College Board's Access and Diversity Collaborative

"Holistic Review" and "Race- Conscious Admissions and Enrollment" 

August 2016 Implications from Fisher II: The U.S. Supreme Court’s Guidance for Institutions of Higher Education Regarding Race-Conscious Enrollment Practices

The Access & Diversity Collaborative is a major College Board Advocacy & Policy Center initiative that was established in the immediate wake of the 2003 U.S. Supreme Court University of Michigan decisions to address the key questions of law, policy, and practice posed by higher education leaders and enrollment officials. The Collaborative provides general policy, practice, legal, and strategic guidance to colleges, universities, and state systems of higher education to support their independent development and implementation of access- and diversity-related enrollment policies — principally through in-person seminars and workshops, published manuals and white papers/policy briefs, and professional development videos.

For more information, please visit

EducationCouncil LLC

EducationCounsel LLC (an affiliate of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP) is the College Board’s principal partner in providing strategic counsel and substantive content regarding the relevant legal, policy, and practice issues central to the ADC’s mission. EducationCounsel is a mission-based education consulting firm that combines experience in policy, strategy, law, and advocacy to drive significant improvements in the U.S. education system from pre-K through college and career. EducationCounsel’s work in higher education focuses on issues ranging from access and opportunity to those associated with quality and completion. For more information, please visit

For more information, contact:

Brad Quin, Executive Director, Higher Education Advocacy, The College Board, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Art Coleman, Managing Partner, EducationCounsel, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Terri Taylor, Senior Policy & Legal Advisor, EducationCounsel, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

The Access & Diversity Collaborative:  Institutional Sponsors

1. Austin College

2. Barnard College

3. Boston College

4. Bryn Mawr College

5. Cornell University

6. Dartmouth College

7. Davidson College

8. Emerson College

9. Florida International University

10. Florida State University

11. James Madison University

12. Miami University

13. Mount Holyoke College

14. Northeastern University

15. The Ohio State University

16. Pomona College

17. Princeton University

18. Purdue University

19. Rice University

20. Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

21. Smith College

22. Southern Methodist University

23. Stanford University

24. Syracuse University

25. Texas A&M University

26. University of California, Office of the President

27. University of California, Irvine

28. University of California, Los Angeles

29. University of Connecticut

30. University of Florida

31. University of Georgia

32. University of Illinois

33. University of Maryland, College Park

34. University of Michigan

35. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities

36. University of Nevada, Reno

37. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

38. University of the Pacific

39. University of Pennsylvania

40. University of San Francisco

41. University of Southern California

42. University of Texas at Austin

43. University of Tulsa

44. University of Vermont

45. University of Virginia

46. University of Washington

47. Vanderbilt University

48. Vassar College

49. Virginia Tech

50. Wellesley College

51. Wesleyan University

Note: Enrollmet Data shows that changes to the UC Admission Policies and Financial Decisions put CA Resident Students at a disadvantage for enrollment. 

See: July 18, 2019 Letter to California High School Students and Recent Grads


The Access & Diversity Collaborative: Organizational Sponsors

1. American Association for the Advancement of Science

2. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers

3. American Council on Education

4. American Dental Education Association

5. Association of American Colleges & Universities

6. Association of American Medical Colleges 

7. Center for Institutional and Social Change

8. Law School Admission Council

9. National Association for College Admission Counseling

10. National Association of College and University Attorneys

11. National School Boards Association

12. USC Center for Enrollment Research, Policy, and Practice


The Access & Diversity Collaborative: Partners

EducationCounsel has the privilege of working with a number of visionary partners at any one time. The below list, which includes a subset of our current partners, is representative of the diversity of thought and approach that we believe are crucial in closing the opportunity and achievement gap





Annual Report

Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at All4Ed

The Alliance for Excellent Education is constantly working to create better high schools for all students. The work of the Alliance for Excellent Education is supported by:

AT&T Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
GE Foundation
James Irvine Foundation
Kern Family Foundation
National Public Education Support Fund
Nellie Mae Education Foundation
State Farm
Stuart Foundation
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation



Diversity and Inclusion

Aligned with Our Mission and a Driver of Excellence

The AAMC's commitment to diversity includes embracing a broader definition of diversity and supporting our members' efforts. Diversity and Inclusion at AAMC strives to cultivate Human Capital by enhancing the skills of individuals; build Organizational Capacity by improving institutions’ ability to use diversity as a driver of excellence; and grow a diverse and culturally-prepared health workforce by improving the integration of Public Health concepts into medical education.



America Achieves’ mission is to create clear pathways for economic advancement, civic engagement, and success for all in a rapidly changing economy. We work with educators, employers, and other leaders across sectors to build bridges between education and success in work and life.  With partners, we create proof points of systemic change and success and build, use, and communicate an evidence base of what works. Learn more at

Learn more about Results for America initiative.

Learn more about our College Access and Success and Braven initiatives.

Learn more about our College Access and Success and Braven initiatives.

We are grateful for generous financial support that we have received including funding from the 

Laura and John Arnold Foundation, 
Bloomberg Philanthropies, 
Charles Butt, the Heckscher Foundation For Children, 
Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust, 
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, 
George Kaiser Family Foundation,
Kern Family Foundation,
Edna McConnell Clark Foundation and others.



We are committed to ensuring that all students participating in our public education system -- regardless of background -- graduate prepared for college, careers, and life.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) is a nonpartisan, nationwide, nonprofit organization of public officials who head departments of elementary and secondary education in the states, the District of Columbia, the Department of Defense Education Activity, the Bureau of Indian Education and the five U.S. extra-state jurisdictions.

SCCSSO 2017-2020 Strategic Plan

For all to mean all, it has to mean each. 

For all students to succeed, each student must have access to the resources and educational rigor they need, at the right moment in their education, regardless of their race, gender, ethnicity, language, disability, sexual orientation, family background, or income. We are committed to serving traditionally under-served populations and establishing the platforms necessary to provide the supports needed to ensure equity for all students. Our work supporting students with disabilities and English learners has opened doors to resources for these special populations.



CLASP is a national, nonpartisan, anti-poverty nonprofit advancing policy solutions for low-income people. We develop practical yet visionary strategies for reducing poverty, promoting economic opportunity, and addressing barriers faced by people of color. With 50 years' experience at the federal, state, and local levels, we're fighting back in today's threatening political climate while advancing our vision for the future

Workforce Development
Child Care and Early Education
Young Men and Women of Color
Work-Based Learning and Subsidized Employment
Center for Postsecondary and Economic Success [Restricted Page]
TANF: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
Job Quality and Work/Life
Income and Work Supports
Work Support Strategies
Youth and Young Adults



Our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion

John Podesta founded the Center for American Progress. He is an American political consultant who served as White House Chief of Staff to President Bill Clinton from October 20, 1998 until January 20, 2001 and as Counselor to President Barack Obama from January 1, 2014 until February 13, 2015

American Progress strives to advance progressive values—and there is perhaps no more important progressive value than expanding diversity, inclusion, and opportunity on behalf of every person who lives in our country. At American Progress, we recognize and celebrate an undeniable truth: America’s greatness is defined by the collective strength and richness of its diversity.

