age 18 or younger stated that the expense of attending California’s public colleges and universities was a “big problem.” Almost three-fourths felt that students have to borrow too much to pay for their college educations. Increase community college transfer rates. Because more than 70 percent of California college students are in community colleges, 13 WHAT CAN WE DO TO NARROW THE SKILLS GAP? SCENARIO Baseline Moderate increase Ambitious increaseDESCRIPTION College enrollment and graduation rates stay the same as current levels. College enrollment, transfer, and graduation rates increase substantially. Direct enrollment rates from high school increase from 55% to 61%. Transfer rates increase by 22%. CSU graduation rates increase from about 50% to 62%. College enrollment, transfer, and graduation rates completely close the gap between workforce demand and population supply. Direct enrollment rates from high school rise from 55% to 65%. Transfer rates increase by one-third. CSU graduation rates increase from about 50% to 69%. NUMBER OF GRADUATES Number of college graduates increases 30,000 per year by 2025 to accommodate a 20 percent increase in population. Number of college graduates increases 30,000 per year over baseline levels to substantially narrow the gap. Number of college graduates increases 60,000 over baseline levels to close the gap. 14 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded (1000s) 350 – 300 – 250 – 200 – 150 – 100 – 50 – 1990 – 1993 – 1996 – 1999 – 2002 – 2005 – 2008 – 2011 – 2014 – 2017 – 2020 – 2023 – EVEN A MODEST EFFORT COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COLLEGE GRADUATES — Actual— Ambitious— Moderate— Baseline Source: PPIC projections. 15 increasing the number of transfers could signifi- cantly increase the number of college degrees awarded. According to the California Commu- nity College Chancellor’s Office, 55 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded at CSU in 2007 and 28 percent in the UC system were earned by community college transfer students. Most students who enter community college do not transfer to a four-year institution—only about 10 to 12 percent of an entering class do so. Once they do transfer, however, these students have very high completion rates. Consequently, increasing transfer rates could significantly increase the number of students who earn bachelor’s degrees. Community colleges serve many purposes, and large numbers of students enter with no intention of transferring to a four-year college. But there are many obstacles in the way of stu- dents who do intend to transfer. Many of these students are not academically prepared for college-level work. There is also a lack of course alignment between community colleges and four-year colleges. Transfer rates could be im- proved with more effective remedial programs, early and accurate assessments, and coordina- tion of course requirements between commu- nity colleges and four-year universities. And the cost of attending a four-year college is an im- pediment to many. Increase completion rates. Increasing com- pletion rates, especially in the CSU system, could significantly narrow the skills gap. In 2007, the CSU and UC systems granted almost three of every four bachelor’s degrees awarded in the state. The UC system enrolls far fewer under- graduate students than the CSU system (in 2007, UC had less than half as many as CSU). However, the UC system awards about 60 percent as many bachelor’s degrees. This outcome is primarily due to the substantially higher completion rates at UC. About four of every five UC students who enter as freshmen graduate within six years; only about half of CSU students do so. In other words, graduation rates in the UC system are relatively high, but the lower graduation rates at CSU leave substantial room for improvement. If CSU graduation rates were to increase to three-fourths of the current UC levels (regard- less of ethnic group or whether a student is a transfer) from 2009 to 2025, then the number of additional bachelor’s degrees awarded would reach 145,000 in 2025, totaling about 400,000 over the entire period. The different comple- tion rates at UC and CSU are at least partially explained by better prepared entering students and more resources at UC. Obstacles to com- pletion at CSU schools include students’ poor academic preparation and the financial burden of attending college. Get the biggest bang for the buck. In all three areas, the impediments to improvement and the options for overcoming those impediments are complex—and beyond the scope of this discus- sion. In this fiscally troubled time, however, state costs are a prime consideration. Increasing col- lege enrollment is the most expensive pathway, requiring at least four years of expenditures to produce a new college graduate. The least ex- pensive option, overall, is to improve the com- pletion rates of students already in the four-year systems, primarily at CSU. It should also be noted that California’s college fees are relatively low; in- creasing fees for higher-income students while Transfer rates could be improved with more effective remedial programs, early and accurate assessments, and coordination of course requirements between community colleges and four-year universities. 