Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both passed with strong support this week. But the versions that emerged look markedly different from what community college advocates originally championed, prompting statewide college leaders to withdraw their backing in the final stretch.

Newsom has rejected similar proposals in the past, vetoing earlier attempts to expand bachelor’s degree offerings at community colleges. This time, though, his office was involved in shaping the legislation, according to Cabaldon, who told his Senate colleagues this week that it marked a rare moment of cooperation between the Legislature and the governor’s office.

“This is the first time we’ve been able to have a productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” Cabaldon said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills create a new framework for deciding when — and how many — bachelor’s degrees community colleges can offer. Starting in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to twelve new degree programs, with the number tied to performance metrics such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposal would need to demonstrate a clear regional workforce need.

That workforce justification could face a challenge from the California State University system, which has frequently sparred with community colleges over similar proposals. Under the new rules, if Cal State objects, the state’s labor secretary would be brought in to settle the dispute.

The new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028; existing bachelor’s degree programs at community colleges would not be affected. Currently, 49 community colleges statewide offer or are preparing to offer a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue framework that would finally bring clarity to a contentious issue.

“This will bring us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everyone will agree all the time, but it does mean the endless warfare, the disputes, the fighting and the growing pile of bills will come to an end.”

Community college leaders, however, say the amendments were rushed, confusing and overly complicated — even as they acknowledge lawmakers were attempting to tackle a genuinely difficult problem.

“We’re being asked to… support a process that isn’t fully understood and was revised at the last minute, and that’s not good policymaking,” said Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college presidents and trustees throughout the state.

Why bachelor’s degrees have become such a flashpoint

The sudden reversal by community college advocates adds another chapter to a debate that has simmered for years.

Community colleges and Cal State have long clashed over which bachelor’s degrees community colleges should be allowed to offer. A 2021 state law was supposed to settle the matter, but disagreements persisted — largely over what counts as program “duplication.” Under that law, community colleges were barred from creating degree programs that already existed at any Cal State or University of California campus, even if that campus was hundreds of miles away.

Critics, including several lawmakers, argued the rule was unfair to community college students who often cannot relocate to attend a distant university. In some cases, community colleges moved forward with new degree programs anyway, despite objections from Cal State, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding bachelor’s degree access at community colleges continue to cite conflicting data to bolster their arguments.

One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively isolating roughly 157,000 students who cannot easily relocate or commute to pursue a four-year degree elsewhere.

Some students argue that their local community colleges need the ability to offer bachelor’s degrees because area employers require them — certificates and associate degrees alone often aren’t enough. Yet under current law, those colleges can be blocked from offering such programs simply because a Cal State campus 500 miles away already offers something similar.

At the same time, community colleges statewide continue to post low transfer rates. Only 21% of students who intend to transfer to a four-year university actually do so within four years, according to the state auditor. Some see this as evidence of a broken transfer pipeline that could be fixed by allowing more bachelor’s degree programs. Others argue it shows community colleges aren’t yet equipped to expand their academic offerings, especially since many also struggle with low completion rates for certificates and associate degrees.

How the bills tackle degree duplication

In response to years of gridlock, Alvarez and Cabaldon each introduced comprehensive legislation this year aimed at letting community colleges create bachelor’s degree programs even when similar degrees exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community colleges initially backed these versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring streamlined transfer pathways instead — a solution some within the university system saw as protecting enrollment and tuition revenue at a time when several Cal State campuses are already grappling with declining student numbers.

The revised, combined legislation now allows community colleges to propose new bachelor’s degrees even if a nearby Cal State campus offers something similar — but only if that Cal State program has accepted less than 75% of applicants from the neighboring community college for three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to submit workforce need reports and stay within the newly imposed degree caps. That workforce justification could stem from employers struggling to fill positions that require a four-year degree, according to the bill language.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal process for resolving disputes between community colleges and Cal State over duplication, the new system gives the state labor secretary authority to settle disagreements. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But there are consequences for losing that fight: if the labor secretary sides with Cal State, the community college district is barred from proposing a similar program for five years.

Community colleges remain fully barred from duplicating degree programs offered at any UC campus unless they receive written consent from the university.

Why community colleges are now pushing back

The newly imposed caps on how many degrees a district may offer have become a major sticking point. Under the bills, districts would be evaluated based on completion rates and how those rates compare to the statewide average.

The legislation “would make a district’s eligibility partly dependent on how it compares to every other district in the state,” according to a letter of opposition sent to Cabaldon and signed by Sonya Christian, chancellor of the California Community Colleges system. A district could improve its own outcomes and still face the same restrictions “or even see its eligibility shift simply because the statewide average changed,” she wrote.