The Center for American Progress advances its mission to improve the lives of all Americans with the philanthropic support of generous individual, foundation, corporate, and other partners. We are proud to recognize the following supporters that gave $5,000 or more to further the Center for American Progress’ work during 2018.

In 2018, the Center for American Progress received more than 97 percent of its charitable contributions from individuals and foundations. Corporate funding comprised less than 2 percent of the budget, and foreign government funding comprised less than 1 percent.

Our policy work is independent and driven by solutions that we believe will create a more equitable and just country. Corporate donors are not permitted to remain anonymous, and corporate donations do not fund new research.

$1,000,000 or more

Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund
Ford Foundation
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
The Hutchins Family Foundation
Joyce Foundation
Jonathan and Jeannie Lavine Family Fund
Sandler Foundation
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
TomKat Charitable Trust
Anonymous (5) 




Education Resource Strategies is a national non-profit that partners with district, school, and state leaders to transform how they use resources—people, time and money—so that every school prepares every child for tomorrow, no matter their race or income. In all our work, we focus on the larger picture—how resources work together to create strategic systems that support strong schools. Our non-profit status enables a different kind of partnership with districts and states: one where we participate in the transformation struggle, create insights together, and share lessons with others. More at

District and State Partners:

Los Angeles Unified
Sacramento City Unified School Distrct


Collaborators and Funders

Generous support from national funders makes up approximately 45% of ERS revenue, with the rest coming from local sources to support our deep, multiyear partnerships in districts, states, and schools. This national support enables us to:

  • Leverage our comparative database and findings from deep partnerships to understand how system transformation and strategic resource use drive student outcomes
  • Share learnings and tools with the field to build demand for system and school redesign
  • Build understanding of system transformation and resource allocation among a wider audience of current and up-and-coming district and state leaders and decision makers
  • Influence national and state policy and practice
  • Partner with change agents to accelerate impact
  • Build organizational capacity through investments in recruiting, hiring, staff development, leadership time, and infrastructure

Our current national funders:

Collaboration with change agents in the field is a core component of our organization’s mission. Other influential organizations with whom we collaborate include:



Our Mission

Our mission is to ensure all children from birth through age five have equal access to affordable, comprehensive, high-quality care and education to support their healthy development and help them achieve their full potential in school and life.

What We Do

FFYF works to sustain and expand the support for early learning that exists at the federal level, while identifying and advancing new and innovative ways to increase access to high-quality early childhood education for children from low-income families. We help align best practices with the best possible policies and work with advocacy groups and policymakers on both sides of the aisle to identify federal solutions that work for children, families and taxpayers, as well as states and communities. Early childhood development is a practical, non-partisan issue—so we collaborate with a diverse and wide range of federal and state advocates, business and thought leaders, and policymakers to help build consensus and craft early childhood policies that provide lasting economic and social returns.


Buffett Early Childhood Fund
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Irving Harris Foundation
George Kaiser Family Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Pritzker Children's Initiative
Heising-Simons Foundation
Saul Zaentz Charitable Foundation
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Anonymous Donor



2018 Tax Return

Launched by former Florida Governor Jeb Bush in 2008, the Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd) supports state leaders in transforming education to unlock opportunity and lifelong success for each and every child.

From policy development to implementation, ExcelinEd brings deep expertise and experience to customize education solutions for each state’s unique needs. Focused on educational opportunity, innovation and quality, ExcelinEd’s agenda is increasing student learning, advancing equity and readying graduates for college and career.

For more details about our work, please review our annual reports.

2018 Annual Report

We often think of education reform as policies written in legislation as rules enacted by elected officials and appointed boards. Rather, reform is a profound game changer in the lives of individual children, a gift that allows them to maximize their potential.

We are deeply grateful to our donors who believe in the gift of a quality education, and with their generous support of our work, we are turning reform into reality.

The Foundation for Excellence in Education is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan organization.

Where noted, specific donors support ExcelinEd’s National Summit and Arts for Life program only.

2019 National Summit on Education Reform

Greater than $1,000,000
Bloomberg Philanthropies
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
$500,001 - $1,000,000
Carnegie Corporation of New York
$250,001 - $500,000
The Haslam III Foundation, Inc.
Jaquelin Hume Foundation Personalized Learning
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
The Kovner Foundation
Stiles-Nicholson Foundation
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
$100,001 - $250,000
Bill and Susan Oberndorf Foundation [National Summit]
$50,001 - $100,000
College Board [National Summit]
News Corporation
Pearson, Inc. [National Summit]
Triad Foundation
$25,001 - $50,000
Accelerate Great Schools
John F. Kirtley
Charles Koch Foundation
$10,001 - $25,000
Cambridge Assessment International Education
National Summit
Charter Schools USA
National Summit
The Doris & Donald Fisher Fund at Schwab Charitable [National Summit]
HPS Investment Partners LLC
Hubbard Family Foundation, Inc.
K12 [National Summit]
Steven B. Klinsky  [National Summit]
Kyra Solutions Arts for Life
The Margaret & Daniel Loeb-Third Point Foundation
Northwest Evaluation Association [National Summit]
Publix Super Markets Charities
Arts for Life
Renaissance Learning National Summit
William E. Simon Foundation
Stephenson Foundation
Tennessee State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE)
[National Summit]
Worldwide Interactive Network [National Summit]
Xingda North America
$5,000- $10,000
Amplify Education, Inc. [National Summit]
BrightBytes [National Summit]
The Cobb Family Foundation, Inc.
Arts for Life
Edgenuity, Inc. [National Summit]
Finnegan Family Foundation
Florida Virtual School [National Summit]
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt [National Summit]
Thomas A. & Mary S. James Foundation
Maffei Foundation
Lovett & Ruth Peters Foundation, Inc.
Western Governors University [National Summit]
Dr. Zachariah P. Zachariah



GEEARS is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization. We operate to inspire and provide leadership for a statewide movement on quality early learning and healthy development for all children ages birth through five. GEEARS’ vision is, by 2020, all students will enter kindergarten prepared to succeed and on a path to read to learn by third grade.

Early education helps reduce taxpayer expenses for remedial education, crime and other societal problems.

Involved in the collection of Social Emotion Health Data.


First 2000 Days
Leadership Academy for Better Brains (LABB)
Mayor’s Summer Reading Club
Talk With Me Baby @ Work



Financial Statemenents

Who is Kevin Jennings?

In 2009 President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings as the Assistant Deputy Secretary for the Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN.


In 1990 Kevin Jennings founded the Gay and Lesbian Independent School Teachers Education Network (later changed to GLSEN the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network), which seeks to end discrimination, harassment, and bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

He is the author of six books promoting homosexuality:

Mama's Boy Preachers Son: A Memoir of Growing Up, Coming Out, and Changing Americas Schools.