16 increasing aid for lower-income students could provide access to more students without requir- ing large expenditure increases by the state. Improving completion rates is an attractive policy option for several other reasons. First, it involves students already enrolled in the state’s public universities—they have already over - come all of the difficulties and obstacles that sometimes prevent high school and commu- nity college students from enrolling in the CSU and UC systems. Second, the state has already invested in these students by subsidizing their postsecondary education; with a bit more in- vestment, the state can realize the benefits that come from having produced an adult with a bachelor’s degree. This additional investment is presumably much lower than the costs associ- ated with the other two pathways. However, the size of the education skills gap, at both the low end and the high end of the education spectrum, means that the state can- not rely on only one approach. Reducing or eliminating the skills gap will require more high school graduates attending college, more students transferring, and higher completion rates. Moreover, the importance of improving 17 must be equipped to succeed in some kind of postsecondary program. The state’s community college system represents a tremendous re - source that could help provide that training and help close the skills gap. Worker training, includ- ing career technical education (vocational edu- cation) programs offered at community colleges, could play an important role in helping students develop skills that employers would accept in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. This kind of training, if done effectively, could be very cost effective. the state’s K–12 system cannot be overstated. High school dropouts already face bleak labor market outcomes, and our projections suggest that employment opportunities for these young adults will only shrink further. Although it would be difficult to completely close the skills gap and meet the demand for college-educated workers, other training pro - grams might provide alternatives to a bachelor’s degree. To take advantage of other training op - portunities, California’s high school graduates The least expensive option, overall, is to improve the completion rates of students already in the four-year systems, primarily at CSU. 18 Looking ahead 19 a 20 percent improvement in transfer rates, and an improvement in completion rates at CSU so that they are about halfway between CSU’s and UC’s current levels would, together, reduce the skills gap by one-half by 2025. Such improve- ments in college attendance, transfer, and grad- uation are not without precedent. For example, at the national level, 61 percent of high school graduates in 2006 went directly to college. In Cal- ifornia, some of the state’s community colleges have transfer rates that are twice as high as others with similar student populations. And CSU has experienced even stronger increases in rates of graduation in the past. Because the skills gap is not likely to be completely closed by increasing the number of college graduates, other forms of postsecondary education, includ- ing two-year degrees and certificates offered at community colleges, could help satisfy some of the demand. California policymakers have a vital role to play in ensuring the future prosperity of this state, and the state’s K–12 system and three public higher education systems are central to that prosperity. Currently planned reductions in funding to the state’s schools and colleges will only exacerbate the future skills gap. Without a major effort to improve high school outcomes as well as col- lege attendance and graduation, California’s economic and fiscal futures will be much less bright. State legislators and other policymak - ers must work together to plan and implement strategies that will strengthen and revitalize Cal- ifornia’s education system. Depending on how long and how deep the current recession is, projections of workforce requirements, effects on wages, and likely educational levels could change. Even so, reductions in funding current - ly planned for the state’s schools and colleges are not in the state’s long-term best interests. Shortchanging education for quick budget fixes is a short-sighted approach that could seriously undermine California’s economic future. In the near future California will have too few college-educated workers and too many less- educated adults. Unless decisionmakers take steps to improve the state’s K–12 and higher education systems, the long-term economic prospects for Californians and for the state will be affected. Unemployment rates will be higher and wages will be lower in a future with less- educated adults. Improving the educational attainment of California’s young adults could yield a number of positive outcomes. It would not only help those adults succeed in Califor - nia’s increasingly high-skilled economy but it would also benefit the state through increased tax revenues and the social and economic mo - bility that