Galizio, of the Community College League, also objects to the proposed caps on new degree creation. He noted in an interview that campuses with lower graduation rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the very students who stand to benefit most from expanded access to bachelor’s degree programs.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as harmful, however. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, said that based on his college’s completion rates, he expects to be authorized to add six to eight new bachelor’s degree programs beginning in 2028. That, he said, is plenty for now. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and plans to roll out additional programs in 2027.

“We’re not trying to become a university. That’s not our mission. We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways to social and economic mobility for our students,” Fierro said in an interview.

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his campus may not work system-wide.

“For some of us, this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to create some real additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Suddenly Balk at Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Despite the opposition, Senate Bill 960, authored by Sen. Christopher Cabaldon, D-Napa, and Assembly Bill 2694, authored by Assemblymember David Alvarez, D-Chula Vista, both cleared the Legislature this week with strong support and now await Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature.

Newsom has previously rejected similar proposals to broaden community colleges’ bachelor’s degree offerings. This time, though, his office reportedly helped shape the final language. Cabaldon told fellow senators Monday that the process marked a shift in tone.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to engage in productive conversation between the houses and the executive branch,” he said during floor remarks.

Together, the two bills would establish a new framework for deciding which community college districts can create bachelor’s programs and how many they’re allowed to offer. Beginning in 2028, colleges could add anywhere from two to 12 new bachelor’s degrees, with the exact number tied to how well their students perform on measures such as certificate completion, degree attainment and transfer rates. No single district could roll out more than three new degrees in a given year, and each proposed program would need to demonstrate a genuine regional workforce demand — a claim the California State University system could challenge. If that happens, the state’s labor secretary would step in to resolve the dispute, a role meant to end the recurring clashes between the two systems over academic turf.

Any new restrictions would only apply to degrees created after 2028. Programs already up and running would be unaffected. Currently, 49 community colleges either offer or are preparing to launch a combined 66 bachelor’s degree programs statewide.

Cabaldon described the legislation as a long-overdue resolution to years of policy gridlock.

“This will give us peace,” he said in an interview. “That doesn’t mean everybody’s going to agree all of the time, but it does mean the endless war and bickering and fighting and more and more legislation will come to an end.”

Yet many community college administrators say the process moved too quickly, leaving key details unclear. Larry Galizio, president and CEO of the Community College League of California, which represents college trustees and administrators statewide, said the last-minute nature of the changes undermines confidence in the outcome.

“We’re being asked to support a process that is not completely understood or vetted at the last minute, and so that’s just not great policymaking,” Galizio said.

A long-running turf battle

The community college system’s reversal is the latest chapter in a debate that has simmered for years. Historically, the biggest sticking point between community colleges and Cal State has been what’s known as “degree duplication.” A 2021 law barred community colleges from offering a bachelor’s degree if any Cal State or University of California campus already provided a similar program — regardless of how far away that campus might be.

Critics argued the rule was unfair to students who can’t easily relocate for a four-year degree. Some community colleges moved forward with new programs anyway, defying Cal State’s objections, according to reporting by EdSource.

Supporters and opponents of expanding community college bachelor’s programs often cite conflicting evidence to make their case. One recent study found that 29 of California’s 116 community colleges are located at least 25 miles from the nearest public university, effectively leaving roughly 157,000 students without convenient access to a four-year institution.

Some students say that without local bachelor’s degree options, they’re stuck — even though regional employers are asking for degrees beyond an associate’s or certificate. Yet critics point to the community college system’s low transfer rate — only about 21% of students intending to transfer actually do so within four years, according to the California State Auditor. That statistic, some argue, suggests the system needs to fix its transfer pipeline before adding more four-year programs, especially given that many colleges also struggle with low completion rates for existing certificates and associate degrees.

New rules on duplication

To address the standoff, Alvarez and Cabaldon initially crafted broader bills that would have let community colleges offer bachelor’s degrees even when similar ones exist at nearby Cal State campuses. Community college leaders backed those early versions, while Cal State pushed back, favoring smoother transfer pathways into its own bachelor’s programs instead. Some within the Cal State system worry that community college expansion could pull away students and tuition dollars at a time when several campuses are already facing enrollment drops.

The compromise legislation allows community colleges to propose a bachelor’s degree that overlaps with a Cal State program only if that Cal State campus has accepted fewer than 75% of transfer applicants from the community college in question over three consecutive years. Colleges would still need to document workforce demand and stay within the newly created degree caps. Acceptable justification could include local employers struggling to fill jobs that require a bachelor’s degree.