Becoming Visible: A Reader in Gay and Lesbian History for High School and College Students

Telling Tales Out of School: Gays, Lesbians, and Bisexuals Revisit Their School Days

One Teacher in Ten 1st Ed: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories

One Teacher in Ten 2nd Ed: Gay and Lesbian Educators Tell Their Stories

Always My Child: A Parent's Guide to Understanding Your Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgendered, or Questioning Son or Daughter

The Public demanded Kevin Jennings resignation once they learned about "Fist Gate" and connections to Harry Hay and NAMbLA. 

GLSEN - Boston "TeachOut" Conference

On March 25, 2000 the State of Massachusetts in coordination with GLSEN sponsored an education workshop at Tufts University entitled "TeachOut".

The "Fistgate" Conference

Students were bussed in from high schools across MA. Scott Whiteman, executive director of Parents' RIghts Coalition (now known as MassResistance) personally witnessed what happened and made audio recordings of the event which revealed that students were being instructed on how to perform sex acts that included oral sex, fisting and others.  Kevin Jennings representing GLSEN as the keynote speaker at the Conference defended the event which became nationally famous as "Fist Gate".

MassResistance maintains all documentation (audio and transcripts) of the Conference.

Audio Transcript #1

Audio Transcript #2

Materials handed out included:

Boston Glass handout 

Sequin Packate (Fisting Kit)

First Aid Kit

Planned Parentood (abortion, voluntary sterilization, and contraception)

Other Hand-Outs

Jennings resigned from his position in the Obama Administration and became the President and Chief Executive Officer of Be the Change.

The Bully Project 

The Controversy Over Kevin Jennings / Harry Hay / NAMbLA

Homage to Marxist, Visionary, and Gay Liberation pioneer, Harry Hay

NAMbLA stands for Man Boy Love. The Organization was formed in 1979 as a support group for men that were sexually attracted to boys. NAMbLA also acts as an advocacy organization that works to abolish age-of-consent laws criminalizing adult sexual involvement with minors. The group also campaigns for the release of men who have been jailed for sexual contacts with minors that did not involve coercion.

Jennings is currently president of the Tenement Museum,[34] following a five-year stint as executive director of the Arcus Foundation[35] a philanthropic foundation advancing social justice and conservation issues, which he joined after leading Be the Change for a year and helping launch its Opportunity Nation campaign. From 2008 to 2013, Jennings served as board chair for the Tectonic Theater Project, creators of The Laramie Project. Jennings also served on the board of the Harvard Alumni Association from 2008 to 2014, becoming only its second openly gay elected director in 2008.[36] He founded First Generation Harvard Alumni, an alumni association of graduates who were the first in their families to attend college which offers mentorship and other support and advocacy services for current first-generation students at Harvard.[37] From 2009 to 2015, Jennings served on the board of Union Theological Seminary, where he chaired the Development Committee and served on the Executive Committee. Since 2015, he has been the founding board chair for the Ubunye Challenge, which uses extreme athletic events to raise funds to build schools in southern Africa.

Screen_Shot_2019-07-20_at_5.39.35_AM.png The Helmsley Charitable Trust aspires to improve lives by supporting exceptional efforts in the U.S. and around the world in health and select place-based initiatives. We strive to make a meaningful impact in our focus areas, employing not only our significant financial assets, but also a rigorous and results-oriented approach. We are committed to close and productive partnerships with our grantees, as well as with other funders and impact players in government, academia, and the private sector who share our interests and goals. And we endeavor to be forward-thinking in every aspect of our work, which includes taking risks that others cannot or will not when we conclude that the risk/reward trade-off warrants investment 

IHEP Institute for Higher Education Policy

IHEP is committed to improving college access and success in higher education for all students—with a special focus on underserved populations—by providing timely research to inform public policy decisions. 

IHEP embraces a vision in which all people, regardless of background or circumstance, have the opportunity to reach their full potential by participating and succeeding in higher education.

To fully achieve this vision, the postsecondary community, as a whole, must do more to meet the needs of students who are underserved by the educational system. Institutional leaders and policymakers at all levels must become engaged and must support efforts to dramatically enhance the quality of the postsecondary experience in ways that are relevant to the demands of the 21st century. Only with policies that open doors and stimulate innovation in quality education can we effectively address the needs of all 21st-century students—a growing percentage of whom are low income, students of color, and adults—pursuing new career pathways.

IHEP intends to push the postsecondary community to do more than tinker at the margins. We seek real change. Ultimately, IHEP's aim is to offer underrepresented students a real chance to access a quality, affordable education that not only transforms their lives, but also strengthens the fabric of society.

Funding Partners:

Ascendium Education Group
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
ECMC Foundation
Ford Foundation
The Kresge Foundation
ies National Center for Education Statistics
National Science Foundation
The Laura and John Arnold Foundation
USA Funds
W.K. Kellogg Foundation

Networks and Coalitions

Alliance for Equity in Higher Education
America's Promise Alliance
Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation Library
Data Quality Campaign
Ensuring America’s Future by Increasing Latino College Completion
National Coalition for College Completion
Pathways to College Network
Protect Students and Taxpayers
Save Pell Coalition
The Early Childhood Data Collaborative
Workforce Data Quality Campaign


Our Work

Lumina Foundation is an independent, private foundation in Indianapolis that is committed to making opportunities for learning beyond high school available to all. We envision a system that is easy to navigate, delivers fair results, and meets the nation’s need for talent through a broad range of credentials. Our goal is to prepare people for informed citizenship and for success in a global economy.

Priorities for action

In the years ahead, Lumina will focus on five priorities for action—big ideas about how to ensure six of every 10 working-age Americans have meaningful and marketable credentials beyond a high school diploma by 2025.

Scaling Affordable Pathways
Transparent Credentials
Ceompetency-Based Learning
First Credential for Adults
Quality assurance 

Policy Priorities

Any effort to make meaningful social change is notoriously difficult and inherently risky—and some aspects are too risky for anyone but foundations. Unlike government officials, foundation leaders don’t face re-election. Unlike traditional business entities, foundations aren’t beholden to stockholders. The only bottom line we have is to ensure social progress—a daunting charge that requires strong leadership.

This sometimes means taking on policy discussions at the state and federal levels, stepping into the public square and advocating strongly for public policies that will benefit society. Lumina Foundation believes in being a strong policy advocate, because advocacy is our obligation as an agent of the public trust.

As a private foundation, Lumina does not support or oppose any legislation. Lumina  provides educational information, nonpartisan research and analysis to advance Goal 2025.



The Evolution of SARA

Each step of SARA’s evolution required a great deal of conversation and a lot of debate. The people involved came from various perspectives, including: state regulators, state higher education executive officers (SHEEOs), accrediting organizations, regional higher education compacts, and institutional leaders representing all sectors of higher education. While SARA is certainly not a federal initiative, we appreciate the opportunities we have had to consult with supportive leadership of the U.S. Department of Education during SARA's development.