accompanies higher levels of educa- tion. And perhaps most important, higher edu- cational attainment among the state’s residents will foster greater economic growth. Because an increase in the number of college graduate is not likely to completely close the skills gap, other forms of postsecondary training and workforce skills development are essential to California’s future. Closing the skills gap is a huge challenge, but with relatively modest improvements in college- going and college completion, California can make substantial gains. Gradual increases over the next 20 years in college-going rates from California’s current level to the national average, The Public Policy Institute of California is a private operating foundation. The institute does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal leg- islation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Copyright © 2009 by Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Board of Directors Walter B. Hewlett, Chair Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce John E. Bryson Retired Chairman and CEO Edison International Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Emeritus Great Valley Center 21 PPIC’s extensive research on California’s future can be found on our website at www.ca2025.org. California 2025: Planning for a Better Future Closing the Gap: Meeting California’s Need for College Graduates At Issue: Paying for Infrastructure Today’s Choices, Tomorrow’s Changes California’s Future: In Your Hands CA2025: It’s Your Choice CA2025: Taking on the Future PPIC Statewide Surveys At Issue: The State of California Voters At Issue: California’s Post-Partisan Future At Issue: Legislative Reform At Issue: California’s Exclusive Electorate Can California Import Enough College Graduates to Meet Workforce Needs? Just the Facts: C alifornians’ Attitudes Toward the Future W ater Supply and Quality C alifornia’s Future Population F lood Control C alifornia’s Future Economy H ousing in California E ducation Facilities C alifornia’s Debt F inancing Infrastructure P ublic Bond Financing T ransportation Systems Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415 291 4400 F 415 291 4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T 916 440 1120 F 916 440 1121 www.ppic.org" } ["___content":protected]=> string(102) "

R 609HJR

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(86) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/educating-california-choices-for-the-future/r_609hjr/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8719) ["ID"]=> int(8719) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:09" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(4013) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(8) "R 609HJR" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(8) "r_609hjr" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(12) "R_609HJR.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "475147" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(28431) "Hans Johnson Educating caLiFOR nia c HO icES FOR tHE Futu RE SHOR tcHanging Educati On ? Supported by funding from The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation The Public Policy Institute of California is dedicated to informing and improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. 1 Spending on education is the biggest-ticket item in the California state budget. Conse- quently, education funding is an obvious target when that budget must be cut. The current fiscal crisis has been no exception. School districts around the state are cutting jobs and programs. Recent proposed cuts in higher education funding have led both the California State University (CSU) system and the University of California (UC) to re - duce admissions. Although increased invest - ment alone will not solve all our educational challenges, cuts in education funding work against the state’s long-term interests. Califor - nia is already facing a “skills gap” that threat - ens its future economy. We need more—not less—support for education to narrow that gap, and more information about how to best target that support. Unless decisions and actions are taken soon to improve educa - tional outcomes for Californians, the state’s future economy and the prosperity of its resi - dents will be compromised. The good news is that modest improvements could lead to substantial long-term gains. 2 tHE SkiLLS g ap and W Hy it Matt ERS 3 California’s economy is becoming increasingly dependent on highly educated workers. But unless young adults’ college-going and college graduation rates increase substantially, the sup - ply of graduates is not likely to meet the de - mand. PPIC projects that by 2025, 41 percent of jobs will require at least a bachelor’s degree— but only 35 percent of California adults will have college diplomas. To put it another way, if cur - rent trends persist, the state will face a shortfall of one million college graduates. Moreover, adults with a high school diploma or less will outnumber the jobs available to people with that level of education. The gap between the demands of California’s economy and the supply of college-educated workers poses