Unlike current law, which offers no formal way to break a deadlock between the two systems, the new bills give the state labor secretary authority to make a final call. If the labor secretary sides with the community college, Cal State’s objection is overridden. But if the ruling favors Cal State, the community college district would be barred from proposing a similar program for five years. Community colleges would generally still be prohibited from duplicating any UC program unless the university system gives written permission.

Pushback over new limits

The biggest objection from community college leaders centers on the newly imposed caps tied to student outcome data. Under the bills, a district’s eligibility to add new degrees would depend in part on how its completion rates stack up against the statewide average — a moving target that could shift even if a district’s own performance improves.

In a letter opposing the legislation, California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian warned that the formula could penalize districts unfairly. “A district could improve its own student outcomes” and still be capped, she wrote, “or even see its eligibility change simply because the statewide average changed.”

Galizio raised a similar concern, noting that colleges with lower completion rates often serve larger populations of low-income students — the same students who could benefit most from access to a four-year degree closer to home.

Not every community college leader views the legislation as a setback. Jose Fierro, president and superintendent of the Cerritos Community College District, expects his district’s completion rates would allow it to add six to eight new bachelor’s programs once the rules take effect in 2028 — more than enough for his college’s immediate plans. Cerritos currently offers two bachelor’s degrees and is preparing to add more by 2027.

“We are not trying to become a university. It’s not our mission,” Fierro said. “We’re trying to align with industry and provide pathways for social and economic mobility for our students.”

Still, he acknowledged that what works for his district may not work everywhere.

“For some of us this is workable,” he said. “For other colleges, this is going to bring some additional challenges.”

Original source: CalMatters

The post Community Colleges Reverse Course, Push Back on Plan to Expand Bachelor’s Degree Offerings appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The delay stems from a change the U.S. Office of Federal Student Aid put into effect in April, updating fraud-prevention screening tied to the 2025 “One Big Beautiful Bill” signed by Republican lawmakers. As a result, universities — including the 23-campus Cal State system — received federal files detailing student aid awards five to six weeks later than usual.

That lag meant an unknown number of students didn’t find out their final aid amounts until just weeks before the start of the semester. Some learned the figures only after their original tuition deadlines had already passed. To avoid dropping students who hadn’t yet paid, campuses put safeguards in place to keep those with pending financial aid enrolled.

“This is very unusual,” said April Grommo, assistant vice chancellor for strategic enrollment management at the CSU Chancellor’s Office, of the timing disruption occurring mid-cycle.

It’s worth noting that the reporting delay is separate from the actual disbursement of aid. Federal rules already bar schools from releasing financial aid funds until within 10 days of the start of the academic term — and CSU classes were just getting underway this month.

Frustration surfaces online

The uncertainty spilled over into social media, with students posting worried messages on Reddit forums for several CSU campuses. One Cal State Fullerton student wrote on Aug. 1: “I’m really stressed because the semester starts Aug. 22 … and I don’t want to get dropped from any classes.” Similar concerns surfaced in Reddit threads tied to San Jose State, Cal State Long Beach and Cal State Northridge.

According to Grommo, students who submitted their Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) before California’s March 2 priority deadline were not affected by the backlog.

Still, the scale of aid flowing through the CSU system is enormous. Last year, the university distributed roughly $5.5 billion to more than 385,000 undergraduate and graduate students. Grommo said financial aid staffers across CSU campuses put in extra hours trying to make up for the federal slowdown, though staffing shortages in several financial aid offices only compounded the challenge of getting timely information out to students.

Adding to the confusion, another provision in the 2025 federal law lowered the caps on how much students and parents can borrow for college. Those new limits took effect this year, likely catching some students who rely on loans off guard. Even so, about 65% of CSU undergraduates who earn a bachelor’s degree graduate without any loan debt.

Despite the online chatter, the California State Student Association — the system’s undergraduate student government — hasn’t seen evidence of a widespread crisis, according to executive director Joe Nino. “At this time, CSSA is not aware of this being a systemic issue,” Nino wrote in an email. “Our understanding is that safeguards are in place to ensure students are not dropped from their classes due to FAFSA delays.”

Sydney Yee, vice president of the Associated Students at Cal State Fullerton and a senior finance major, said her office hasn’t fielded complaints accusing campus officials of being unresponsive. Yee herself had questions about her own aid package and called the financial aid office over the summer, saying she received helpful guidance. Reddit users offered similar advice to anxious classmates: call your campus financial aid office, and don’t give up after one attempt.