  • Lumina Foundation provided funding to the Presidents’ Forum, working with the Council of State Governments (CSG), to develop a Model State Authorization Reciprocity Agreement (SARA) that states could adopt to acknowledge other states’ work and decisions in regard to institutional authorization.
  • Building upon the work of the Presidents’ Forum and CSG, the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education (WICHE) advanced “W-SARA” in collaboration with the regional higher education compacts (Midwestern Higher Education Compact, New England Board of Higher Education and Southern Regional Education Board). Similar documents were produced by the other three regional compacts.
  • Combining all prior efforts and input from all stakeholders, in April 2013 the Commission on the Regulation of Postsecondary Distance Education, founded by SHEEO and The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and chaired by former Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley, issued its report: “Advancing Access through Regulatory Reform: Findings, Principles, and Recommendations for the State Authorization Reciprocity.
  • In August 2013, Lumina Foundation provided $2.3 million in funding for regional and national implementation. The National Council for State Authorization Reciprocity Agreements (NC-SARA) was established, and regional and national SARA staff began work. In July 2014, Lumina Foundation provided additional funds to total $3 million for implementation of the initiative.
  • In November 2014, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation provided $200,000 to fund the effort.
  • In January 2014, the higher education compacts began inviting states in their region to participate in SARA.

SARA was developed with input from:

  • A broad advisory committee
  • Regional higher education compacts (MHEC, NEBHE, SREB, WICHE)
  • State regulators
  • State Higher Education Executive Officers (SHEEOs)
  • Accrediting organizations
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • Institutional leaders representing all sectors of higher education


Data Sharing Agreement




Strategic Plan


Mission and Vision

Mission: NNSTOY, an organization of teacher leaders, seeks to transform the teaching profession by using our credible voice to support policies and practices that advance teacher leadership, educator effectiveness, and the conditions, capacity, and culture necessary to support great teaching and learning for all students.

Vision: NNSTOY envisions a transformed teaching profession that provides access to great teaching and learning for all students thereby dramatically improving student outcomes for college, career, and life.

Theory of Change: When we advance teacher leadership to transform the profession and promote the conditions, capacity, and culture needed to foster great teaching and learning for all students, then greater numbers of talented individuals will enter, remain, and impact the profession, access to effective educators and great teaching and learning will increase, and student outcomes for college, career, and life will dramatically improve.


  1. Advance teacher leadership both in the field and by focusing policy at all levels on putting great teaching and learning at the center of the education debate, and creating the kind of profession that attracts, develops, retains, leverages, advances, and values top talent.
  2. Ensure that college and career ready education reforms promote the conditions, capacity, and culture needed to advance teacher leadership, improve educator effectiveness, and increase access to great teaching and learning for all students.
  3. Strengthen NNSTOY’s capacity and position to increase the cadre of teacher leaders, advance teacher leadership and educator effectiveness, and transform the teaching profession.

For more detailed information about NNSTOY, please see our Strategic Plan.


NEA Foundation
Walden University
Teaching Partners
The University of Phoenix
Mount Holyoke College
The Gates Foundation 

Screen_Shot_2019-07-20_at_5.41.22_AM.png NATIONAL PUBLIC EDUCATION SUPPORT FUND


The National Public Education Support Fund was created as part of the Leeds family of philanthropies. by current Board President, Dan Leeds, with former Executive Director, Terri Shuck (bio). The National Public Education Support Fund was established in 2008 to support the Alliance for Excellent Education and other projects working to build the leadership, policy innovations, and public engagement necessary to elevate the learning opportunities and outcomes for all students in America. Terri Shuck served as founding Executive Director for the subsequent ten years, building a community of engaged education funders and advocates along the way.

In 2009, the Support Fund launched the Education Funder Strategy Group (EFSG) to provide foundation leaders with a learning community to exchange ideas on the intersections of philanthropy, policy, research and practice.  Building on this platform, the NPESF staff organized U.S. delegations of federal and state policymakers, funders, and education officials for study tours to learn from countries with the top-performing education systems around the world including Canada, Finland, Germany, Singapore, and Switzerland.

Today, NPESF is a national hub for convening and connecting influential leaders in education philanthropy, advocacy, research, policy, and practice. In addition to the Education Funder Strategy Group, the Support Fund actively organizes the Partnership for the Future of Learning (the Partnership) and sponsors Grantmakers for Thriving Youth. These collaborative networks of funders and thought partners are advancing an equity-centered vision for strengthening public schools that is informed by the science of learning and energized by the moral imperative of preparing each and every child with a world-class education.


Partnership for the Future of Learning


Bay & Paul Foundations
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Ford Foundation
rable Foundation
Walter & Elise Haas Fund
Edward W. Hazen Foundation
William & Flora Hewlett Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
National Public Education Support Fund
NEA Foundation
Nellie Mae Education Foundation
Panta Rhea Foundation
Sandler Foundation
Schott Foundation
Southern Education Foundation
Stuart Foundation

2018 Steering Committee Partners

Shaun Adamec, Adamec Communications
Evelyn Aissa, Reaching Higher New Hampshire
Gregg Behr, Grable Foundation
Daaiyah Bilal-Threats, NEA
Renee Blahuta,
W.K. Kellogg Foundation 
Allison Brown, Communities for Just Schools Fund
Linda Darling-Hammond, Learning Policy Institute
Nick Donohue, Nellie Mae Education Foundation
Roberta Furger, Learning Policy Institute
Dmitri Holtzman, Center for Popular Democracy
Kent McGuire, Hewlett Foundation
Sanjiv Rao, Ford Foundation
David Rattray, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
Kwesi Rollins, Institute for Educational Leadership
Terri Shuck, National Public Education Support Fund
Warren Simmons, National Education Policy Center
Gloria Totten, Public Leadership Institute

Consulting Partners

FrameWorks Institute
Lauren Jacobs
MediaSutra Leadership + Design
180 Studios
Learning Policy Institute
Root + All

Education Funder Strategy Group

Barr Foundation
Bay and Paul Foundations
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Carnegie Corporation of New York
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Communities for Just Schools
Fund Einhorn Family Charitable Trust
Ford Foundation
Foundations for a Better Oregon
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Grable Foundation
W.T. Grant Foundation
Hartford Foundation for Public Giving
Heinz Endowments
Heising-Simons Foundation
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Joyce Foundation
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Longview Foundation
Maher Charitable Foundation
Robert R. McCormick Foundation
Meyer Memorial Trust Enfranchisement Foundation
National Education Association (NEA) Foundation
Nellie Mae Education Foundation
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Raikes Foundation
Rodel Foundation of Delaware
Schott Foundation for Public Education
Albert Shanker Institute
Southern Education Foundation
W. Clement & Jessie V. Stone Foundation
William Penn Foundation
Stuart Foundation
Wallace Foundation
Yellow Chair Foundation

EFSG Steering Committee

Barbara Chow, Heising-Simons Foundation
Itai Dinour, Einhorn Family Charitable Trust
Nick Donohue, Nellie Mae Education Foundation
Frank Gettridge, W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Paul Herdman, Rodel Foundation of Delaware
Jim Kohlmoos, WT Grant Foundation
Dan Leeds, National Public Education Support Fund
Kaberi Banerjee Murthy, Meyer Memorial Trust
Sanjiv Rao, Ford Foundation
Sara Slaughter, W. Clement & Jessie V. Stone Foundation
Bill Tucker, Bill & Melinda Gates Gates Foundation

Consulting Partners

EducationCounsel LLC
Interaction Institute for Social Change

Grantmakers For Thriving Youth

Steering Committee Members
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Bezos Family Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Chan Zuckerberg Initiative
Einhorn Family Charitable Trust
Fetzer Institute
John Templeton Foundation
Lefkofsky Family Foundation
National Public Education Support Fund
NoVo Foundation
Raikes Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Sanford Harmony at National University
Stuart Foundation
Susan Crown Exchange
S.D. Bechtel, Jr. Foundation
Tauck Family Foundation
The Wallace Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
Wend Ventures
William and Flora Hewlett Foundation

Consulting Partners

Ayeola Kinlaw
Kathleen Traphagen


University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students.