a serious threat to the state’s economic future. Over the past few decades, workers with a college degree have fared well in California’s economy, but those with a high school diploma or less have fared poorly. Dur - ing the current downturn, high school gradu- ates are more than twice as likely as college graduates to be unemployed, and high school dropouts are faring even worse—one out of W Hy it Matt ERS 30 – 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 – 5 – 0 – No high school diploma High school diploma Some college Bachelor’s degree Graduate degree Percentage n Projected demand n Projected supply CALIFORNIA WILL NOT HAVE ENOUGH HIGHLY EDUCATED WORKERS BY 2025 Source: PPIC projections. – – – – – – 4 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 –5 – 0 – No high school diploma High school diploma Some college College graduate Percentage unemployment – – – – 100 – – 80 – – 60 – – 40 – – 20 – – 0 – Men Women UNEMPLOYMENT RATES ARE MUCH LOWER FOR COLLEGE GRADUATES WAGES ARE HIGHER FOR CALIFORNIA COLLEGE GRADUATES , AND THE GAP IS WIDENING Wage gap (%) between college and high school graduates (%) n 1980 n 1990 n 2000 n 2008 Source: PPIC wage model based on 2000 census data and 2008 Current Population Survey. Source: PPIC tabulations of March 2009 Current Population Survey. – – 5 every five is unemployed. Moreover, the differ - ence in wages between a college graduate and a high school graduate has grown dramatically and now stands at record levels. College gradu- ates in California earn almost twice as much per hour as high school graduates. As a result, income inequality has also reached record lev- els and is greater in California than in the rest of the nation. As the demand for higher-skilled workers increases, the employment prospects for Californians with low education levels will be even lower than they are now. This wage gap will likely worsen if the skills gap grows, jeopardizing the state’s well-being in other ways. Adults with less education not only earn less but they also work less and need more help from social services. Furthermore, if employers see that California does not have enough highly educated workers, they will be less likely to establish firms here—firms that could provide high-paying jobs to high-skilled workers. Fewer high-paying jobs mean less per - sonal income tax revenue for the state, creating a revenue shortfall that will affect funding for critical items like schools and transportation. As the demand for higher-skilled workers increases, the employment prospects for Californians with low education levels will be even lower than they are now. 6 WHy dO WE Hav E a Ski LLS g ap? 7 40 – 35 – 30 – 25 – 20 – 15 – 10 –5 – 0 – The skills gap in California arises not from fun- damental changes in the trajectory of the state’s economy but from significant demographic shifts. First, the baby boomers—born between 1946 and 1964—are a large, well-educated group that will be retiring in large numbers over the next couple of decades. This means that from 2005 to 2025, about three million college grad- uates in California will leave the workforce. This will be the first time that the United States and California have lost so many college graduates to retirement in such a short period. Second, in the past, less-educated retirees were replaced by younger, better-educated workers just entering the workforce. But there will not be enough young adults with a college education to meet the increase in demand for highly edu- cated workers after the baby boomers retire. In California, 35 percent of 55- to 59-year-olds are 25–29 30–3435–3940–4445–4950–5455–5960–64 Percentage with bachelor’s degree COLLEGE EDUCATION IS HIGHEST AMONG ADULTS REACHING RETIREMENT AGE college graduates, compared to only 26 percent of 25- to 29-year-olds. Further, increasing num- bers of new workers will be Latino. Although Cal- ifornia Latinos have made strong gains in educa- tion from generation to generation, those gains show up mainly in high school completion rates. U.S.-born Latinos attend college and graduate at far lower rates than other U.S.-born residents. At the other end of the educational spectrum, the number of working-age adults who are not high school graduates will decline—but there will be far more of them than will be needed in the workforce. One in four California high school students fails to graduate. Some of these students eventually earn a GED, but most do not. Dropout rates are even higher among Latino students, with one in three failing to complete high school. Con- tinued inflows of immigrants, some with low 2006 California faces a skills gap because policymakers, including the state’s voters, have not made the tough decisions necessary to develop an effective education system. Age group Source: PPIC tabulations based on 1990 census data and 2006 American Community Survey. – – – – – – – – – 8levels of education, will also add to the number of less-educated adults. Although population projections show some improvements in edu- cational attainment, these improvements are slower than in the past and will not keep up with workforce demands. California is facing a skills gap in part because