“Something I think financial aid staff have done really well here is stay very proactive about these delays,” Yee said, pointing to explanatory emails and Instagram posts from the university clarifying why some students saw course-drop notifications on their accounts — and why those holds were later lifted.

Grommo said those notifications were meant to reassure students. If an enrollment hold was lifted and a student remained registered, that generally meant the university had confirmed the student’s account was in good standing.

Jessicca Barco, associate vice president for strategic enrollment management at Cal State Fullerton, said returning students typically receive their financial aid information between May and June. That timing exists in part to make sure students meet federal academic-progress requirements before aid is finalized. Because of this year’s federal delay, about 23,000 returning Fullerton students didn’t receive their aid notifications until last Friday. The campus pushed back its tuition payment deadline to Aug. 19 — weeks later than the mid-July deadline many students are used to.

Why some students wait longer

Grommo said there are several reasons certain students end up waiting longer than others for their aid to be finalized — in past years, some didn’t receive final numbers until October. Students who filed their FAFSA later in the summer, rather than in late winter, are more likely to experience delays. Others may have been flagged for a financial verification review to confirm eligibility, or may need to appeal after falling below the grade requirements tied to continued aid eligibility. Sudden changes in family income that weren’t reflected on the original application can also slow the process.

“Most students get through the process just fine, but of course, the small group that doesn’t get through smoothly is the group that really generates the biggest problems,” Grommo said.

Her advice to students: make sure your school email account is set up correctly, since campuses often rely solely on that address rather than a personal email — and keep calling your financial aid office if answers aren’t coming quickly.

By Wednesday, Cal State Fullerton students had finally received their financial aid disbursements.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Some Cal State Students Received Financial Aid Decisions Much Later This Year — Here’s Why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

At the heart of the delay is a change the U.S. Office of Federal Student Aid made in April to strengthen fraud protections, a move tied to the 2025 federal budget legislation known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As a result, Cal State campuses received the federal data needed to calculate student aid packages five to six weeks later than usual this year.

That lag meant some students didn’t get firm numbers on their grants and loans until just weeks — or in some cases days — before instruction began. A number of students discovered their aid amounts only after the standard deadline to pay tuition had already passed. Fortunately, most CSU campuses had safeguards in place so students wouldn’t be dropped from classes while their aid was still being processed.

April Grommo, assistant vice chancellor for strategic enrollment management at the CSU Chancellor’s Office, called the mid-cycle disruption highly unusual. She emphasized that the delay in learning aid amounts is a separate issue from actually receiving funds — by federal rule, students can’t receive their aid disbursements until within 10 days of the start of the term, which for most CSU campuses falls in August.

Frustration bubbled up on social media, with students at Cal State Fullerton, San Jose State, Cal State Long Beach and Cal State Northridge posting on Reddit about the wait and their fears of being dropped from courses. One Fullerton student wrote in early August that the uncertainty was unsettling with the semester bearing down.

According to Grommo, students who submitted their FAFSA applications by California’s March 2 priority deadline were largely spared from the worst of the delays. But the scale of CSU’s financial aid operation — roughly $5.5 billion distributed last year to more than 385,000 undergraduate and graduate students — meant that even a modest disruption created ripple effects. Financial aid staff across the system put in extra hours to catch up, a task made more difficult by staffing shortages at several campuses.

Complicating matters further, the same federal law introduced new, lower borrowing caps for both students and parents, which took effect this year. The change may have blindsided some families who were counting on loans to cover costs, though CSU officials note that about 65% of undergraduates who complete a bachelor’s degree in the system do so without any loan debt.

Despite the anxiety online, the California State Student Association — the CSU system’s undergraduate student government — said it hasn’t seen widespread reports of students being harmed by the delays. “At this time, CSSA is not aware of this being a widespread issue,” said Joe Nino, the association’s executive director, noting that safeguards remain in place to prevent students from losing their class schedules over aid processing delays.

At Cal State Fullerton, student government vice president Sydney Yee, a rising senior studying finance, said her office hadn’t fielded complaints about unresponsive financial aid staff. She had her own questions about her aid package this summer and found the campus financial aid office responsive when she called for help — advice echoed by students online urging their peers to be patient but persistent in reaching out directly.

“Something I think the financial aid office has done very well here has been staying proactive with these delays,” Yee said, pointing to campus emails and Instagram posts explaining why some students briefly saw hold notices on their accounts warning of possible course drops, and why those holds were later cleared.

Grommo said those notifications were intended to reassure students, not alarm them — if a drop hold was lifted and a student remained enrolled, it meant the campus had verified the student was in good financial standing.

Jessicca Barco, associate vice president for strategic enrollment management at Cal State Fullerton, said returning students typically learn their aid amounts by May or June, timed to follow the confirmation of academic progress required to maintain eligibility. This year, because of the federal delay, roughly 23,000 returning Fullerton students didn’t get that information until last Friday. In response, the campus pushed its tuition payment deadline back to Aug. 19 — weeks later than the usual mid-July cutoff.

Grommo noted that late aid disbursements aren’t unheard of in any given year; some students historically haven’t received their packages until as late as October. Common causes include applying for aid later in the summer, being selected for a federal income verification review, falling below the GPA threshold required to keep receiving aid, or experiencing a sudden financial hardship not reflected in previously filed income information.

“The majority of students go through the process just fine,” Grommo said, “but of course, the small group that does not go through the process fine — those are the really major issues.”

Her advice for students navigating aid delays: check school-issued email accounts regularly, since some communications may not reach personal inboxes, and don’t hesitate to call the financial aid office directly for updates.

By Wednesday, Cal State Fullerton students had finally received their financial aid disbursements — just in time for the start of the fall term.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Cal State Students Faced Lengthy Delays in Financial Aid Decisions This Year, Here’s Why appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed off on the 2026-27 spending plan last week, directing hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding to the University of California and California State University systems. But that good news came with a catch: Democratic leaders in Sacramento passed on advancing bond measures that could have funneled billions more toward campus construction and science research.

Students, meanwhile, continued to benefit from the state’s continued commitment to the Cal Grant program, one of the most generous financial aid offerings in the country. The grant, which typically covers full tuition at UC and Cal State campuses and partial tuition at private institutions, remains fully funded — meaning grant recipients won’t feel the pinch even as both university systems keep raising tuition rates.

Jessica L. Thompson, senior vice president at The Institute for College Access & Success, a think tank focused on financial aid for low-income students, said the state’s continued investment in higher education will likely stand out as one of the defining features of Newsom’s time in office.

“We’ve never had to work to convince the executive branch that public higher education was incredibly important and central to a lot of the ambitions for the state and for the future, and that’s not something to take for granted,” Thompson said.

Not every program fared as well. The Middle Class Scholarship, a smaller aid program that helped cover costs beyond tuition, will shrink this year. Recipients who received an average of $3,000 last year will see that drop to roughly $2,000.

More Money Flowing to UC and Cal State

Both university systems will receive more than $500 million in new ongoing state funding, money that can go toward hiring faculty, absorbing enrollment growth, and covering rising costs for energy, insurance and employee health benefits.

That kind of funding boost isn’t something the universities can count on automatically. Unlike K-12 schools and community colleges, which are guaranteed roughly 40% of the state’s general fund under the California Constitution, UC and Cal State have no such protection.

In fact, the Legislature’s nonpartisan budget adviser, the Legislative Analyst’s Office, had recommended smaller increases back in February, citing looming multi-billion-dollar deficits and pointing out that both systems already generate additional revenue through annual tuition hikes.

Still, the trend over Newsom’s tenure has been one of steady growth for higher education funding. The year before he took office, both UC and Cal State received about $3.7 billion each in state general fund support. Under the newly approved budget, that figure has climbed past $5 billion for each system — a 50% increase, though smaller than the 80% growth in overall state spending during the same period.

Part of this year’s increase includes restoring more than $100 million in cuts that both systems absorbed in last year’s budget. Those earlier reductions triggered a labor dispute at Cal State that remains unresolved. The system has argued the funding cut prevented it from honoring full raises for thousands of employees, though some unions counter that a state loan covering last year’s shortfall should have made those raises possible. Cal State maintains that the loan doesn’t offset the cut, since it ultimately has to be repaid.

CSUEU, a union representing 36,000 Cal State employees in administrative and grounds-keeping roles, filed an unfair labor practice complaint last July, arguing the funding cut should have triggered contractual pay-step increases for workers — each worth a 2% raise. The union says some employees should have advanced five or more steps but were only bumped up one. A resolution could come before California’s Public Employment Relations Board issues a ruling in August. The union is also pushing for 11% annual raises over the next three years and has floated the possibility of a strike, though it hasn’t yet sought member approval to do so.

Financial Aid: Mostly Good News for Students

The state’s commitment to fully funding Cal Grants continues, even though — unlike K-12 and community college funding — there’s no constitutional guarantee behind it.

Since 2015, the number of students receiving Cal Grants has jumped from about 330,000 to more than 450,000, with state spending rising from $1.9 billion to $2.5 billion. Much of that growth traces back to 2021 reforms that opened eligibility to more than 100,000 community college students over the age of 28. The Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates those changes alone added $167 million to the program’s costs last year.

Rising tuition at UC, which began climbing in 2022, and at Cal State, starting in 2024, has also driven up Cal Grant expenses. Analysts estimate roughly a quarter of the program’s cost growth over the past decade stems directly from tuition increases at the two systems.

The Middle Class Scholarship wasn’t as fortunate. Funding dropped from nearly $1 billion last year to $680 million this year, cutting the average award for its 350,000 UC and Cal State recipients from about $3,000 to roughly $2,000. The reduction was one of several moves lawmakers made to balance a budget that, by law, cannot run a deficit. Students may need to pick up extra work hours or rely more on loans to make up the difference, though most UC and Cal State undergraduates still graduate without debt.

Bond Measures: A Mixed Bag

Higher education’s bigger disappointments this year came in the form of bond measures that failed to make it onto the ballot.

Chief among them was a $12 billion bond proposed by state Sen. Scott Wiener, a San Francisco Democrat, that would have funded science research grants for universities and research institutions. The UC system and its graduate student worker union pushed hard for the measure, viewing it as insurance against the Trump administration’s efforts to slash federal research funding.

The Trump administration has targeted grants it claims involve prohibited research into diversity or climate change, though many of the affected projects focused on diseases, pharmaceuticals, cancer and dementia research. UC alone brought in $3 billion in federal research funding during the 2024-25 academic year, accounting for nearly half of its total research budget.

At one point last year, the federal government froze or canceled more than 1,000 California research grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation. Court challenges have restored most of that funding, but tens of millions of dollars remain frozen, and nearly $900 million in Environmental Protection Agency funding is still on hold, according to legislative analysis tied to Wiener’s proposal.

Wiener has argued that California needs to insulate its research institutions from federal unpredictability. His bond measure cleared the Senate but stalled in the Assembly, failing to clear a key committee before the deadline to qualify for the November ballot.

A spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas, a Salinas Democrat, said in a statement that the ongoing federal pressure on California has forced lawmakers into difficult tradeoffs. Sources familiar with the negotiations told CalMatters that some legislators worried backing the science bond might hurt the chances of a separate $11 billion affordable housing bond — an Assembly priority — passing in November.

A second stalled measure would have helped UC and Cal State tackle a growing backlog of aging campus buildings and fund new construction. Assemblymember David Alvarez, a Chula Vista Democrat, had pushed for such a bond, but the effort collapsed by late June after Newsom’s Department of Finance determined the state wouldn’t have enough money in future budgets to repay the debt.

The need is real: More than half of Cal State’s academic buildings are at least 50 years old, and the system’s five-year construction plan includes $24 billion in projects. UC, meanwhile, reports a $46 billion shortfall in infrastructure funding across its campuses and hospitals. Students and faculty have complained in recent years about broken air conditioning during heat waves, failed heating systems in winter, and flooding that has damaged sensitive lab equipment.

Voters haven’t approved a facilities bond for public universities since 2006, and both systems’ ability to borrow independently is limited since debt payments come directly out of their operating budgets. A 2020 school facilities bond that would have set aside $2 billion each for UC and Cal State failed at the ballot box, and a later bond that did pass excluded the university systems altogether.

“It’s too soon to plan for 2028 ballot measures, but a facilities bond will remain within Alvarez’s priorities for sure,” said Chris Jonsmyr, a spokesperson for the assemblymember.

There was at least one silver lining tucked into the November affordable housing bond. If approved by voters, UC and Cal State would each receive $175 million to build affordable student housing that campuses could rent to low-income students below market rate.

For UC, that funding could support roughly 1,700 new beds for low-income students, based on recent project costs that have ranged from $200,000 to $300,000 per bed — driven up by soaring construction costs and expensive land near the system’s mostly coastal campuses.

Last fall, nearly 9,900 UC students were on waiting lists for campus housing, according to data obtained by CalMatters. The potential funding would add to UC’s broader push to build 15,000 new student housing units by 2030 — an urgent need, given that average occupancy across the system’s housing network currently sits at 104%, forcing some rooms designed as doubles to house three students instead.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Newsom’s Last Budget Directs Over $1 Billion to UC, Cal State Systems appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

A bill supported by the California Faculty Association, which represents faculty and other academic employees across the CSU system, is moving through the Legislature and could soon reach Gov. Gavin Newsom. The measure is authored by state Sen. Sabrina Cervantes, a Riverside Democrat, giving the Inland Empire a direct role in one of California higher education’s most closely watched debates over artificial intelligence.

The proposal comes as the 23-campus CSU system, the nation’s largest public four-year university system, has expanded access to AI tools for students and employees. CSU campuses in Southern California and the Inland Empire, including Cal State San Bernardino, Cal Poly Pomona, Cal State Fullerton, Cal State Los Angeles and others, are part of the systemwide technology shift.

Faculty union leaders say they are not trying to stop professors from using AI in classrooms or research. Their concern is that, without clear rules, campuses could begin using AI to perform work traditionally done by faculty and staff.

“We do have some cases of the potential replacement of faculty work by AI, and so I personally am very concerned about closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out,” said Kevin Wehr, a Sacramento State sociology professor who leads the union’s bargaining team. “We’re trying to keep ahead of a rapidly changing set of technologies.”

The CSU system last year signed a $17 million agreement with OpenAI to give students and faculty access to ChatGPT education tools. The system later renewed the contract at $13 million a year for three years, according to LAist.

A CSU survey released in the spring found that slightly more than half of faculty members said AI was having a negative effect on their teaching. About one-third of students said their professors were teaching them how to use AI effectively.

CSU has also been identified in a state government report as using “high risk” AI tools, including software intended to detect cheating during remote exams.

The growing use of AI has already prompted labor disputes. The state labor relations board is scheduled to consider issues tied to CSU’s purchase and rollout of AI tools such as ChatGPT. The California Faculty Association filed an unfair labor practice charge last year, arguing that the university system’s AI initiative raised workplace issues that should have been negotiated with the union.

A separate dispute centered on Sacramento State, where the union alleged in 2025 that campus officials considered using AI chatbots that could draw from course materials voluntarily submitted by professors. CSU denied wrongdoing.

The union also challenged a proposed recommendation that students seek mental health support from AI tools when campus counselors were unavailable.

CSU and the union settled that matter in March, and the union withdrew its complaint. As part of the agreement, Sacramento State said it would not implement autonomous programs or bots whose primary purpose is to perform bargaining unit work or evaluate faculty without first meeting and conferring with the union.

At a June legislative hearing, Cervantes said colleges and universities are increasingly experimenting with AI, often without clear standards.

“Many institutions of higher education are exploring options to integrate AI into their courses and curriculum,” Cervantes said. “In many instances, this has been done without any boundaries or guardrails.”

The California Faculty Association represents professors, lecturers, coaches, librarians and mental health counselors. Since 2020, the union has contributed at least $3.4 million to state legislators and candidates for statewide office. Cervantes has received at least $64,650 from the union since 2016, according to Digital Democracy, a government disclosure tool operated by CalMatters.

CSU has not taken a position on Cervantes’ bill. But AI remains an issue in ongoing labor contract talks between the university system and the faculty union.

The Sacramento State dispute illustrates the broader tension. Union filings alleged that Alexander “Sasha” Sidorkin, then the campus’s chief AI officer, created a mental health chatbot for students and linked to it on a student resources webpage with a statement suggesting AI was better than no help when a counselor was unavailable.

CSU’s chancellor’s office replied to the labor board that the allegations were unfounded. The university said Sidorkin did not create such bots and that no AI bots were implemented to perform counseling work.

Sidorkin, who remains at Sacramento State as an education professor and is a union member, said the allegation was inaccurate. He said he did not create a bot but recommended that students use ChatGPT if they could not find a counselor. He said he still believes students should be told in a syllabus that an AI tool may be preferable to having no support at all during a mental health episode.

Sidorkin said Sacramento State eliminated the chief AI officer position last April during systemwide layoffs and removed the website connected with the role.

The union also alleged that Sidorkin created an AI tool to interpret the faculty union’s contract with CSU and that the tool produced incorrect information. The complaint said CSU stopped using the contract interpretation bot after the union objected.

Another concern involved course materials. According to the union complaint, Sidorkin invited faculty to submit syllabi and class content so they could receive customized AI tutoring bots for their courses. The complaint included an email in which Sidorkin told faculty that campus leaders had directed him to retract the request, though he appeared to disagree with the decision.

Sidorkin told CalMatters that about 18 professors sent him course materials the first day he invited submissions. He said filing the labor charges was a mistake and argued that many faculty members are already experimenting with AI tools to support teaching.

Patrick Oberle, an associate professor of geography at Sacramento State and a union member, said the faculty association became involved because AI could affect work performed by faculty and counselors. He said the concern is not simply whether technology is useful, but whether it could be deployed without bargaining over its impact on employees.

Oberle said faculty worry about “mission creep,” such as campuses encouraging instructors to shift more grading work to AI and then increasing class sizes. That has not happened formally, he said, but union members fear it could reduce student contact with instructors and lessen the need to hire faculty as others retire.

“We’re trying to accommodate the folks who are deeply opposed to AI’s very existence, and also accommodate the folks that are very excited about all of its possibilities,” Oberle said.

Cervantes’ bill is one of several AI-related labor measures moving through Sacramento. Senate Bill 947 would stop employers from relying solely on AI tools to discipline or fire workers. Labor unions and some nonprofit groups support the bill, while business groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and Lyft oppose it. Newsom vetoed a similar proposal last year.

Another proposal, Senate Bill 903, would restrict the use of AI in psychotherapy, including banning therapists from offering therapy through chatbots and prohibiting bots from making independent therapeutic decisions. The California Chamber of Commerce and the California Medical Association oppose that bill.

During the hearing on Cervantes’ CSU faculty bill, Assemblymember Mike Fong, an Alhambra Democrat who chairs the Assembly Higher Education Committee, said AI should assist people, not displace them.

“We know technology can augment humans, but it should never replace humans,” Fong said.

The committee then voted 10-0 to advance the measure.

Original source: CalMatters

The post Cal State Faculty Seek Protections as Campuses Test AI Tools appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

The California State University system and the union representing thousands of professors and lecturers reached a tentative deal on Monday to raise wages, ending what was the largest strike by university faculty members in U.S. history.

The deal, announced by both sides on Monday night, came just hours after the California Faculty Association, the union that represents 29,000 professors, lecturers, librarians, counselors and coaches, began what was planned as a five-day walkout across the 23 C.S.U. campuses, which serve nearly 460,000 students.

The tentative deal means that faculty at the nation’s largest four-year public university system will return to work on Tuesday, union officials said. “This historic agreement was won because of members’ solidarity, collective action, bravery and love for each other and our students,” said Antonio Gallo, associate vice president of lecturers for the state’s southern region, in a statement. “This deal immensely improves working conditions for faculty and strengthens learning conditions for students.”

Union leaders said that wages had not kept up with the high cost of living in California. The deal would immediately increase salaries for all faculty by 5 percent retroactively to July 1, 2023, with another 5 percent raise slated for July 1, 2024, according to union officials. It would also immediately raise the salary floor for the lowest-paid faculty members by $3,000 and increase parental leave to 10 weeks from six. “I am extremely pleased and deeply appreciative that we have reached common ground with C.F.A. that will end the strike immediately,” Mildred García, the California State University chancellor, said in a statement on Monday night. “The agreement enables the C.S.U. to fairly compensate its valued, world-class faculty while protecting the university system’s long-term financial sustainability.”

The C.S.U. strike was the latest in a series of large-scale labor actions nationwide involving workers across industries that are grappling with wages that have not kept pace with high inflation. Hollywood writers and actors and members of the United Automobile Workers launched major strikes last year. Education strikes have also been on the rise in recent years, particularly in California. Los Angeles school employees staged a walkout last March, and Oakland educators went on strike for nearly two weeks in May.

In December 2022, graduate student workers and researchers at the University of California system, the state’s other four-year university system, stopped working for nearly six weeks to protest low wages. It is rarer for university faculty to go on strike, though 9,000 full-time faculty members, graduate workers, postdoctoral associates and counselors at Rutgers University did so last April. Ken Jacobs, co-chair of the Center for Labor Research and Education at the University of California, Berkeley, said the growing unrest among faculty in part reflected universities’ increased reliance on part-time instructors and others who have very low starting pay.

In an interview on Monday night, Ray Buyco, a senior lecturer in the history department at San Jose State University, one of the biggest C.S.U. campuses, noted that the union didn’t achieve its goal of 12 percent raises for all faculty.

But he said he was proud that under the deal, the minimum salary for C.S.U. faculty — currently $54,360 — would increase by $3,000 immediately, and then again by $3,000 on July 1. “This is a real big win for the lowest paid among us,” said Mr. Buyco, who holds multiple jobs to afford living in Silicon Valley. “For a lot of people, it’s really going to affect their lives in a good way.” C.S.U. leaders and the faculty association had been negotiating since May. Union members will vote in the coming weeks on whether to approve the contract.

DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various author’s articles on this Opinion piece or elsewhere online or in the newspaper where we have articles with the header “COLUMN/EDITORIAL & OPINION” do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints or official policies of the Publisher, Editor, Reporters or anybody else in the Staff of the Hemet and San Jacinto Chronicle Newspaper.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Cal State Professors Reach Tentative Deal to End Strike appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.