A record number of California Resident Students who are in the top 12.5% of their high school graduating class were denied admission to an "appropriate"  UC  campus. Instead, they were placed in a referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only UC option. These are students that qualify for admission to flagship schools like a UC Berkeley or a UCLA. It has been documented that less than 1.1% of the students placed in the referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only UC option choose to enroll. Instead they are forced to seek enrollment in Private Universities and Out-of-State 4- year selective colleges and universities in order to get a comparable education to a UC Berkeley and UCLA, for which they are highly qualified. 

California's best and brightest are being denied educational opportunity so that the University of California can "sell" their seats to Out-of-State and International students at a profit to the University. From 2011 to the present, the University of California has decreased California Resident enrollment from 87% to 76% while Out-of State and International enrollment has gone from 13% to 24%. A 2015 Audit recommended that the University of California cap International enrollment at 5% 

The University of California justifies the continued increase in International enrollment as a means of obtaining diversity. Because of the ethnic make-up of International students the University's student population no longer reflects the diversity of the state which, was the expressed desire of the California Legislature.

88% of the International students come from Asia and the Middle East.

61% of the 88% are from The Peoples Republic of China.

12% represent all other countries in the World

This is not "diversity". If all of our top educational institutions are filled with students from Asia and the Middle East, with an overwhelming majority from The People's Republic of China it could be viewed as a threat to our National Security Interest.  

There are great inequities in the admissions process. The Out-of-State and International students are guaranteed admittance to at least one campus of there choice. California Resident Students are not. The Out-of-State and International students are admitted with lower test scores and lower GPA's than that of California Resident students. Highly qualified California Resident students are denied their schools of choice, and are placed in a referral pool and offered UC Merced as their only UC option. These students are overqualified for UC Merced and that is why 99% refuse to enroll in UC Merced.

As a result of unfair admissions policies, the families of California Resident students suffer financially. In-State Tuition & Fees at the University of California are approximately $14,000 per year. Tuition and Fees at a comparable College or University outside the UC System are now $54,000 per year (a difference of $40,000 per year). After paying their extremely high taxes for a "World Class Education" at a UC school, these families are being forced to spend an additional $40,000 per year in Tuition and Fees alone, to attend a comparable College or University. Over four years that is $160,000 in increased educational expense per family. This is money that leaves the local economy.

Data for the Capistrano Unified School District (CUSD); in Orange County California showed that in 2018, 229 CUSD high achieving students were denied admission to an "appropriate" UC school. The cost to these 229 CUSD families was $49 million dollars over four years. Money that leaves the local economy.

The University of California's admission policies and practices violate California Law and the University of California's Master Plan Mandate. California Residents are entitled to an "appropriate" placement within the UC System, or they should be granted financial reparations to offset the increased educational expense. The University of California cannot be allowed to unjustly enrich its self at the expense of California taxpayers. 

The University of California is double dipping. Not only does the UC "sell" each seat for an average of $44,000, the UC keeps the tax money that has already been allocated to the UC to reduce CA Resident tuition for that seat to $14,000. It is abusive to California taxpayers to have paid $28,000 for a seat that is sold at discounted tuition rates to Out-of-State and International students. International students attend flagship schools like UC Berkeley and UCLA for $44,000 per year in Tuition and Fees while CA Residents are forced out of the UC System and pay $54,000 in Tuition and Fees. Why should California taxpayers subsidize the education of Out-of-State and International students at the expense of their own children?

At the conclusion of this complaint there is a recommendation of how the University of California could immediately (for the Class of 2020) create an additional 26,166 seats for qualified California Residents without additional funding from State taxpayers.

None of the recommendations from the 2015 Audit have been been implemented.

Four years later, a report from the LAO confirms that enrollment of California Resident students continues to decline as the University of California continues to "sell" a greater number of seats every year.

California Resident Students are being denied equality of educational opportunity; a violation of the the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees equal protection of the laws. 

Statement of Facts

1. The University of California is a taxpayer funded educational institution that operates under aMaster Plan that requires California residents to be given priority enrollment.  As a publicly funded institution, the University of California is accountable to the people of California for how well it performs.

"Access and differentiation of admissions pools. The establishment of the principle of universal access and choice, and differentiation of admissions pools for the segments:

• UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of the high school graduating class.

• CSU was to select from among the top one-third (33.3%) of the high school graduating class.

• Calif. Community Colleges were to admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction.

"Access guarantee. Subsequent policy has modified the Master Plan to provide that all California residents in the top one-eighth or top one-third of the statewide high school graduating class who apply on time be offered a place somewhere in the UC or CSU system, respectively, though not necessarily at the campus or in the major of first choice. State law affirms the state’s commitment to fund all eligible California residents."

The University of California is in violation of its' Master Plan Mandate.

The University of California's modified policy violates California Education Code 66202.5.

[Note: The UC continues to administratively modified policy which changes the their Mandate. These administrative changes in policy are in conflict with State Law. State Law requires "appropriate" placement. The UC does not give CA Residents "appropriate" placement, and does not guarantee them admission to at least one campus of their choice. Out-of-State and International students are guaranteed admission to at least one school of their choice. This constitutes Denial of Equality of Educational Opportunity which discriminates against California Resident students.]

2.  California Education Code 66202.5

The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place within the system.The State of California likewise reaffirms its historic commitment to ensure that resources are provided to make this expansion possible, and shall commit resources to ensure that [eligible] students ….. are accommodated in a place within the system.” [CA Education Code 66202.5]

The State of California is in violation of California Education Code 66202.5 

[The University of California should not be required to "sell" seats to raise revenue. The State of California made a commitment to ensure resources are available to accommodate all eligible students an "appropriate" place within the UC system.]

3. In 2019, the State of California is enjoying record high revenues of $209 billion. That is up from $143 billion in 2007-08. The State of California has sufficient revenue to provide a seat for every qualified California resident, but is "choosing" to fund other programs and entitlements that are not Constitutionally mandated. Public Education is the State of California's number one Constitutionally mandated spending priority.

California Budget: 2007-08 and 2019-20

California Budget

The State of California

Has Increased Revenues by 

$66 Billion Since 2007-08

"The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place within the system. The State of California likewise reaffirms its historic commitment to ensure that resources are provided to make this expansion possible, and shall commit resources to ensure that [eligible] students ….. are accommodated in a place within the system.” [CA Education Code 66202.5]

2019-20 $209,069,327 
2018-19 190,319,420 
2017-18 179,450,102 
2016-17 170,727,252 
2015-16 164,703,066 
2014-15 154,937,996 
2013-14 145,826,550 
2012-13 137,327,827 
2011-12 127,370,952 
2010-11 118,755,483 
2009-10 134,764,078 
2008-09 141,038,573 
2007-08 143,408,832 


As an example: California has $55 billion that is currently budgeted for High Speed Rail project which has been partially suspended and may not be built.

California 5-year Infrastructure Plan 

4.  University of California's Referral Pool to UC Merced

California State Auditor Report Number: 2015-107: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students. 

Audit Summary paragraph 5

"Furthermore, over the past 10 years, the university began denying admission to an increasing number of residents to the campuses of their choice. If residents are eligible for admission to the university and are not offered admission to the campuses of their choice, the university offers them spots at an alternative campus through what it calls a referral process. In contrast, nonresidents, if admitted, are always admitted to at least one campus of their choice. Of particular concern is that, over the same time period, the university’s campuses denied admission to nearly 4,300 residents whose academic scores met or exceeded all of the median scores for nonresidents whom the university admitted to the campus of their choice.According to the university, the referral process is critical to it meeting its Master Plan commitment to admit the top 12.5 percent of residents. However, few of the residents whom the university admits and refers to an alternate campus ultimately enroll. In academic year 2014–15 for example, 55 percent of residents to whom the university offered admission to one of the campuses to which they applied enrolled, while only 2 percent of the 10,700 residents placed in the referral pool enrolled."

[Note: UC Merced is not an "appropriate" placement for many students in the Top 12.5% of their high School graduating class]

LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 39

"Eligible Students Have Access to UC System, Not First-Choice Campus. For both freshman and transfer applicants, eligibility guarantees admission to the UC system but not to a particular campus. When applicants are not admitted to their campus of choice, UC refers them to less-selective campuses. Currently, Merced serves as the referral campus for freshman applicants, whereas both Riverside and Merced serve as referral campuses for transfer applicants."

"High School Graduates Projected to Decline Slightly. The Department of Finance projects a 0.8 percent decline in the number of high school graduates in 2018-19 and a 0.4 percent decline in 2019-20. This means that, all other factors staying the same, enrollment demand for freshman slots in 2020-21 would decrease accordingly. This slight decline in high school graduates over the next two years also suggests that enrollment growth at UC could be a lower priority for the Legislature."

LAO: 2019-20 Budget: February 19, 2019 Higher Education Analysis page 43

"Many Students Not Getting Into Campus of Choice. Although UC is admitting all eligible freshman applicants, some of these applications are redirected to Merced. In fall 2017, 10,700 eligible freshman applicants (14 percent) were referred to Merced. Very few of these students (119 or 1.1 percent) elected to enroll at that campus. Students who do not accept admission at UC may end up attending CSU, a private school, or a community college (then transferring to a four-year school, including UC, upon completing their lower-division coursework). Supporting more enrollment growth could enable UC to accommodate more applicants at their campus of choice. The Legislature could weigh this benefit against its other budget priorities."

University of California Freshman Admissions Profiles page 35

UC Merced is a "False Choice" for these "Highly Qualified" students. The admission process for California Residents is a fraud upon the public.

  Admit Rate GPA ACT SAT English SAT Math
UC Berkeley 14.9% 4.16 - 4.30 30 - 35 660 -750 680 - 790
UCLA 14.1% 3.97 - 4.25 24 - 31 600 - 700 620 - 780
UC Merced 66.9% 3.46 - 3.96 19 - 27 510 - 630 510 - 650


The State of California have broken their promise to California Taxpayers and California Resident Students.

2015 Audit of the UC at page 35 

5. Diversity:   

California State Auditor Report Number: 2015-107: The University of California- Its Admissions and Financial Decisions Have Disadvantaged California Resident Students.

Audit Summary paragraph 7

"The university’s admission decisions have also hampered its efforts to meet its own and the Legislature’s desire that the university’s student body reflect the diversity of the State. While underrepresented minorities—which the university considers to be Chicanos/Latinos, African Americans, and American Indians—represent 45 percent of California’s population, they make up 30 percent of the university’s overall undergraduate population. Although nonresidents bring geographic diversity to the university, only 11 percent of domestic undergraduate nonresidents were from underrepresented minorities as of academic year 2014–15. The university will struggle to ensure that its student population reflects the diversity of the State if it continues to increase nonresident enrollment."

CUSDWatch: 2018 International Enrollment Data University of California

Data includes:

Number of Students from each country.

Admissions by Source School (GPA Data showing admissions requirements for International students much lower than for California Resident Students)

88% of International students come from Asia and the Middle East.

61% of the 88% come from The Peoples Republic of China.

27% are from other parts of Asia and the Middle East.

Only 12% of International enrollment represent all other parts of the world.

6. Limiting International enrollment to 5%

The Auditor recommended limiting International and Out of State enrollment to 5% to that "highly qualified" California Residents would be guaranteed enrollment at the "appropriate" school of their choice as mandated by law.

2015 Audit of the UC at page 6

"Specifically, the Legislature should consider limiting the percentage of undergraduate nonresidents that the university can enroll each year. Between academic years 2005–06 and 2007–08— before the fiscal crisis—nonresidents comprised about 5 percent of the university’s new undergraduate enrollment. By academic year 2014–15, that percentage had climbed to more than 17 percent, which translated into more than 7,200 additional new nonresident undergraduates enrolled over a 5 percent limit. Implementing a 5 percent limit on new nonresident enrollment would allow the university to enroll an equivalent number of additional new resident undergraduate students per year—about 7,200—more than the number it enrolled in academic year 2014–15."

[Note: California Resident Student enrollment has declined to 76%. Nonresident enrollment has increased to 24%] 

[Note: The Conclusion illustrates how we could limit International enrollment to 5% as recommended by the auditor and keep the same projected budget for 2019-20] 

2015 Audit of the UC at page 7 

"To ensure that the university meets its commitment to residents and to bring transparency and accountability to admission outcomes, the Legislature should consider excluding the students who the university places in the referral pool and who do not ultimately enroll at the referral campus when calculating the university’s Master Plan admission rate until the percentage of students who enroll through the referral process more closely aligns with the admission percentages of the other campuses.

[Data from the Capistrano Unified School District shows that actual enrollment rate for admission into a UC is between 5% and 8%, way below the 12.5% guarantee]



2018 Data:

Aliso Niguel High School

Capistrano Valley High School

Dana Hills High School

San Clemente High School

San Juan Hills High School

Tesoro High School

7. Financial Penalties to California Resident Students

Case Study Capistrano Unified School District

The Cost to CUSD Families ($49 million dollars out of our local economy).

The average Tuition and Fees for a comparable education to a UC flagship school (UCLA or UC Berkeley) is $54,000 per year.

229 students X $54,000 per year = $12,366,000 ($12.4 million dollars) 

Over 4 years that is $49,464,000 ($49 million dollars) Money that will not be spent in our local economy if these students are forced to attend Out of State colleges and Universities.

These families who have paid extremely high taxes all of their lives, with the promise that all students in the top 12.5% of their high school graduation class would be admitted to an "appropriate" University of California school. They are now forced to pay a second time to receive a comparable education. That is "Double taxation" which unjustly enriches the University of California at the expense of California Resident Students. 

The auditor states that this happens to over 10,000 California residents each year ($54 billion per year). Local elected leaders should care about the financial drain from the State of California and their local communities. 

8. Financial Benefit to the University of California 

University of California Tuition and Fees: $14,335 (Average Tuition and Fees)

2018 Tuition & Fees (varies among each campus)  

 2018 Tuition and Fees
  Resident Nonresident Tuition



CA Resident









Berkeley  $14,184  $14,184  $28,992 $43,176
Davis $14,402 $14,402 $28,992 $40,434
Irvine $15,450 $15,450  $28,992 $44,442
UCLA $13,225 $13,225 $28,992  $42,217
Merced $13,538 $13,538  $28,992  $42,530
Riverside $15,602 $15,602  $28,992 $44,594
San Diego  $14,429 $14,429  $28,992 $43,421
Santa Barbara  $14,424 $14,424  $28,992  $43,416
Santa Cruz  $13,962 $13,962  $28,992  $42,954


When the UC "sells" a seat it receives Out-of-State and International Tuition of $43,799.


They have already received California Taxpayer money in the amount of $28,992 per seat which has been paid by taxpayers to bring the cost of In-State Tuition down to $14,335 per seat. So the UC is actually "double dipping". The UC receives $43,799 + 28,992 per seat they "sell" = $72,791 per seat.

The UC "sold" 229 CUSD seats and made a profit of $16,669,139. The UC profitted at the the expense of CUSD families by forcing QUALIFIED CUSD students to attend college outside the UC system, and passing an increased expense of $12.4 million on to CUSD families- that is a double tax for a promise that was broken.

The UC System advertises that all students in the Top 12.5% of their high school graduation class will get a seat, although it may not be at the campus of their choice- and they do so knowing they have defrauded the public with the false choice of UC Merced as their only option.

The UC continues to administratively change their admissions policies behind closed doors in violation of State Law. 

This is the UC current stated policy: 

The law is still 12.5% in the "Local Context". The UC has changed that to 9%.

If a California Residents student is not admitted to any UC campus of their choice, they will now only be offered a space at another campus "If Space is Available". That is not in compliance with State Law.

The UC must follow the law.

Taxpayers should not be forced to fund a private institution that denies seats to California Residents. 


Recommendation on How to Create More Seats for California Residents Without the Need for Increased Tax Revenue

The University of California claims that it is being forced to raise revenue by "selling" seats to Out of State and International students due to a lack of funding. 


Source: University of California Fall Enrollment at a Glance

  Total Enroll CA Resident Out of State International Other/ Unknown   
  Nonresident Enrollment  
2011 231,268 231,268 (87%) 9,735 (4.2%) 15,561 (6.7%) 4,697 (2%)  
2012 233,198  199,013 (85.3%)  10,711 (4.6%)    18,681   (8%)  4,793 (2.1%)  Audit Period
2013 238,699  198,703 (83.2%)  12,298 (5.2%)  22,578  (9.5%)  5,120 (2.1%) 
2014 246,631  200,345 (81.2%)  13,668 (5.5%)  26,369 (10.7%)  6,249 (2.5%) 
2015 251,714 199,676 (79.33%) 14,703 (5.8%) 30,728 (12.2%) 6,607 (2.6%)  
2016 264,426 206,602 (78.1%) 15,862 (6%) 34,674 (13.1%) 7,324 (2.8%)  
2017 273,179 210,873 (77.2%) 16,281 (6%) 37,844 (13.9%) 8,181 (3%)  
2018 280,380 212,998 (76%) 18,353 (6.5%) 40,219 (14.3%) 8,810 (3.1%)  

 [Note: Other/Unknown is probably "Undocumented"]


Current projected revenues from Tuition and Fees

$5.68 billion dollars (2018-19 Enrollment data).

University of California Enrollment and Revenue from Tuition and Fees
Source: 2019-20 Governor's Budget: University of California # Students % Tuition & Fees Revenue from Tuition & Fees
CA Residents 212,998 76.0%  $14,025 $2,987,296,950
Out of State 18,353 6.5%  $43,779  $803,475,987
International 40,219 14.3%  $43,779


Other/Unknown aka Undocumented 8,810 3.1%  $14,025  $123,560,250
Total 280,380      $5,675.080.788

The Auditor recommended limiting International students to 5% This would create an additional 26,164 seats for California Residents.

Change Tuition and Fees for Out of State and International Students. Right now the UC "sells" seats to Out of State and International students for $43,779 per student. CA Residents who are denied seats are paying $54,000 to attend colleges outside the UC System. Why is the University of California giving nonresidents such a great discount? Many Universities now have three Tuition rates:

  Current Tuition   and Fees Proposed Tuition and Fees
CA Resident $14,025 $14,025
Out-of-State Domestic Resident $43,779 $54,000 
International $43,779 $59,000 


This would create 26,166 new seats for CA Residents at no increased expense to California Taxpayers or a loss of revenue to the University of California.

2018-19 University of California Enrollment and Revenue from Tuition and Fees
  # Students Tuition & Fees Revenue from Tuition & Fees

CA Residents

Limit International student enrollment to 5%. This would create 26,166 new seats for California Residents.

212,998 + 26,166  = 239,164

And increase the % of CA Residents From 76% to 85.3% 

These new seats must be reserved for "NEW" students that are recent High School Graduates and all students in the top 12.5% must be given placement at an appropriate campus. (Eliminate the Referral Pool) 


Current Revenue: 


Proposed Revenue:


Increase in Revenues


Out of State

The number of students would remain the same 18,353 (6.5%)

Increase Tuition from its current





Current Revenue:


Proposed Revenue:


Increase in Revenue



Limit International enrollment to 5%. 

Current enrollment is 40,219 International students

Proposed 14,019 students 

Increase Tuition and Fees from its current




Current Revenue:


Proposed Revenue:


Decrease in Revenue


Other/Unknown aka Undocumented

Enrollment 8,810 students



No Change in revenues



No Change in total enrollment:



Current Revenue


Proposed Revenue:


That leaves a shortfall of


The Legislature is enjoying record high revenues and should pay the additional $379 million.


or the UC could increase CA Resident Tuition by an additional $1,585 per year to break even. 

$14,025 + $1,585 = $15,160 





APN 679-151-02


APN 679-151-08


APN 679-02-17



Marblehead Community Association working with the City of San Clemente got the conservation easements on the above parcels.

OC Board of Supervisors Agenda Staff Report 6-24-14


Entering into an Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits (Fee Credit Agreement) with RMV Community Development, LLC, and its associated entities (Developer) will allow the County of Orange to grant Transportation Corridor Agency (TCA) Fee Credits, as defined in the Major Thoroughfare and Bridge Fee Program for the TCA (Fee Program), to compensate Developer for right-of-way, grading, and roadway construction costs that Developer would incur for the construction of "F" Street.  Provision of the fee credit has been authorized by the TCA and will allow the early delivery of "F" Street, providing needed roadway options for South County.


CUSDWatch: Rancho Mission Viejo, The County of Orange, TCA and CalTRANS Appear to be Admitting to Committing Criminal Fraud.

CUSDWatch: TCA Has Been Denied Waste Water Discharge Permits 6 Times! [so they are illegally using the Ranch permit for Los Patrones 

Compliance with CEQA: The Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits is statutorily exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15273.  CEQA Guidelines Section 15273 a,b,c provides for the exemption of charges by public agencies, which the public agency finds are necessary for the purpose of obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain service within the existing service areas. The Irrevocable Offer to Convey Real Property and Memorandum of Fee Credit Agreement and the approval of Grant Deed for acceptance of "F" Street alignment, are necessarily included elements of the Project considered in Final EIR No. 589, certified by the Board on November 8, 2004, which adequately addressed the effects of the proposed Project. No substantial changes have been made in the Project; no substantial changes have occurred in the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken; and no new information of substantial importance to the Project, which was not known or could not have been known when the Final EIR No. 589 was certified has become known; therefore, no further environmental review is required. 


Exhibit A - Draft Grant Deed
Exhibit B - Irrevocable Offer to Convey

Contracts entered into to commit an illegal act are not enforcable. 


Attachment A - Agreement for Grant of Fee Credits D14-034

Exhibit A - Grant Deed to County of Orange

Exhibit B - Irrevocable Offer to Conve

Agenda Report SC City Council August 21, 2018 











 APN 125-102-01




APN 125-096-47


APN 125-096-48


APN 125-096-49











July 18, 2019

Dear California High School Students and Recent High School Graduates-

I am aware that many of California's highest achieving students have been stunned to realize that despite all of the time, the effort and the work that you did to prepare yourself for college admissions, that the results may not have turned out as you expected.

I want to explain why, so that none of you will feel that it was the result of anything that you did or did not do. The State of California has failed to honor its promise to California resident students. And, the University of California has strayed from its Master Plan Mandate. As a result, many of you have been denied the educational opportunity that was guaranteed to you by the State of California under Ed Code Section 66202.5 and California's Master Plan for Higher Education.

California's Master Plan for Higher Education was enacted in 1960 as the Donahoe Higher Education Act.  The Plan sought to assure appropriate educational opportunities at reasonable costs to all qualified California students. 

In setting up California's higher education system the Master Plan established principals of universal access for entrance into each of its three segments:

The UC was designated the state's primary academic research institution. The UC was set up to provide undergraduate, graduate and professional education and doctoral degrees in law, medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine. The UC was to select from among the top one-eighth (12.5%) of California's high school graduating class.

The CSU's were to provide undergraduate and graduate education in teaching and professions other than those designated to the UC. CSU was to select from among the top one-third (33.3%) of California's high school graduating class.

California's Community Colleges were designed to admit any student capable of benefiting from instruction. 

The Master Plan has an "Access Guarantee" which was intented to guarantee all qualified California resident students who graduated from high school, an appropriate seat at a UC or CSU. 

Working together, the UC and the California Legislature codified this promise with Education Code section 66202.5 which states:

"The University of California and the California State University are expected to plan that adequate spaces are available to accommodate all California resident students who are eligible and likely to apply to attend an appropriate place within the system.The State of California likewise reaffirms its historic commitment to ensure that resources are provided to make this expansion possible, and shall commit resources to ensure that [eligible] students ….. are accommodated in a place within the system.”

The State of California has broken its promise to you, and to the California taxpayer.

The University of California has unilaterally modified the Master Plan such that it no longer complies with Education Code 66202.5.

A 2015 audit of the University of California found that the changes in admissions policies put California resident students at a disadvantage to Out-Of-State and International students by denying California resident students admission to a school of their choice. In contrast, Out-Of-State and International students are guaranteed admission to at least one school of their choice.

California Resident students who were eligible for admission to a UC or CSU, and were not offered admission to a school of there choice, are offered spots at an alternative campus through a referral process.

Unfortunately for California resident students, the state has allowed the UC system to sell so many seats to Out-Of-State and International students, that the only school that is available through the referral process in the UC is UC Merced.

The 2015 audit and a more recent LAO report found that less then 1% of the California resident students offered UC Merced declined to enroll. UC Merced is not an appropriate school for many California resident students placed in the referral pool. In fact the 2015 audit found that 4,300 California resident students that were placed in the referral pool had academic scores that met or exceeded all median scores for nonresidents whom the University admitted to a school of their choice.

As a result of these policy changes, California resident student enrollment continues to decline, from 87% in 2011 to 76% in 2018. Out of State and International student enrollment has increased from 13% in 2011 to 24% in 2018. 

The University system no longer gives priority enrollment to California resident students. In fact, priority is given to International students from Asia and the Middle East. 

88% of the International students come from Asia and the Middle East.

61% of the 88% are from The Peoples Republic of China.

12% represent all other countries in the World

When the Master Plan was conceived, the California Legislature expressed its desire to have the student population reflect the diversity of the State. However, the current ethnic make-up of  students is so strongly weighted to students from Asia and the Middle East that the student population no longer reflects the diversity of the State of California.

As a qualified California resident student, you are being denied equality of educational opportunity which is a violation of your civil rights.

California taxpayers have been financially damaged as a result.

Qualified California resident students who were denied an appropriate seat at a UC or CSU are forced to seek admission to Out-of State and Private Universities outside the UC system. Tuition for a California resident student at a UC or CSU is about $15,000 per year. Tuition at an Out-of -State or Private College or University outside the UC system is approximately $55,000 per year. This means that California families denied admission will be forced to pay an additional $160,000 [$55,000 - $15,000= $40,000 X 4 years] their child with an equivalent education. Contrast that to an International or Out -of-State student that attends California schools at $44,000 per year, and is subsidized by your families tax dollars.

The State has $55 billion dollars in the High Speed Rail account, a project that is not moving forward. As such they have the money to keep their promise to California resident students.

In an effort to try and ring this injustice to the publics attention so that this can be fixed, last night at the CUSD BOT meeting I presented them with a RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF FAIR ADMISSION OF CALIFORNIA RESIDENT STUDENTS TO THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA and requested that it be placed on the next board meeting agenda with a request that the Resolution be sent to the Attorney General for the State of California for the purpose of mandating that the University of California comply with the law and the original intent of the UC Master Plan Mandate which was to guarantee admission to all "QUALIFIED" graduates of California Public High Schools that are in the top 1/8, (12 1/2 per cent) of their high school graduating class; and give them admission to at least one UC School of their choice.

Dawn Urbanek,

Taxpayer and Student Advocate 


Supporting Documentation