pol- icymakers, including the state’s voters, have not made the tough decisions necessary to develop an effective education system. By almost any ac- counting, California has fallen behind other states in K–12 funding—and students who do not get a good high school education are less likely to go to college. Among the 20 most populous states, California ranks 19th in the percentage New York Massachusetts New Jersey Minnesota Georgia Virginia Maryland North Carolina Michigan Tennessee Indiana Pennsylvania Wisconsin Illinios Florida Ohio Missouri California Texas Washington CALIFORNIA’S C OLLEGE-G OING R ATES O F R ECENT H IGH S CHOOL G RADUATES A RE L OW of high school graduates who enroll directly in a four-year college or university; 18th in the per- centage who enroll in any college, including com- munity colleges; and 18th in the ratio of bache- lor’s degrees awarded to high school graduates. The state’s commitment to funding higher edu- cation has also declined. In 1980, 17 percent of the state budget went to higher education. In 2007, education got only 10 percent. This is an especially important trend because higher edu- cation is largely a public undertaking in Califor- nia. Private colleges and universities enroll less than 20 percent of students in the state; public institutions award 75 percent of all bachelor’s degrees earned each year. 74.4 % 71.7 69.6 68.4 68.2 67.2 65.6 65.6 65.2 63.5 63.4 62.1 61.2 60.7 60.2 60.0 57.1 55.8 % 55.2 48.0 Source: National Center for Higher Education Management System. There will not be enough young adults with a college education to meet the increase in demand for highly educated workers after the baby boomers retire. 10 WHat can W E dO a bO ut t HE Ski LLS g ap? 11 First, one potential source of help must be dis- counted. For years, California benefited from a substantial in-migration of skilled workers, con- sistently experiencing net inflows of college graduates from other states and net outflows of less-educated adults. For example, in 1980, two- thirds of the state’s college graduates were born in other states or other countries. But those days are over. In an increasingly competitive global market, California has to compete with other states and other countries for highly educated workers. Since 2000, California has lost slightly more college graduates to other states than it has gained from those states. California does at- tract highly skilled workers from other countries, but not enough to meet the need. Given these trends, can California possibly home-grow enough college graduates to close the skills gap? Currently, state public institu- tions award slightly more than 110,000 bach- elor’s degrees each year and private institutions award 40,000. To meet the projected demand by 2025, the state would need to immediately increase the number awarded by almost 60,000 per year—about 40 percent above current lev- els. This is a daunting challenge that is, in the short run, very unlikely to be met. It would in- volve not only improvements and expansions of the state’s higher education systems but also greater investments in the state’s K–12 system to slow the high school dropout rate and in- creases in the number of high school graduates who are equipped for college-level work. W Hat can W E dO a bO ut t HE Ski LLS g ap? We cannot easily erase the projected shortfall of one million college graduates projected for 2025, but we can narrow the gap. 12We cannot easily erase the projected shortfall of one million college graduates projected for 2025, but we can narrow the gap. The state could add more than 500,000 new college graduates to the population by 2025 through relatively modest increases in three areas: the college- going rates of high school graduates, the trans- fer rates from community to four-year colleges, and degree-completion rates, primarily in the CSU system. Of course, the projected shortfall of highly educated workers is mirrored by the projected surplus of less-educated adults. Cali- fornia must work to improve K–12 outcomes in order to improve outcomes in higher education. Increase the college-going rates of high school graduates. An obvious way to get more college graduates is to increase the number of students who go to college. This is certainly an area that can be improved: only 56 percent of California high school graduates go directly to college, compared to 62 percent nationally. In- creasing California’s rate to match the national rate would lead to 20,000 additional college degrees awarded in 2025 (assuming current completion rates).. One impediment to increasing college-going rates is the high school dropout rate. The Cali- fornia Department of Education estimates that 24 percent of students drop out of high school. Decreasing that rate by half would add about 60,000 more high school graduates, on aver - age, between now and 2025. Another major impediment is inadequate preparation for col- lege: even students who do graduate are not always ready for college-level work. Increasing college-going rates would therefore require im- provements in preparation, so that high school graduates can succeed at college-level work. There are no simple solutions to these prob - lems. A recent review of the state’s K–12 system concluded that “no one program or interven- tion will fix the system.” Interventions in early grades seem to be more effective than later in- terventions. Certainly, the state’s complex K–12 financing and governance systems should bet - ter support state goals. And although funding alone will not improve outcomes, it is notable that the state lags behind many other large states and is below the national average in per- student expenditures. The programs that show promise in keeping children in schools include career technical education and early college commitment programs in which middle school students learn about college entrance require - ments and funding opportunities, and com- mit to a rigorous set of courses in high school. Programs that help high school students assess their ability to do college-level work should help reduce the need for remedial classes in college. Unfortunately, the state lacks the information necessary to evaluate policy interventions. The new state student data system is promising, but it must be designed in a way that allows policy– makers to identify the best ways to improve stu- dent outcomes. Other impediments to college-going are infor - mation deficits and costs. Many California fami- lies have no college experience (this is especially true of immigrant families) and limited access to information about what it takes to prepare a child for college. And although tuition fees are relatively low in California, the full cost of attend- ing college also includes living expenses, such as room and board. In a recent PPIC survey, more than half of adults and more than half of parents with children age 18 or younger stated that the expense of attending California’s public colleges and universities was a “big problem.” Almost three-fourths felt that students have to borrow too much to pay for their college educations. Increase community college transfer rates. Because more than 70 percent of California college students are in community colleges, 13 WHAT CAN WE DO TO NARROW THE SKILLS GAP? SCENARIO Baseline Moderate increase Ambitious increaseDESCRIPTION College enrollment and graduation rates stay the same as current levels. College enrollment, transfer, and graduation rates increase substantially. Direct enrollment rates from high school increase from 55% to 61%. Transfer rates increase by 22%. CSU graduation rates increase from about 50% to 62%. College enrollment, transfer, and graduation rates completely close the gap between workforce demand and population supply. Direct enrollment rates from high school rise from 55% to 65%. Transfer rates increase by one-third. CSU graduation rates increase from about 50% to 69%. NUMBER OF GRADUATES Number of college graduates increases 30,000 per year by 2025 to accommodate a 20 percent increase in population. Number of college graduates increases 30,000 per year over baseline levels to substantially narrow the gap. Number of college graduates increases 60,000 over baseline levels to close the gap. 14 Number of bachelor’s degrees awarded (1000s) 350 – 300 – 250 – 200 – 150 – 100 – 50 – 1990 – 1993 – 1996 – 1999 – 2002 – 2005 – 2008 – 2011 – 2014 – 2017 – 2020 – 2023 – EVEN A MODEST EFFORT COULD SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE NUMBER OF COLLEGE GRADUATES — Actual— Ambitious— Moderate— Baseline Source: PPIC projections. 15 increasing the number of transfers could signifi- cantly increase the number of college degrees awarded. According to the California Commu- nity College Chancellor’s Office, 55 percent of all bachelor’s degrees awarded at CSU in 2007 and 28 percent in the UC system were earned by community college transfer students. Most students who enter community college do not transfer to a four-year institution—only about 10 to 12 percent of an entering class do so. Once they do transfer, however, these students have very high completion rates. Consequently, increasing transfer rates could significantly increase the number of students who earn bachelor’s degrees. Community colleges serve many purposes, and large numbers of students enter with no intention of transferring to a four-year college. But there are many obstacles in the way of stu- dents who do intend to transfer. Many of these students are not academically prepared for college-level work. There is also a lack of course alignment between community colleges and four-year colleges. Transfer rates could be im- proved with more effective remedial programs, early and accurate assessments, and coordina- tion of course requirements between commu- nity colleges and four-year universities. And the cost of attending a four-year college is an im- pediment to many. Increase completion rates. Increasing com- pletion rates, especially in the CSU system, could significantly narrow the skills gap. In 2007, the CSU and UC systems granted almost three of every four bachelor’s degrees awarded in the state. The UC system enrolls far fewer under- graduate students than the CSU system (in 2007, UC had less than half as many as CSU). However, the UC system awards about 60 percent as many bachelor’s degrees. This outcome is primarily due to the substantially higher completion rates at UC. About four of every five UC students who enter as freshmen graduate within six years; only about half of CSU students do so. In other words, graduation rates in the UC system are relatively high, but the lower graduation rates at CSU leave substantial room for improvement. If CSU graduation rates were to increase to three-fourths of the current UC levels (regard- less of ethnic group or whether a student is a transfer) from 2009 to 2025, then the number of additional bachelor’s degrees awarded would reach 145,000 in 2025, totaling about 400,000 over the entire period. The different comple- tion rates at UC and CSU are at least partially explained by better prepared entering students and more resources at UC. Obstacles to com- pletion at CSU schools include students’ poor academic preparation and the financial burden of attending college. Get the biggest bang for the buck. In all three areas, the impediments to improvement and the options for overcoming those impediments are complex—and beyond the scope of this discus- sion. In this fiscally troubled time, however, state costs are a prime consideration. Increasing col- lege enrollment is the most expensive pathway, requiring at least four years of expenditures to produce a new college graduate. The least ex- pensive option, overall, is to improve the com- pletion rates of students already in the four-year systems, primarily at CSU. It should also be noted that California’s college fees are relatively low; in- creasing fees for higher-income students while Transfer rates could be improved with more effective remedial programs, early and accurate assessments, and coordination of course requirements between community colleges and four-year universities. 16 increasing aid for lower-income students could provide access to more students without requir- ing large expenditure increases by the state. Improving completion rates is an attractive policy option for several other reasons. First, it involves students already enrolled in the state’s public universities—they have already over - come all of the difficulties and obstacles that sometimes prevent high school and commu- nity college students from enrolling in the CSU and UC systems. Second, the state has already invested in these students by subsidizing their postsecondary education; with a bit more in- vestment, the state can realize the benefits that come from having produced an adult with a bachelor’s degree. This additional investment is presumably much lower than the costs associ- ated with the other two pathways. However, the size of the education skills gap, at both the low end and the high end of the education spectrum, means that the state can- not rely on only one approach. Reducing or eliminating the skills gap will require more high school graduates attending college, more students transferring, and higher completion rates. Moreover, the importance of improving 17 must be equipped to succeed in some kind of postsecondary program. The state’s community college system represents a tremendous re - source that could help provide that training and help close the skills gap. Worker training, includ- ing career technical education (vocational edu- cation) programs offered at community colleges, could play an important role in helping students develop skills that employers would accept in lieu of a bachelor’s degree. This kind of training, if done effectively, could be very cost effective. the state’s K–12 system cannot be overstated. High school dropouts already face bleak labor market outcomes, and our projections suggest that employment opportunities for these young adults will only shrink further. Although it would be difficult to completely close the skills gap and meet the demand for college-educated workers, other training pro - grams might provide alternatives to a bachelor’s degree. To take advantage of other training op - portunities, California’s high school graduates The least expensive option, overall, is to improve the completion rates of students already in the four-year systems, primarily at CSU. 18 Looking ahead 19 a 20 percent improvement in transfer rates, and an improvement in completion rates at CSU so that they are about halfway between CSU’s and UC’s current levels would, together, reduce the skills gap by one-half by 2025. Such improve- ments in college attendance, transfer, and grad- uation are not without precedent. For example, at the national level, 61 percent of high school graduates in 2006 went directly to college. In Cal- ifornia, some of the state’s community colleges have transfer rates that are twice as high as others with similar student populations. And CSU has experienced even stronger increases in rates of graduation in the past. Because the skills gap is not likely to be completely closed by increasing the number of college graduates, other forms of postsecondary education, includ- ing two-year degrees and certificates offered at community colleges, could help satisfy some of the demand. California policymakers have a vital role to play in ensuring the future prosperity of this state, and the state’s K–12 system and three public higher education systems are central to that prosperity. Currently planned reductions in funding to the state’s schools and colleges will only exacerbate the future skills gap. Without a major effort to improve high school outcomes as well as col- lege attendance and graduation, California’s economic and fiscal futures will be much less bright. State legislators and other policymak - ers must work together to plan and implement strategies that will strengthen and revitalize Cal- ifornia’s education system. Depending on how long and how deep the current recession is, projections of workforce requirements, effects on wages, and likely educational levels could change. Even so, reductions in funding current - ly planned for the state’s schools and colleges are not in the state’s long-term best interests. Shortchanging education for quick budget fixes is a short-sighted approach that could seriously undermine California’s economic future. In the near future California will have too few college-educated workers and too many less- educated adults. Unless decisionmakers take steps to improve the state’s K–12 and higher education systems, the long-term economic prospects for Californians and for the state will be affected. Unemployment rates will be higher and wages will be lower in a future with less- educated adults. Improving the educational attainment of California’s young adults could yield a number of positive outcomes. It would not only help those adults succeed in Califor - nia’s increasingly high-skilled economy but it would also benefit the state through increased tax revenues and the social and economic mo - bility that accompanies higher levels of educa- tion. And perhaps most important, higher edu- cational attainment among the state’s residents will foster greater economic growth. Because an increase in the number of college graduate is not likely to completely close the skills gap, other forms of postsecondary training and workforce skills development are essential to California’s future. Closing the skills gap is a huge challenge, but with relatively modest improvements in college- going and college completion, California can make substantial gains. Gradual increases over the next 20 years in college-going rates from California’s current level to the national average, The Public Policy Institute of California is a private operating foundation. The institute does not take or support positions on any ballot measures or on any local, state, or federal leg- islation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. Copyright © 2009 by Public Policy Institute of California. All rights reserved. San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. Board of Directors Walter B. Hewlett, Chair Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities Mark Baldassare President and Chief Executive Officer Public Policy Institute of California Ruben Barrales President and Chief Executive Officer San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce John E. Bryson Retired Chairman and CEO Edison International Gary K. Hart Former State Senator and Secretary of Education State of California Donna Lucas Chief Executive Officer Lucas Public Affairs Ki Suh Park Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates Constance L. Rice Co-Director The Advancement Project Thomas C. Sutton Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Pacific Life Insurance Company Raymond L. Watson Vice Chairman of the Board Emeritus The Irvine Company Carol Whiteside President Emeritus Great Valley Center 21 PPIC’s extensive research on California’s future can be found on our website at www.ca2025.org. California 2025: Planning for a Better Future Closing the Gap: Meeting California’s Need for College Graduates At Issue: Paying for Infrastructure Today’s Choices, Tomorrow’s Changes California’s Future: In Your Hands CA2025: It’s Your Choice CA2025: Taking on the Future PPIC Statewide Surveys At Issue: The State of California Voters At Issue: California’s Post-Partisan Future At Issue: Legislative Reform At Issue: California’s Exclusive Electorate Can California Import Enough College Graduates to Meet Workforce Needs? Just the Facts: C alifornians’ Attitudes Toward the Future W ater Supply and Quality C alifornia’s Future Population F lood Control C alifornia’s Future Economy H ousing in California E ducation Facilities C alifornia’s Debt F inancing Infrastructure P ublic Bond Financing T ransportation Systems Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 600 San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415 291 4400 F 415 291 4401 PPIC Sacramento Center Senator Office Building 1121 L Street, Suite 801 Sacramento, CA 95814 T 916 440 1120 F 916 440 1121 www.ppic.org" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:09" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(8) "r_609hjr" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:40:09" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:40:09" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(50) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/R_609HJR.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }