17 ms·

All foster kids in California can now attend any state college for free

737 points by pessimizer 3y ago

starside 3y ago
I think this is a good idea. That is the first time in a long time I have thought "wow, the state is doing something useful with my tax dollars"
- tarr11 3y ago
  also free lunches in schools https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-universal-free-school-meals/ https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...
  - megaman821 3y ago
    All school lunches and breakfasts should be free. It is abhorrent that any child in a country as rich as the United States should go hungry at school.
    - torstenvl 3y ago
      As a taxpayer who funds public schools, I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the food of those who keep my pay low. Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Food is cheap. Bureaucrats are not.
        brightlancer 3y ago
        > Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Maybe. Don't assume yes.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Maybe. Don't assume yes. I'm not. I'm positing yes based on the cheapness of food.
        ericd 3y ago
        The rich are going to be paying the majority of the taxes that fund this. Is it unacceptable that their children be allowed to get a small fraction of the food their parents paid for?
      - chowells 3y ago
        The ruling elite don't let their children eat school food in the first place.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
      - MikeTheGreat 3y ago
        On the one hand I 100% agree On the other hand we've got the phrase "Programs for the poor become poor" for a reason. Having a program that benefits everyone means that we all can support it out of enlightened self-interest. We can reduce overhead by providing food for everyone and not putting in place a complex government bureaucracy to carefully approve some people but not others, to give lobbyists a chance to advocate for the benefit of their constituents at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc.
        duskwuff 3y ago
        Moreover, if free food is only available to low-income students, having to eat that food can become a symbol of poverty, and some students may feel ashamed to receive it. Making it available to all students, without reservation, avoids that.
        pessimizer 3y ago
        Also, you can literally lower the quality of the food.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        l33t233372 3y ago
        People say that, but it’s not like they have a flashing light that says “TIMMY IS POOR AND THIS LUNCH IS FREE,” they just punch their code or swipe their card or whatever and it rings up as free.
      - reverend_gonzo 3y ago
        The ruling elite don’t go to public school. They already pay for their children’s food.
      - pessimizer 3y ago
        You shouldn't be a sucker. For the ruling elite, it's an insignificant tax rebate. The overhead of a means-testing system to make sure that people who have been taxed for 50 free lunches don't get one is a waste that wouldn't be tolerated, except for the fact that we know the hurdles of bureaucracy will eliminate most of the people who qualify, bringing down costs by leaving children hungry. edit: The idea that your tax dollars are going to pay for the universal benefit of someone who pays more taxes than you do is mathematically nonsensical. It's purely a gimmick. It's a shell game with no shells other than innumeracy.
        confidantlake 3y ago
        If you have kids yes. If you don't then you could still being paying for some rich kid's food. Still I would have no problem with this since the alternative is to means test which is just wasteful bureaucracy. Plus I am perfectly willing to subsidize the one rich kid so the 10 poor ones can eat.
      - megaman821 3y ago
        There is no reason not make it universal. A lot of kids will still bring their own lunches. Teens in high school will choose paid lunch options some of time. The program would probably have a similar cost to SNAP. Hungry kids don't learn well, so feeding them will lead to a modest increase of academic achievement on average. Academic achievement correlates with higher earnings, thereby paying for the program with their future taxes.
        giantg2 3y ago
        This seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm skeptical about the last part. It seems we're in a race to the bottom and "good" jobs are increasingly scarce. It seems there aren't enough good jobs for the population. Basically, the logic you laid out is probably sound for small marginal changes, but I'm skeptical it would scale well due to the competition and limited resources.
      - dymk 3y ago
        The number of ruling elite is laughably small compared to the number of poor in the United States
        torstenvl 3y ago
        And that justifies regressive taxation policies... how?
        dymk 3y ago
        Sorry, where's the regressive tax policy? If this is being funded by a graduated income tax (like what most states have, or federal income tax), then it's being funded by a progressive tax.
      - spamizbad 3y ago
        The solution to this problem (Wealthy elites getting free stuff) is to just ensure they're taxed appropriately. I do not care if the children of the wealthy are receiving free lunches as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes. Chances are, even with California's weird tax system, they are paying more than your typical middle class family.
      - Rebelgecko 3y ago
        In theory I agree with you, but in practice I think means testing does more harm than good. Some parents aren't gonna fill out the paperwork and we shouldn't punish kids for that. It also adds overhead to the programs. And I don't think the ruling elite's kids are eating free lunch at public schools :)
        Rebelgecko 3y ago
        Adding on to this a bit, if the ruling elite's children did eat the same cafeteria good, I think it would be a net boon for society. Think of how every family in Finland taking home a newborn baby gets a box of starter supplies. The box doubles as a crib, so most babies, regardless of their parents wealth, spend their first days sleeping in the same cardboard box. IMO it's cool as shit to start everyone off the same way like that. From what I understand it also helps reduce the sort of stigma that can hurt kids taking advantage of free lunch programs [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp
      - ochoseis 3y ago
        What if you thought of it as: perhaps at your income level your taxes fund one kid's meals, and at the elite's income level their taxes fund ten kids' meals? IDK how the actual numbers work, but that would be the gist in a progressive tax system.
      - themitigating 3y ago
        Since the children of elites represent such a small percentage and the cost per child is low is it really that big of a hit?
      - weaksauce 3y ago
        > but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food. I would hope they get taxed more under this regime so it's not really you subsidizing it for them.
      - fpig 3y ago
        It's much simpler to provide public services to everyone and handle economic inequality through taxation. Means-tested benefits result in bureaucracy that sometimes costs more than the increase in cost from giving the benefit to everyone would be, they create poverty traps, and they screw over people in atypical situations (i.e. a kid whose parents care so little they can't even be bothered to get the paperwork done that proves their low income status).
      - Aperocky 3y ago
        By blanket helping everyone no matter the wealth, you end up helping mostly non-wealthy people. By helping specifically the poor/not wealthy, you end up with a massive bureaucracy trying to decide who is wealthy enough, and add paperwork on top of poorer people to "request" such benefit. The cost benefit just isn't there.
      - ericd 3y ago
        The rich will pay far more into the program for free lunches that include their kids than their kids will receive back. And it'll probably make the program more efficient, since there won't be a pointless bureaucracy devoted to making sure there's no one getting free lunches who doesn't deserve those low-quality free lunches (the horror).
    - SamReidHughes 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - jackson1442 3y ago
        The problem isn’t with the kids either, we shouldn’t be punishing kids for the wrongs of their parents.
      - Ecoste 3y ago
        And the country should just sit and watch those kids gets neglected and abused?
      - ericjmorey 3y ago
        Kids don't apply for SNAP. If their parents fail them, children should not be blamed. There's no excuse for governments in the USA to not provide free breakfast and lunch to any child, no questions asked. Not doing so is absolutely a problem with every level of government that fails to do so.
      - turtlesdown11 3y ago
        Your comment is dripping with ignorance and arrogance
      - hparadiz 3y ago
        Spending millions on the education of strangers only for them not to learn much because they are hungry over a meal worth $1.50 in state funding. Fiscal "conservative" everyone.
  - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
    I love this policy. If it's free then no-one brings their own, and no-one is looked down at. BUT... I checked the menu of a school where I used to live... Pizza, hot dogs, fries... We can make the most delicious vegetables, roasted, ... And they get carbs. Nutrition taken from nature decomposed in its elemental components put back together for the perfect addictive meal...
    - steve_adams_86 3y ago
      I’m not opposed to the carbs. I think if they’re in a whole food form, the kids are so much better off than if they’re eating processed… Anything. Not teaching kids to eat whole foods is one of the greatest assaults on public health we’ve done in the last century, from what I can see. They become adults who normalize eating these perfect addictive meals, who allow their own kids access to the same junk, and then they their own kids as well, and so on. Until today when grocery stores are quite literally predominately food that you shouldn’t eat. You just shouldn’t. Most common diseases in north America are highly correlated with diet. I find that so profound. We’re all eating ourselves to death in some form or another, it seems. To have that start in a public school is a real affront to individual and social well-being.
      - armchairhacker 3y ago
        We teach kids to eat whole foods, we just don't teach them well. I remember in school we had a lot of programs for nutrition which were basically health-food propaganda. Yes it was the "Food Pyramid" so not ideal, but there was a clear message to eat minimally-processed foods (fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains) and avoid junk. We watched "Supersize Me" and a documentary which explained all these "vegan / whole foods" diets. But kids still eat junk because they're kids and they don't really understand or care, and everyone around them eats junk; and then grow up and continue to eat junk because it's cheaper/easier and they did as kids. Also, we had fruits and vegetables in every school lunch, as well as salads and wraps as alternatives to the hot meal. But the fruits were often wilted or bruised, and vegetables canned and/or overcooked. If we had good-tasting healthy food, I'm sure more kids would eat it; but the school lunch was school-lunch quality, and bad quality degrades healthy food more than it does junk food. The problem is, if we want to teach kids how to eat unprocessed food so that they actually listen, we need nuance and funding. To teach them "healthy <> bad tasting", we need to give them access to good-tasting healthy meals, which are hard to cook. Or if we just keep scaring them into eating less junk, we need to change society so that it's more ingrained that junk food is bad outside of school; right now they get mixed messages, where 1 semester of health class says "junk food bad", but few people care anywhere else. But nuance, funding, and affecting culture are things the government is really bad at, especially when it's an issue as "insignificant" as eating healthy.
  - mertd 3y ago
    Universal pre-k was also a good move.
  - KomoD 3y ago
    Children in the US had/have to pay for food in school?
Bostonian 3y ago
[flagged]
- jrockway 3y ago
  Don't people with the lowest test scores benefit the most? If you already know everything, what's the point of going to school?
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    The common belief among all Harrison Bergeron referencers is that resources should be concentrated on those who need them the least, because those are the people who have shown merit.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - analog31 3y ago
    Not necessarily. At some level you run the risk of not being able to get through college at all. Accreditation requires courses to be conducted at a certain level. In fact as I understand it the correlation to success in college is how the standardized test companies originally sold themselves. My college math advisor was a consultant for one of those companies. Now, I hope California has included community colleges and trade schools in this program, where some of those students might stand a better chance. Also, the stuff tested by the tests is pretty remedial to begin with.
  - nvahalik 3y ago
    That depends. Are the test scores because they don't care? Or are the scores reflective of someone without means? On the former, probably not. They'll just suck up the oxygen in the room. The latter? Sure, they could benefit immensely.
  - kortilla 3y ago
    The test is to ensure you know enough to be able to get something out of college and not slow all of the other students down. It’s not testing if you already know college materials.
remote_phone 3y ago
I hate Newsom but I think this is a good idea. Education and support should be 100% free for those in the more difficult economic situations.
- ecf 3y ago
  I don’t agree. My parents are low middle class. We didn’t qualify for any financial aid and they were tasked with trying to find a way to send both my sister and I to college which they couldn’t afford. So what did we do? Take out a bunch of loans. Good thing I got a decent job that can pay for them. Too bad for my sister who had a masters and is making $35k as a teacher in Tennessee which is barely more than minimum wage.
  - tester457 3y ago
    I think it should be free because of stories like yours. It shouldn't be a requirement to be saddled with debt to participate in society.
    - bagacrap 3y ago
      I agree it should cost less, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think the government (taxpayers) should be paying these tuitions. The problem is that tuition is ridiculous.
      - hollandheese 3y ago
        You do understand that the state won’t be paying individual tuition to state-run universities. They’ll just fund their actual operations.
        bagacrap 3y ago
        No, that's not clear. I'm sure the state (and other) universities would say that tuition already funds "actual operations". What guidelines do bureaucrats inflict on universities to ensure there are no fake operations sucking up funds? Can you point me to the specific state funding proposals you're talking about?
Waterluvian 3y ago
64% of foster youth graduating high school is far far higher than I thought it would be. I’m beyond delighted by this. And if that 64% has free access to post-secondary… that’s a cycle breaking opportunity.
- hotpotamus 3y ago
  I wonder how many non-foster kids graduate high school?
  - bushbaba 3y ago
    In California it’s ~85% of high school students graduate on average across all demographics https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp
    - giantg2 3y ago
      Every time I see these numbers I'm shocked at how it's not >98%.
      - serf 3y ago
        the high school era in ones' life has a lot of opportunity for personal hardship; in many ways it's the beginning of personal responsibility for a lot of people. in other words : it's less likely that an elementary school student has to juggle an unwanted pregnancy, an estranged family, and a job at McDonalds; it's not that uncommon later on.
        giantg2 3y ago
        I do get that. I knew people who had a kid, family issues, substance issues, etc and still managed to graduate. I know there are probably others who wouldn't graduate in similar situations or worse ones. It still shocks me that the dropout rate is so high.
getmeinrn 3y ago
This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation, not because their skin color or gender.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  Affirmative action shouldn't ever have been a contest with prizes for the most unfortunate. It was sold as a way to fix the wrongs of slavery. Having been enslaved legally in the US is not a race, it's an atrocity. The reason we should be paying for foster kids' college is because the state is their parent, so it's our responsibility. In a country that wasn't shit, regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards of the state lived, and how well-raised they were. There's no clearer illustration of our values than the fact that children who, through no fault of their own, have become the responsibility of the state are treated like unwanted trash. The idea that a society like that could figure out how to ethically treat prisoners or immigrants is laughable.
  - bagacrap 3y ago
    > regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards of the state lived In this utopia you describe, I'd think all kids lived like kings.
    - j45 3y ago
      Learn like kings Grow like kings Dream like kings Give back like kings
      - noah_buddy 3y ago
        History is not my forte but it’s funny to use kings in this metaphor.
        j45 3y ago
        It sure is. Not my choice of word. ;)
happytiger 3y ago
About time. These kids needs all the love and support we can give them. Now let’s invest in a free state education for every citizen!
- WalterBright 3y ago
  We already do. There's probably a free public school in your neighborhood.
  - happytiger 3y ago
    College my dear friend. I apologize, but I meant post secondary.
    - Google234 3y ago
      We have community college + low cost state colleges. CC is almost free, cheap state colleges probably will cause a little debt. Some part time job will probably offset most of this. Completely free will be abused probably, let’s be honest
ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago
As a raging capitalist, I am for this
- kibwen 3y ago
  In order for market economies to work (to say nothing of democracies), an educated populace is non-negotiable. The irony is that if you want free markets to work efficiently, you can't leave education to the free market.
ecf 3y ago
Where is the support for the middle class? The ones deemed too wealthy for financial aid, but not wealthy enough to actually afford the cost of college? Just more tax dollars being siphoned away from my family that got zero assistance.
- j45 3y ago
  The cost of post secondary education is untenable. Post secondaries are quite overpriced. Community / state colleges are usually priced better. Can you give an example of a college that you are priced out of? The increasing gap between graduates and the non market because the rate of change in the world is outpacing the rate of change in curriculum to keep up in post secondaries is an opportunity. Effective allocation of public funds and ensuring there is value received for the public purse is something that needs to be taken up by the average person to learn about and to ask informed questions about.
- jrflowers 3y ago
  It sucks when tax dollars that weren’t going to me in the first place continue to not go to me. It’s like nobody wants to discuss how people getting things is the same as the government taking away things I never had!
- TheBigSalad 3y ago
  I grew up on welfare in a shit neighborhood, but now I'm an upper middle class engineer. Trust me, poor people need the help. We are all indirectly benefitting from people getting out of poverty.
  - kypro 3y ago
    Unsympathetic take. Lots of people can use help. Just because you're on welfare doesn't necessarily mean your financial position is any worse (especially as a dependant). I'm not from the US, but here in the UK when I when went to college and university the state would give students several thousand pounds a year for their parents being unemployed. My dad was a postman who used to do delivery driving on the weekend for extra cash for my family. We were poor, although I was deemed "wealthy" enough to be given no help because my dad made around £30,000. The end result of this was that I basically the poorest person I knew from 16-21 because my friends either had unemployed parents so were given thousands of pounds to spend on laptops and things to help them get through university, or had rich parents who could buy stuff for them. Because my dad was a postman I ended up having to work two jobs while at university and had to go into my overdraft almost every month. Looking back now I am grateful for that hellish 5 years since I actually gained a lot of professional experience in tech during that time, but it came at the cost of severe depression and physical exhaustion. I cannot explain how difficult this period of time was for me. It shaped who I am today but I wished daily that my dad was unemployed so I didn't have to go through it.
ProllyInfamous 3y ago
ALL kids in Tennessee can now attend any two year trade school upon graduation from a state high school. Adults can, as well, based on certain additional requirements (that really are easy after you've lived in-state).
- ec109685 3y ago
  California’s junior colleges are super cost effective as well.
- pirate787 3y ago
  And Tennessee has no state income tax.
  - traviswt 3y ago
    We've had the HOPE scholarship[1] for a very long time now too. Funded by the state lottery. [1] - https://www.tn.gov/collegepays/money-for-college/tn-education-lottery-programs/tennessee-hope-scholarship.html https://www.tn.gov/collegepays/money-for-college/tn-educatio...
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    The taxpayers must pay for it somehow. Income tax at least equalizes the sacrifice each taxpayer makes (to some degree). How do TN taxpayers pay for it?
    - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
      There's no personal income tax in Tennessee. I suspect that it is cost-beneficial (where-ever the funding source) to have a technical/trade -educated workforce. "Rising waters lift all ships."
brightlancer 3y ago
What is the legal status of foster kids with regard to general financial aid? Is their parents' income considered to be $0? Does the government want the parents' income information? (This used to be the norm for non-custodial and estranged parents.) It feels great to say "California's most vulnerable young people can take agency over their lives by seeking higher education," but how much is this changing? And since we know most high school grads aren't prepared to basic college freshman classes (cough social promotion cough), then how many of these foster kids are really going to benefit, rather than just spinning their wheels before they fail out? This feels a lot like a big headline that makes people feel good but doesn't actually do much (if anything, or makes things worse).
- charles_f 3y ago
  Something doesn't need to be perfect to be better. We're talking about 60k kids who will be able to receive an education instead of 4% of that. It won't solve hunger, but for these kids it's a good news.
- tyrfing 3y ago
  0 EFC. No info on parents required (FAFSA) and asset information can also be skipped. Anything past community college won't necessarily be covered, though. About 61% of foster youth in California graduate high school on time. Past 18 things turn into a messy patchwork of semi support, simply successfully transitioning to a point with a high school diploma, a job, and stable housing is a success story. Many are homeless at points, and living on the street is the backup plan if anything goes wrong. (Note: non-CA experience, but Google shows a similar alphabet soup in CA.) NFYI says about 3-4% of foster youth graduate with a 4 year degree.
lopkeny12ko 3y ago
It's odd that many of the same people cheering this decision are the same ones crying for meritocracy in the workplace. Handouts and free passes as long as you're characterized by $some_immutable_trait? Then don't be upset when you're passed over for a promotion to fulfill a company diversity promotion threshold.
- lern_too_spel 3y ago
  This doesn't guarantee them a spot at any public university. It guarantees that their education will be paid for at any public university they are admitted to and subsequently matriculate at.
- j45 3y ago
  There is no shortage of studies verifying babies do not select the families, location or socio-economic conditions they are born into, but the world will treat them as if they chose poorly. Or look down on them. It’s funny hearing about the concepts of handouts when the people most offended are too often including those who have access to some amount of privilege but not enough.. and end up upset about sharing it. There is a lot of easily accessible learning available there for your statement that would help illuminate a bigger picture for you. You are already part way there by being engaged on it. Mostly about it’s not being about an immutable trait. Knowing this requires you to exert more than a basic interpretation and opinion. If you don’t think it’s a big deal would you switch positions with someone in that position since it’s so easy?
- pessimizer 3y ago
  "Foster child" is no more an immutable trait than "lack of ability to speak French."
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  They still have to qualify academically. This just removes the financial barriers.
AYBABTME 3y ago
Now we're talking about actually useful policy. Glad that my taxes pay for this, versus all the other stuff.
version_five 3y ago
I'm not against it necessarily, but curious about the stats or wisdom on what happens to people who get a free ride like this, as in do they complete university successfully and usefully or do they milk their free room and board and fail out eventually? Handouts are not generally a great way of accomplishing goals. I don't have a better idea, just thinking if there can be a way to make sure there is some ownership on the part of the students.
osigurdson 3y ago
Well kids, see you later. Let’s talk again when you are 30.
TheDudeMan 3y ago
I wonder if this will cause any parents to give their kids up in an effort to let them attend college.
999900000999 3y ago
Now in a better world we'd drop a word from this sentence and make it free for all state residents. That's closer to what it used to be. Realistically this doesn't change much since it's extremely unlikely a foster kid wouldn't qualify for a full ride prior to this. The only people who really get screwed are middle class families who make too much to qualify for aid, but can't really afford to pay for school.
- soared 3y ago
  Middle class families can pay for school: In 2019-20 in state tuition and fees in California averaged $9k. 100% of which you can take a federal loan and payback <$150/mo that begins 6 months after graduating. Rent/living cost is another matter, but tuition can be still be reasonable if you state in state and don’t attend expense universities. But I totally agree - there is a lower/lower middle class of people that attending college is vet challenging and free tuition for all at some schools would be massively beneficial for them and society.
  - rahimnathwani 3y ago
    UCLA's web site says an in-state student can expect to pay $34,667 per year for tuition, room, board and health insurance. If your parents earn $150k/year in California, their after-tax income will be about $100k/year.
    - 999900000999 3y ago
      Even if you live at home and stay on your parents plan in state tuition is 14k. Add another 2k for books and at a minimum your talking 16k. That's a pretty big chunk if your only at 150k for a family of 4. If I was to propose something I'd make in state tuition fully free for residents, and if that cost too much maybe make people do the first 2 years at a community college. Honestly I credit community college with turning my life around. I ended up graduating from a state school and I'm very happy with my degree! It's not in computer science, but after a very long journey I feel it's something to be proud of. The best part about college is your free to take time off and finish later.
armchairhacker 3y ago
I thought this was already a thing. It turns out to be partially covered in 35 states: > As of 2021, there are 35 states that have some type of statewide postsecondary education tuition waiver or scholarship program for students who have been in foster care. > 24 states have statewide tuition waivers: Alaska[1], Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, (Dark blue color on the map) > 4 states have state funded grant programs for students in foster care are: Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia. (Light blue color on the map) > 7 states have state funded scholarship programs for students in foster care are: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Washington. (Purple color on the map) > 16 states and the District of Columbia have only the Federal Chafee Educational Training Voucher: Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming (Yellow color on the map) https://depts.washington.edu/fostered/tuition-waivers-state https://depts.washington.edu/fostered/tuition-waivers-state (bonus points for software gore right below the title) What I was thinking of was the Chafee Educational Training Voucher, which gives up to a $5000/year reimbursement: > Students can get up to $5,000 per academic year based on cost of attendance, available funds, the student’s unmet financial need. > Note: For the federal fiscal year 2022, the voucher’s maximum annual amount was temporarily increased to $12,000. On Oct. 1, 2022, the maximum award will revert to $5,000 per year. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/foster-youth-vouchers.pdf https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/foster-youth-vouc...
- Avshalom 3y ago
  N.B. in New Mexico we recently made state school free for all residents.
Racing0461 3y ago
What's to stop parents from putting their kids up for foster care when they turn 15 so they can attend college at 16 for free?
- ekam 3y ago
  The state only takes care of kids if a court assumes jurisdiction under WIC 300. You can only voluntarily give ups kid within the first few days of birth (this is known as safe surrender https://advokids.org/legal-tools/safe-surrender/ https://advokids.org/legal-tools/safe-surrender/) otherwise courts usually assume jurisdiction due to cases of abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc
  - cool_dude85 3y ago
    Not sure how it works in California but where I live you can sign a voluntary termination of parental rights and if you're in a position to consider it they usually won't argue as far as I know.
- ckwalsh 3y ago
  When kids first enter foster care, the state assumes care and tries to work with the parents to resolve whatever issues caused the kids to be removed. During this time, the kid ideally stays with another family member or friend, but with a random foster family if not. The parents remain the legal guardians and have opportunities to see their kids, coordinated by the state. If reunification is determined to be impossible, the state goes to court to sever parental rights. This determination normally takes a year plus, and usually means the parents have checked out or are no longer trying to resolve the issues. Only once parental rights are severed is the child considered "legally free", and is eligible to be adopted into another family. In the ideal case, this is the family they were staying with before parental rights were severed, but not necessarily. I haven't looked into the details of this article, but I assume these funds will be used for kids that have had parental rights severed, and were either adopted or "age out" of the foster care system. Once in foster care, most kids are traumatized. Once parental rights are severed, it is incredibly difficult for parents to "re-adopt" their kid. I sure hope no parents are so short sighted to put their child through hell to reduce the cost of college.
throwaway72762 3y ago
Is everything culture war all the time now on this site? Every post becomes a stupid comment section where we'd be better off getting an LLM to write the comments for us. Here it's people trying to insert their affirmative action narratives and also rant about California a bit (in a backhanded way). We can do better.
- rodgerd 3y ago
  > Is everything culture war all the time now on this site? Always has been.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  Disclaimer: have been here since HN started, didn't bother making an account for five years or so. It seems increasingly common that long-time HN readers lament that the fraction of computing news has diluted at an increasing rate itself. I wonder if there's a way to measure that.
- version_five 3y ago
  What are you looking for? Do you think the post shouldn't have been on here at all? Or if it's here do you think discussion should be limited to a certain perspective or a certain axis? Admitting a political story inherently admits political opinions. What would "doing better" look like?
  - throwaway72762 3y ago
    I completely understand that everything has a political dimension. And the broader culture war is leaving nothing untouched. But that means we have less room for a shared community even in small spaces like this. What I lament is that the community of tech folks, embodied by sites such as HN, have splintered and moved away from their roots. I mean go watch the documentaries about the early days of the 70s and 80s and even the not so early days of the 00s: vision, tinkering, weirdness, geekery, cussedness, anti-authority, pay it forward, etc. That is what defined the scene. That's our roots and I'd like it to come through in comments here. Instead it's just culture war: us vs. them, grievances, IGMFU, and all the rest.
nickstinemates 3y ago
This is awesome.
YLYvYkHeB2NRNT 3y ago
not for free. At no expense to them and the tax payer flits the bill as usual. Carry on.
- vpribish 3y ago
  obviously. we all get that part.
MisterBastahrd 3y ago
What's surprising is that it took California so long. My ex-gf adopted her sister's kids, and that came with multiple things for the kids, in Texas: 1. free healthcare 2. free college education 3. supplemental income
- aidenn0 3y ago
  It was already nearly free; tuition was covered, and a patchwork of benefits covered most of room, board, and books. Or at least that's what they told us when we became foster parents 14 years ago.
01100011 3y ago
Can I just give my 17 year old up for adoption then? Just curious...
- ren_engineer 3y ago
  this, almost inevitable this will be abused. Way too much money at stake for it not to be, I've heard plenty of stories of rich people who bought houses in certain zip codes so their kids get preferential treatment
  - skeaker 3y ago
    And more power to those who abuse it since college should certainly be free for everyone anyways.
- LouisSayers 3y ago
  ... and can a relative be a foster parent?
  - vel0city 3y ago
    Bonus points idea. Have a grandparent take up residency in a target out of state area in a cheap apartment a few years ahead of time, just to meet residency requirements. Then at 17 have the grandparent foster the minor. Boom, free college wherever you want.
for_i_in_range 3y ago
I like this.
DropInIn 3y ago
If the state can't take care of its kids then we all have no justification to expect individuals to be able to. This shouldn't have ever been a question and should have been the default.
kepler1 3y ago
Too bad we'll fail to give those kids a proper math education well before they reach college. https://calmatters.org/education/2021/11/california-math/ https://calmatters.org/education/2021/11/california-math/
dv_dt 3y ago
We should go back to a California State university system that had capacity for any resident who academically qualified, and was tuition free. This was actually more cost effective than the byzantine money handling administrative policies we have now.
WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago
A step in the right directly, hopefully soon enough, every kids should be able to
kbos87 3y ago
This is already a thing in many states. I know in Massachusetts, foster kids have long been eligible for free in-state tuition.
xmddmx 3y ago
This idea is not really new - the California Master Plan for Education essentially promised a free higher education to everyone in California. In 1960. [1] As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Hig...
- ajju 3y ago
  They implemented a great component of those ideas. Seems like cause for at least some celebration, right? :)
  - xmddmx 3y ago
    I'm an educator, and a social democrat (approximately) so "yes"? What saddens me is that grand (and simple) plan "free education for all" gets watered down and chipped away to "free education for those who have money or connections" and later attempts to shore it up offten amount to "free education for $special_group". While I don't deny $special_group should get free education, what gets me is all the special-pleading going on. In OOM programming terms, it's like we had a universal principle which was easy to implement, and this has now been replaced by a bunch of switch/case statements...
    - lisper 3y ago
      I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.
      - xmddmx 3y ago
        "social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.
dusted 3y ago
[flagged]
Cypher 3y ago
Why so many people leaving cali? it sounds like a wonderful place to live investing in the future.
RagnarD 3y ago
No, it isn't "free" - and those who actually make the money to support the unlimited taxation that pay for the "free" stuff are actively leaving the tax farm that is California.
- WWLink 3y ago
  It may not be free, but it's certainly quite cheap.
stevenjgarner 3y ago
I'm all for making education more accessible, but why does it have to be one extreme or the other (free or tuition) - if taxpayers are making education free, can't we levy a requirement for the graduate to at least volunteer Peace Corps style? Perhaps the term of volunteering could be inversely proportional to their grade such that someone who drops out early has to volunteer for a longer period of time.
- pawelmurias 3y ago
  It's not volunteering if you are forced to do it.
  - stevenjgarner 3y ago
    Agreed. From the JFK mindset of “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”, I could see a system where a certain level of volunteering (either by the students or their surrogates - parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, etc) might make one eligible for discounted/free tuition.
- nxx788 3y ago
  Then it's not free. Opportunity cost is real. I don't ask my kid to volunteer because he got a chicken pox vaccine, he just gets to not have chicken pox for free. And that's ok. We can choose to make the next generations lives better than ours, even if we gain no material benefit ourselves. (Though I'd argue that an educated youth does materially benefit the populace.)
  - stevenjgarner 3y ago
    Nothing is free. It is estimated that state and local governments spend 9 percent of state and local direct general spending on higher education [1]. One could argue that the opportunity cost of higher education to taxpayers is 9% of their work life. [1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/higher-education-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...
Sparkyte 3y ago
What people are failing to understand with this is that this is target people who are foster and don't have a financial supporter. I see people talk bad and stuff about how this shouldn't be. However those with parents usually have some sort of financial support. It does suck it is free-free, because it doesn't teach the foster kid important life lessons, but there is more merit to this. I still think the kid has to pass the accepting test and I think this is the case. If the kid does well, passed the acceptance test they are clear to learn. Foster kids are not adopted kids, you can adopt but that makes them your kid. Foster kids have sponsor dads and moms.
- leafmeal 3y ago
  >It does suck it is free-free, because it doesn't teach the foster kid important life lessons, but there is more merit to this. What about the many countries with free university for everyone? Are those students missing out on important life lessons as well?
  - Sparkyte 3y ago
    Colleges are not Universities and often are for profit. Universities are also for profit in the United States, and I would love it if US had a free tier University for all. That won't happen because of US government.
    - dukeyukey 3y ago
      Some US universities are for-profit (as in, can pay out dividends to owners). Most aren't.
steve76 3y ago
[dead]
9991 3y ago
You get more of what you incentivize.
cat_plus_plus 3y ago
I'll take it, but I wish 16 continuous years of education were not required for basic life success. Germany seems to have a better system where schools teach useful job skills and paid apprenticeships help refine these. Especially for foster youth, it seems important to have some income as well as place in society as soon as possible. Provided they can even get into a college in the first place with limited opportunity to focus on academics.
EchoReflection 3y ago
Oh awesome, maybe California can overtake Colorado for "most in-debt state in the US". Economic stewardship is nonsense anyway.
_8j50 3y ago
Why is California uniquely... nice and compassionate to it's people? It's not liberalism because new england is probably even more liberal? Is it the economy? The weather?
- xkbarkar 3y ago
  Uhh. Google tent cities for a start. California is pretty brutal.
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Not really, those people won't be allowed to have tents like that in most states' major cities, california tolerates the fact that they simply exist there
- dukeyukey 3y ago
  More than half of US states already do something like this, including 5/6 New England states (Vermont is the one that doesn't).
  - _8j50 3y ago
    Didn't know, i just keep seeing them pass laws like this.
LIzzyytujghf 3y ago
[dead]
alangibson 3y ago
Great. Now let's work on striking "foster" and "California" from that headline.
- localplume 3y ago
  I mean, no. it should be state-by-state thing but if all states implement it then great. but it shouldn't be federally mandated. maximizing state autonomy is a good thing.
  - alangibson 3y ago
    I guess that comes down to if you think the USA is actually a country or not. Historically state autonomy has not been good unless you like living in the premodern era. See for instance Jim Crow and the Dobbs decision.
ThinkBeat 3y ago
This is no doubt good. It is also a strange patch. I wonder if this could plausibly cause some families to purposefully get kids placed into foster care 1 or 2 years before college. Hopefully not. Usually that whole experience is a nightmare. Letting everyone attend state college for free is the real deal. To save costs fire 90% of the admin staff. (I have not done research on the California state specifically but most colleges have absorbed far too many admin roles. Then due to cost not done enough to expand the teaching staff)
hermannj314 3y ago
Any links to the bill? For many, foster care is a temporary program with an agency directive at reunification of the family. I was a foster parent and one kid was briefly in the system due to a clerical issue where the father was not awarded custody after the mother was arrested. Would that 14 day clerical issue now be awarded with a free education? Cause that system can be easily gamed.
keiferwiseman 3y ago
If I was in California and had kids I would simply abandon them and then foster them so they would get free tuition.

737 points by pessimizer 3y ago

I think this is a good idea. That is the first time in a long time I have thought "wow, the state is doing something useful with my tax dollars"

tarr11 3y ago
also free lunches in schools https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-universal-free-school-meals/ https://www.nycfoodpolicy.org/states-that-have-passed-univer...
- megaman821 3y ago
  All school lunches and breakfasts should be free. It is abhorrent that any child in a country as rich as the United States should go hungry at school.
  - torstenvl 3y ago
    As a taxpayer who funds public schools, I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > I find it acceptable to subsidize the food of those who are struggling, but I do not have any desire to subsidize the food of those who keep my pay low. Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Food is cheap. Bureaucrats are not.
      - brightlancer 3y ago
        > Doesn't the means-testing bureaucracy frequently outweigh any potential savings? Maybe. Don't assume yes.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > Maybe. Don't assume yes. I'm not. I'm positing yes based on the cheapness of food.
        ericd 3y ago
        The rich are going to be paying the majority of the taxes that fund this. Is it unacceptable that their children be allowed to get a small fraction of the food their parents paid for?
    - chowells 3y ago
      The ruling elite don't let their children eat school food in the first place.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
    - MikeTheGreat 3y ago
      On the one hand I 100% agree On the other hand we've got the phrase "Programs for the poor become poor" for a reason. Having a program that benefits everyone means that we all can support it out of enlightened self-interest. We can reduce overhead by providing food for everyone and not putting in place a complex government bureaucracy to carefully approve some people but not others, to give lobbyists a chance to advocate for the benefit of their constituents at the expense of everyone else, etc, etc.
      - duskwuff 3y ago
        Moreover, if free food is only available to low-income students, having to eat that food can become a symbol of poverty, and some students may feel ashamed to receive it. Making it available to all students, without reservation, avoids that.
        pessimizer 3y ago
        Also, you can literally lower the quality of the food.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        l33t233372 3y ago
        People say that, but it’s not like they have a flashing light that says “TIMMY IS POOR AND THIS LUNCH IS FREE,” they just punch their code or swipe their card or whatever and it rings up as free.
    - reverend_gonzo 3y ago
      The ruling elite don’t go to public school. They already pay for their children’s food.
    - pessimizer 3y ago
      You shouldn't be a sucker. For the ruling elite, it's an insignificant tax rebate. The overhead of a means-testing system to make sure that people who have been taxed for 50 free lunches don't get one is a waste that wouldn't be tolerated, except for the fact that we know the hurdles of bureaucracy will eliminate most of the people who qualify, bringing down costs by leaving children hungry. edit: The idea that your tax dollars are going to pay for the universal benefit of someone who pays more taxes than you do is mathematically nonsensical. It's purely a gimmick. It's a shell game with no shells other than innumeracy.
      - confidantlake 3y ago
        If you have kids yes. If you don't then you could still being paying for some rich kid's food. Still I would have no problem with this since the alternative is to means test which is just wasteful bureaucracy. Plus I am perfectly willing to subsidize the one rich kid so the 10 poor ones can eat.
    - megaman821 3y ago
      There is no reason not make it universal. A lot of kids will still bring their own lunches. Teens in high school will choose paid lunch options some of time. The program would probably have a similar cost to SNAP. Hungry kids don't learn well, so feeding them will lead to a modest increase of academic achievement on average. Academic achievement correlates with higher earnings, thereby paying for the program with their future taxes.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        This seems to make sense on the surface, but I'm skeptical about the last part. It seems we're in a race to the bottom and "good" jobs are increasingly scarce. It seems there aren't enough good jobs for the population. Basically, the logic you laid out is probably sound for small marginal changes, but I'm skeptical it would scale well due to the competition and limited resources.
    - dymk 3y ago
      The number of ruling elite is laughably small compared to the number of poor in the United States
      - torstenvl 3y ago
        And that justifies regressive taxation policies... how?
        dymk 3y ago
        Sorry, where's the regressive tax policy? If this is being funded by a graduated income tax (like what most states have, or federal income tax), then it's being funded by a progressive tax.
    - spamizbad 3y ago
      The solution to this problem (Wealthy elites getting free stuff) is to just ensure they're taxed appropriately. I do not care if the children of the wealthy are receiving free lunches as long as they're paying their fair share of taxes. Chances are, even with California's weird tax system, they are paying more than your typical middle class family.
    - Rebelgecko 3y ago
      In theory I agree with you, but in practice I think means testing does more harm than good. Some parents aren't gonna fill out the paperwork and we shouldn't punish kids for that. It also adds overhead to the programs. And I don't think the ruling elite's kids are eating free lunch at public schools :)
      - Rebelgecko 3y ago
        Adding on to this a bit, if the ruling elite's children did eat the same cafeteria good, I think it would be a net boon for society. Think of how every family in Finland taking home a newborn baby gets a box of starter supplies. The box doubles as a crib, so most babies, regardless of their parents wealth, spend their first days sleeping in the same cardboard box. IMO it's cool as shit to start everyone off the same way like that. From what I understand it also helps reduce the sort of stigma that can hurt kids taking advantage of free lunch programs [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22751415.amp
    - ochoseis 3y ago
      What if you thought of it as: perhaps at your income level your taxes fund one kid's meals, and at the elite's income level their taxes fund ten kids' meals? IDK how the actual numbers work, but that would be the gist in a progressive tax system.
    - themitigating 3y ago
      Since the children of elites represent such a small percentage and the cost per child is low is it really that big of a hit?
    - weaksauce 3y ago
      > but I do not have any desire to subsidize the ruling elite (who, in many cases, intentionally keep working class pay low). They can pay for their own children's food. I would hope they get taxed more under this regime so it's not really you subsidizing it for them.
    - fpig 3y ago
      It's much simpler to provide public services to everyone and handle economic inequality through taxation. Means-tested benefits result in bureaucracy that sometimes costs more than the increase in cost from giving the benefit to everyone would be, they create poverty traps, and they screw over people in atypical situations (i.e. a kid whose parents care so little they can't even be bothered to get the paperwork done that proves their low income status).
    - Aperocky 3y ago
      By blanket helping everyone no matter the wealth, you end up helping mostly non-wealthy people. By helping specifically the poor/not wealthy, you end up with a massive bureaucracy trying to decide who is wealthy enough, and add paperwork on top of poorer people to "request" such benefit. The cost benefit just isn't there.
    - ericd 3y ago
      The rich will pay far more into the program for free lunches that include their kids than their kids will receive back. And it'll probably make the program more efficient, since there won't be a pointless bureaucracy devoted to making sure there's no one getting free lunches who doesn't deserve those low-quality free lunches (the horror).
  - SamReidHughes 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - jackson1442 3y ago
      The problem isn’t with the kids either, we shouldn’t be punishing kids for the wrongs of their parents.
    - Ecoste 3y ago
      And the country should just sit and watch those kids gets neglected and abused?
    - ericjmorey 3y ago
      Kids don't apply for SNAP. If their parents fail them, children should not be blamed. There's no excuse for governments in the USA to not provide free breakfast and lunch to any child, no questions asked. Not doing so is absolutely a problem with every level of government that fails to do so.
    - turtlesdown11 3y ago
      Your comment is dripping with ignorance and arrogance
    - hparadiz 3y ago
      Spending millions on the education of strangers only for them not to learn much because they are hungry over a meal worth $1.50 in state funding. Fiscal "conservative" everyone.
- WirelessGigabit 3y ago
  I love this policy. If it's free then no-one brings their own, and no-one is looked down at. BUT... I checked the menu of a school where I used to live... Pizza, hot dogs, fries... We can make the most delicious vegetables, roasted, ... And they get carbs. Nutrition taken from nature decomposed in its elemental components put back together for the perfect addictive meal...
  - steve_adams_86 3y ago
    I’m not opposed to the carbs. I think if they’re in a whole food form, the kids are so much better off than if they’re eating processed… Anything. Not teaching kids to eat whole foods is one of the greatest assaults on public health we’ve done in the last century, from what I can see. They become adults who normalize eating these perfect addictive meals, who allow their own kids access to the same junk, and then they their own kids as well, and so on. Until today when grocery stores are quite literally predominately food that you shouldn’t eat. You just shouldn’t. Most common diseases in north America are highly correlated with diet. I find that so profound. We’re all eating ourselves to death in some form or another, it seems. To have that start in a public school is a real affront to individual and social well-being.
    - armchairhacker 3y ago
      We teach kids to eat whole foods, we just don't teach them well. I remember in school we had a lot of programs for nutrition which were basically health-food propaganda. Yes it was the "Food Pyramid" so not ideal, but there was a clear message to eat minimally-processed foods (fruits, vegetables, dairy, grains) and avoid junk. We watched "Supersize Me" and a documentary which explained all these "vegan / whole foods" diets. But kids still eat junk because they're kids and they don't really understand or care, and everyone around them eats junk; and then grow up and continue to eat junk because it's cheaper/easier and they did as kids. Also, we had fruits and vegetables in every school lunch, as well as salads and wraps as alternatives to the hot meal. But the fruits were often wilted or bruised, and vegetables canned and/or overcooked. If we had good-tasting healthy food, I'm sure more kids would eat it; but the school lunch was school-lunch quality, and bad quality degrades healthy food more than it does junk food. The problem is, if we want to teach kids how to eat unprocessed food so that they actually listen, we need nuance and funding. To teach them "healthy <> bad tasting", we need to give them access to good-tasting healthy meals, which are hard to cook. Or if we just keep scaring them into eating less junk, we need to change society so that it's more ingrained that junk food is bad outside of school; right now they get mixed messages, where 1 semester of health class says "junk food bad", but few people care anywhere else. But nuance, funding, and affecting culture are things the government is really bad at, especially when it's an issue as "insignificant" as eating healthy.
- mertd 3y ago
  Universal pre-k was also a good move.
- KomoD 3y ago
  Children in the US had/have to pay for food in school?

Bostonian 3y ago

[flagged]

jrockway 3y ago
Don't people with the lowest test scores benefit the most? If you already know everything, what's the point of going to school?
- pessimizer 3y ago
  The common belief among all Harrison Bergeron referencers is that resources should be concentrated on those who need them the least, because those are the people who have shown merit.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- analog31 3y ago
  Not necessarily. At some level you run the risk of not being able to get through college at all. Accreditation requires courses to be conducted at a certain level. In fact as I understand it the correlation to success in college is how the standardized test companies originally sold themselves. My college math advisor was a consultant for one of those companies. Now, I hope California has included community colleges and trade schools in this program, where some of those students might stand a better chance. Also, the stuff tested by the tests is pretty remedial to begin with.
- nvahalik 3y ago
  That depends. Are the test scores because they don't care? Or are the scores reflective of someone without means? On the former, probably not. They'll just suck up the oxygen in the room. The latter? Sure, they could benefit immensely.
- kortilla 3y ago
  The test is to ensure you know enough to be able to get something out of college and not slow all of the other students down. It’s not testing if you already know college materials.

remote_phone 3y ago

I hate Newsom but I think this is a good idea. Education and support should be 100% free for those in the more difficult economic situations.

ecf 3y ago
I don’t agree. My parents are low middle class. We didn’t qualify for any financial aid and they were tasked with trying to find a way to send both my sister and I to college which they couldn’t afford. So what did we do? Take out a bunch of loans. Good thing I got a decent job that can pay for them. Too bad for my sister who had a masters and is making $35k as a teacher in Tennessee which is barely more than minimum wage.
- tester457 3y ago
  I think it should be free because of stories like yours. It shouldn't be a requirement to be saddled with debt to participate in society.
  - bagacrap 3y ago
    I agree it should cost less, but I don't understand why everyone seems to think the government (taxpayers) should be paying these tuitions. The problem is that tuition is ridiculous.
    - hollandheese 3y ago
      You do understand that the state won’t be paying individual tuition to state-run universities. They’ll just fund their actual operations.
      - bagacrap 3y ago
        No, that's not clear. I'm sure the state (and other) universities would say that tuition already funds "actual operations". What guidelines do bureaucrats inflict on universities to ensure there are no fake operations sucking up funds? Can you point me to the specific state funding proposals you're talking about?

Waterluvian 3y ago

64% of foster youth graduating high school is far far higher than I thought it would be. I’m beyond delighted by this. And if that 64% has free access to post-secondary… that’s a cycle breaking opportunity.

hotpotamus 3y ago
I wonder how many non-foster kids graduate high school?
- bushbaba 3y ago
  In California it’s ~85% of high school students graduate on average across all demographics https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp https://www.cde.ca.gov/ds/ad/datasummary.asp
  - giantg2 3y ago
    Every time I see these numbers I'm shocked at how it's not >98%.
    - serf 3y ago
      the high school era in ones' life has a lot of opportunity for personal hardship; in many ways it's the beginning of personal responsibility for a lot of people. in other words : it's less likely that an elementary school student has to juggle an unwanted pregnancy, an estranged family, and a job at McDonalds; it's not that uncommon later on.
      - giantg2 3y ago
        I do get that. I knew people who had a kid, family issues, substance issues, etc and still managed to graduate. I know there are probably others who wouldn't graduate in similar situations or worse ones. It still shocks me that the dropout rate is so high.

getmeinrn 3y ago

This is what affirmative action should be... helping people out based on their individual situation, not because their skin color or gender.

pessimizer 3y ago
Affirmative action shouldn't ever have been a contest with prizes for the most unfortunate. It was sold as a way to fix the wrongs of slavery. Having been enslaved legally in the US is not a race, it's an atrocity. The reason we should be paying for foster kids' college is because the state is their parent, so it's our responsibility. In a country that wasn't shit, regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards of the state lived, and how well-raised they were. There's no clearer illustration of our values than the fact that children who, through no fault of their own, have become the responsibility of the state are treated like unwanted trash. The idea that a society like that could figure out how to ethically treat prisoners or immigrants is laughable.
- bagacrap 3y ago
  > regular people would be jealous of how kids who were wards of the state lived In this utopia you describe, I'd think all kids lived like kings.
  - j45 3y ago
    Learn like kings Grow like kings Dream like kings Give back like kings
    - noah_buddy 3y ago
      History is not my forte but it’s funny to use kings in this metaphor.
      - j45 3y ago
        It sure is. Not my choice of word. ;)

happytiger 3y ago

About time. These kids needs all the love and support we can give them. Now let’s invest in a free state education for every citizen!

WalterBright 3y ago
We already do. There's probably a free public school in your neighborhood.
- happytiger 3y ago
  College my dear friend. I apologize, but I meant post secondary.
  - Google234 3y ago
    We have community college + low cost state colleges. CC is almost free, cheap state colleges probably will cause a little debt. Some part time job will probably offset most of this. Completely free will be abused probably, let’s be honest

ldjkfkdsjnv 3y ago

As a raging capitalist, I am for this

kibwen 3y ago
In order for market economies to work (to say nothing of democracies), an educated populace is non-negotiable. The irony is that if you want free markets to work efficiently, you can't leave education to the free market.

ecf 3y ago

Where is the support for the middle class? The ones deemed too wealthy for financial aid, but not wealthy enough to actually afford the cost of college? Just more tax dollars being siphoned away from my family that got zero assistance.

j45 3y ago
The cost of post secondary education is untenable. Post secondaries are quite overpriced. Community / state colleges are usually priced better. Can you give an example of a college that you are priced out of? The increasing gap between graduates and the non market because the rate of change in the world is outpacing the rate of change in curriculum to keep up in post secondaries is an opportunity. Effective allocation of public funds and ensuring there is value received for the public purse is something that needs to be taken up by the average person to learn about and to ask informed questions about.
jrflowers 3y ago
It sucks when tax dollars that weren’t going to me in the first place continue to not go to me. It’s like nobody wants to discuss how people getting things is the same as the government taking away things I never had!
TheBigSalad 3y ago
I grew up on welfare in a shit neighborhood, but now I'm an upper middle class engineer. Trust me, poor people need the help. We are all indirectly benefitting from people getting out of poverty.
- kypro 3y ago
  Unsympathetic take. Lots of people can use help. Just because you're on welfare doesn't necessarily mean your financial position is any worse (especially as a dependant). I'm not from the US, but here in the UK when I when went to college and university the state would give students several thousand pounds a year for their parents being unemployed. My dad was a postman who used to do delivery driving on the weekend for extra cash for my family. We were poor, although I was deemed "wealthy" enough to be given no help because my dad made around £30,000. The end result of this was that I basically the poorest person I knew from 16-21 because my friends either had unemployed parents so were given thousands of pounds to spend on laptops and things to help them get through university, or had rich parents who could buy stuff for them. Because my dad was a postman I ended up having to work two jobs while at university and had to go into my overdraft almost every month. Looking back now I am grateful for that hellish 5 years since I actually gained a lot of professional experience in tech during that time, but it came at the cost of severe depression and physical exhaustion. I cannot explain how difficult this period of time was for me. It shaped who I am today but I wished daily that my dad was unemployed so I didn't have to go through it.

ProllyInfamous 3y ago

ALL kids in Tennessee can now attend any two year trade school upon graduation from a state high school. Adults can, as well, based on certain additional requirements (that really are easy after you've lived in-state).

ec109685 3y ago
California’s junior colleges are super cost effective as well.
pirate787 3y ago
And Tennessee has no state income tax.
- traviswt 3y ago
  We've had the HOPE scholarship[1] for a very long time now too. Funded by the state lottery. [1] - https://www.tn.gov/collegepays/money-for-college/tn-education-lottery-programs/tennessee-hope-scholarship.html https://www.tn.gov/collegepays/money-for-college/tn-educatio...
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- wolverine876 3y ago
  The taxpayers must pay for it somehow. Income tax at least equalizes the sacrifice each taxpayer makes (to some degree). How do TN taxpayers pay for it?
  - ProllyInfamous 3y ago
    There's no personal income tax in Tennessee. I suspect that it is cost-beneficial (where-ever the funding source) to have a technical/trade -educated workforce. "Rising waters lift all ships."

brightlancer 3y ago

What is the legal status of foster kids with regard to general financial aid? Is their parents' income considered to be $0? Does the government want the parents' income information? (This used to be the norm for non-custodial and estranged parents.) It feels great to say "California's most vulnerable young people can take agency over their lives by seeking higher education," but how much is this changing? And since we know most high school grads aren't prepared to basic college freshman classes (cough social promotion cough), then how many of these foster kids are really going to benefit, rather than just spinning their wheels before they fail out? This feels a lot like a big headline that makes people feel good but doesn't actually do much (if anything, or makes things worse).

charles_f 3y ago
Something doesn't need to be perfect to be better. We're talking about 60k kids who will be able to receive an education instead of 4% of that. It won't solve hunger, but for these kids it's a good news.
tyrfing 3y ago
0 EFC. No info on parents required (FAFSA) and asset information can also be skipped. Anything past community college won't necessarily be covered, though. About 61% of foster youth in California graduate high school on time. Past 18 things turn into a messy patchwork of semi support, simply successfully transitioning to a point with a high school diploma, a job, and stable housing is a success story. Many are homeless at points, and living on the street is the backup plan if anything goes wrong. (Note: non-CA experience, but Google shows a similar alphabet soup in CA.) NFYI says about 3-4% of foster youth graduate with a 4 year degree.

lopkeny12ko 3y ago

It's odd that many of the same people cheering this decision are the same ones crying for meritocracy in the workplace. Handouts and free passes as long as you're characterized by $some_immutable_trait? Then don't be upset when you're passed over for a promotion to fulfill a company diversity promotion threshold.

lern_too_spel 3y ago
This doesn't guarantee them a spot at any public university. It guarantees that their education will be paid for at any public university they are admitted to and subsequently matriculate at.
j45 3y ago
There is no shortage of studies verifying babies do not select the families, location or socio-economic conditions they are born into, but the world will treat them as if they chose poorly. Or look down on them. It’s funny hearing about the concepts of handouts when the people most offended are too often including those who have access to some amount of privilege but not enough.. and end up upset about sharing it. There is a lot of easily accessible learning available there for your statement that would help illuminate a bigger picture for you. You are already part way there by being engaged on it. Mostly about it’s not being about an immutable trait. Knowing this requires you to exert more than a basic interpretation and opinion. If you don’t think it’s a big deal would you switch positions with someone in that position since it’s so easy?
pessimizer 3y ago
"Foster child" is no more an immutable trait than "lack of ability to speak French."
dukeyukey 3y ago
They still have to qualify academically. This just removes the financial barriers.

AYBABTME 3y ago

Now we're talking about actually useful policy. Glad that my taxes pay for this, versus all the other stuff.

version_five 3y ago

I'm not against it necessarily, but curious about the stats or wisdom on what happens to people who get a free ride like this, as in do they complete university successfully and usefully or do they milk their free room and board and fail out eventually? Handouts are not generally a great way of accomplishing goals. I don't have a better idea, just thinking if there can be a way to make sure there is some ownership on the part of the students.

osigurdson 3y ago

Well kids, see you later. Let’s talk again when you are 30.

TheDudeMan 3y ago

I wonder if this will cause any parents to give their kids up in an effort to let them attend college.

999900000999 3y ago

Now in a better world we'd drop a word from this sentence and make it free for all state residents. That's closer to what it used to be. Realistically this doesn't change much since it's extremely unlikely a foster kid wouldn't qualify for a full ride prior to this. The only people who really get screwed are middle class families who make too much to qualify for aid, but can't really afford to pay for school.

soared 3y ago
Middle class families can pay for school: In 2019-20 in state tuition and fees in California averaged $9k. 100% of which you can take a federal loan and payback <$150/mo that begins 6 months after graduating. Rent/living cost is another matter, but tuition can be still be reasonable if you state in state and don’t attend expense universities. But I totally agree - there is a lower/lower middle class of people that attending college is vet challenging and free tuition for all at some schools would be massively beneficial for them and society.
- rahimnathwani 3y ago
  UCLA's web site says an in-state student can expect to pay $34,667 per year for tuition, room, board and health insurance. If your parents earn $150k/year in California, their after-tax income will be about $100k/year.
  - 999900000999 3y ago
    Even if you live at home and stay on your parents plan in state tuition is 14k. Add another 2k for books and at a minimum your talking 16k. That's a pretty big chunk if your only at 150k for a family of 4. If I was to propose something I'd make in state tuition fully free for residents, and if that cost too much maybe make people do the first 2 years at a community college. Honestly I credit community college with turning my life around. I ended up graduating from a state school and I'm very happy with my degree! It's not in computer science, but after a very long journey I feel it's something to be proud of. The best part about college is your free to take time off and finish later.

armchairhacker 3y ago

I thought this was already a thing. It turns out to be partially covered in 35 states: > As of 2021, there are 35 states that have some type of statewide postsecondary education tuition waiver or scholarship program for students who have been in foster care. > 24 states have statewide tuition waivers: Alaska[1], Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, (Dark blue color on the map) > 4 states have state funded grant programs for students in foster care are: Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia. (Light blue color on the map) > 7 states have state funded scholarship programs for students in foster care are: Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, and Washington. (Purple color on the map) > 16 states and the District of Columbia have only the Federal Chafee Educational Training Voucher: Colorado, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont, Wisconsin and Wyoming (Yellow color on the map) https://depts.washington.edu/fostered/tuition-waivers-state https://depts.washington.edu/fostered/tuition-waivers-state (bonus points for software gore right below the title) What I was thinking of was the Chafee Educational Training Voucher, which gives up to a $5000/year reimbursement: > Students can get up to $5,000 per academic year based on cost of attendance, available funds, the student’s unmet financial need. > Note: For the federal fiscal year 2022, the voucher’s maximum annual amount was temporarily increased to $12,000. On Oct. 1, 2022, the maximum award will revert to $5,000 per year. https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/foster-youth-vouchers.pdf https://studentaid.gov/sites/default/files/foster-youth-vouc...

Avshalom 3y ago
N.B. in New Mexico we recently made state school free for all residents.

Racing0461 3y ago

What's to stop parents from putting their kids up for foster care when they turn 15 so they can attend college at 16 for free?

ekam 3y ago
The state only takes care of kids if a court assumes jurisdiction under WIC 300. You can only voluntarily give ups kid within the first few days of birth (this is known as safe surrender https://advokids.org/legal-tools/safe-surrender/ https://advokids.org/legal-tools/safe-surrender/) otherwise courts usually assume jurisdiction due to cases of abuse, neglect, abandonment, etc
- cool_dude85 3y ago
  Not sure how it works in California but where I live you can sign a voluntary termination of parental rights and if you're in a position to consider it they usually won't argue as far as I know.
ckwalsh 3y ago
When kids first enter foster care, the state assumes care and tries to work with the parents to resolve whatever issues caused the kids to be removed. During this time, the kid ideally stays with another family member or friend, but with a random foster family if not. The parents remain the legal guardians and have opportunities to see their kids, coordinated by the state. If reunification is determined to be impossible, the state goes to court to sever parental rights. This determination normally takes a year plus, and usually means the parents have checked out or are no longer trying to resolve the issues. Only once parental rights are severed is the child considered "legally free", and is eligible to be adopted into another family. In the ideal case, this is the family they were staying with before parental rights were severed, but not necessarily. I haven't looked into the details of this article, but I assume these funds will be used for kids that have had parental rights severed, and were either adopted or "age out" of the foster care system. Once in foster care, most kids are traumatized. Once parental rights are severed, it is incredibly difficult for parents to "re-adopt" their kid. I sure hope no parents are so short sighted to put their child through hell to reduce the cost of college.

throwaway72762 3y ago

Is everything culture war all the time now on this site? Every post becomes a stupid comment section where we'd be better off getting an LLM to write the comments for us. Here it's people trying to insert their affirmative action narratives and also rant about California a bit (in a backhanded way). We can do better.

rodgerd 3y ago
> Is everything culture war all the time now on this site? Always has been.
jjtheblunt 3y ago
Disclaimer: have been here since HN started, didn't bother making an account for five years or so. It seems increasingly common that long-time HN readers lament that the fraction of computing news has diluted at an increasing rate itself. I wonder if there's a way to measure that.
version_five 3y ago
What are you looking for? Do you think the post shouldn't have been on here at all? Or if it's here do you think discussion should be limited to a certain perspective or a certain axis? Admitting a political story inherently admits political opinions. What would "doing better" look like?
- throwaway72762 3y ago
  I completely understand that everything has a political dimension. And the broader culture war is leaving nothing untouched. But that means we have less room for a shared community even in small spaces like this. What I lament is that the community of tech folks, embodied by sites such as HN, have splintered and moved away from their roots. I mean go watch the documentaries about the early days of the 70s and 80s and even the not so early days of the 00s: vision, tinkering, weirdness, geekery, cussedness, anti-authority, pay it forward, etc. That is what defined the scene. That's our roots and I'd like it to come through in comments here. Instead it's just culture war: us vs. them, grievances, IGMFU, and all the rest.

nickstinemates 3y ago

This is awesome.

YLYvYkHeB2NRNT 3y ago

not for free. At no expense to them and the tax payer flits the bill as usual. Carry on.

vpribish 3y ago
obviously. we all get that part.

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

What's surprising is that it took California so long. My ex-gf adopted her sister's kids, and that came with multiple things for the kids, in Texas: 1. free healthcare 2. free college education 3. supplemental income

aidenn0 3y ago
It was already nearly free; tuition was covered, and a patchwork of benefits covered most of room, board, and books. Or at least that's what they told us when we became foster parents 14 years ago.

01100011 3y ago

Can I just give my 17 year old up for adoption then? Just curious...

ren_engineer 3y ago
this, almost inevitable this will be abused. Way too much money at stake for it not to be, I've heard plenty of stories of rich people who bought houses in certain zip codes so their kids get preferential treatment
- skeaker 3y ago
  And more power to those who abuse it since college should certainly be free for everyone anyways.
LouisSayers 3y ago
... and can a relative be a foster parent?
- vel0city 3y ago
  Bonus points idea. Have a grandparent take up residency in a target out of state area in a cheap apartment a few years ahead of time, just to meet residency requirements. Then at 17 have the grandparent foster the minor. Boom, free college wherever you want.

for_i_in_range 3y ago

I like this.

DropInIn 3y ago

If the state can't take care of its kids then we all have no justification to expect individuals to be able to. This shouldn't have ever been a question and should have been the default.

kepler1 3y ago

Too bad we'll fail to give those kids a proper math education well before they reach college. https://calmatters.org/education/2021/11/california-math/ https://calmatters.org/education/2021/11/california-math/

dv_dt 3y ago

We should go back to a California State university system that had capacity for any resident who academically qualified, and was tuition free. This was actually more cost effective than the byzantine money handling administrative policies we have now.

WhereIsTheTruth 3y ago

A step in the right directly, hopefully soon enough, every kids should be able to

kbos87 3y ago

This is already a thing in many states. I know in Massachusetts, foster kids have long been eligible for free in-state tuition.

xmddmx 3y ago

This idea is not really new - the California Master Plan for Education essentially promised a free higher education to everyone in California. In 1960. [1] As these things go, the plan was eroded over time, with the (in)famous Proposition 13 of 1978 dealing a big blow. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Higher_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Master_Plan_for_Hig...

ajju 3y ago
They implemented a great component of those ideas. Seems like cause for at least some celebration, right? :)
- xmddmx 3y ago
  I'm an educator, and a social democrat (approximately) so "yes"? What saddens me is that grand (and simple) plan "free education for all" gets watered down and chipped away to "free education for those who have money or connections" and later attempts to shore it up offten amount to "free education for $special_group". While I don't deny $special_group should get free education, what gets me is all the special-pleading going on. In OOM programming terms, it's like we had a universal principle which was easy to implement, and this has now been replaced by a bunch of switch/case statements...
  - lisper 3y ago
    I'm approximately a social democrat too, but I'm also a pragmatist. Asking for "free education" is like a child asking for a pony. Education, like everything, costs money, and we can't just wave a magic wand and change that. The only question is who pays for it: the student, or someone else. "Free education" really means education paid for by society at large rather than students. I'm not saying that's a bad idea. It isn't. In fact, it's a really good idea. But I really wish we'd stop calling it something that it's not.
    - xmddmx 3y ago
      "social democrat" - are you sure? the point remains: some services are social goods and should be treated as such, so that "nobody lacks for inability to pay". That's not literally "free" but has the same meaning in practice.

dusted 3y ago

[flagged]

Cypher 3y ago

Why so many people leaving cali? it sounds like a wonderful place to live investing in the future.

RagnarD 3y ago

No, it isn't "free" - and those who actually make the money to support the unlimited taxation that pay for the "free" stuff are actively leaving the tax farm that is California.

WWLink 3y ago
It may not be free, but it's certainly quite cheap.

stevenjgarner 3y ago

I'm all for making education more accessible, but why does it have to be one extreme or the other (free or tuition) - if taxpayers are making education free, can't we levy a requirement for the graduate to at least volunteer Peace Corps style? Perhaps the term of volunteering could be inversely proportional to their grade such that someone who drops out early has to volunteer for a longer period of time.

pawelmurias 3y ago
It's not volunteering if you are forced to do it.
- stevenjgarner 3y ago
  Agreed. From the JFK mindset of “Ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country”, I could see a system where a certain level of volunteering (either by the students or their surrogates - parents, grandparents, siblings, friends, etc) might make one eligible for discounted/free tuition.
nxx788 3y ago
Then it's not free. Opportunity cost is real. I don't ask my kid to volunteer because he got a chicken pox vaccine, he just gets to not have chicken pox for free. And that's ok. We can choose to make the next generations lives better than ours, even if we gain no material benefit ourselves. (Though I'd argue that an educated youth does materially benefit the populace.)
- stevenjgarner 3y ago
  Nothing is free. It is estimated that state and local governments spend 9 percent of state and local direct general spending on higher education [1]. One could argue that the opportunity cost of higher education to taxpayers is 9% of their work life. [1] https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/higher-education-expenditures https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiative...

Sparkyte 3y ago

What people are failing to understand with this is that this is target people who are foster and don't have a financial supporter. I see people talk bad and stuff about how this shouldn't be. However those with parents usually have some sort of financial support. It does suck it is free-free, because it doesn't teach the foster kid important life lessons, but there is more merit to this. I still think the kid has to pass the accepting test and I think this is the case. If the kid does well, passed the acceptance test they are clear to learn. Foster kids are not adopted kids, you can adopt but that makes them your kid. Foster kids have sponsor dads and moms.

leafmeal 3y ago
>It does suck it is free-free, because it doesn't teach the foster kid important life lessons, but there is more merit to this. What about the many countries with free university for everyone? Are those students missing out on important life lessons as well?
- Sparkyte 3y ago
  Colleges are not Universities and often are for profit. Universities are also for profit in the United States, and I would love it if US had a free tier University for all. That won't happen because of US government.
  - dukeyukey 3y ago
    Some US universities are for-profit (as in, can pay out dividends to owners). Most aren't.

steve76 3y ago

[dead]

9991 3y ago

You get more of what you incentivize.

cat_plus_plus 3y ago

I'll take it, but I wish 16 continuous years of education were not required for basic life success. Germany seems to have a better system where schools teach useful job skills and paid apprenticeships help refine these. Especially for foster youth, it seems important to have some income as well as place in society as soon as possible. Provided they can even get into a college in the first place with limited opportunity to focus on academics.

EchoReflection 3y ago

Oh awesome, maybe California can overtake Colorado for "most in-debt state in the US". Economic stewardship is nonsense anyway.

_8j50 3y ago

Why is California uniquely... nice and compassionate to it's people? It's not liberalism because new england is probably even more liberal? Is it the economy? The weather?

xkbarkar 3y ago
Uhh. Google tent cities for a start. California is pretty brutal.
- _8j50 3y ago
  Not really, those people won't be allowed to have tents like that in most states' major cities, california tolerates the fact that they simply exist there
dukeyukey 3y ago
More than half of US states already do something like this, including 5/6 New England states (Vermont is the one that doesn't).
- _8j50 3y ago
  Didn't know, i just keep seeing them pass laws like this.

LIzzyytujghf 3y ago

[dead]

alangibson 3y ago

Great. Now let's work on striking "foster" and "California" from that headline.

localplume 3y ago
I mean, no. it should be state-by-state thing but if all states implement it then great. but it shouldn't be federally mandated. maximizing state autonomy is a good thing.
- alangibson 3y ago
  I guess that comes down to if you think the USA is actually a country or not. Historically state autonomy has not been good unless you like living in the premodern era. See for instance Jim Crow and the Dobbs decision.

ThinkBeat 3y ago

This is no doubt good. It is also a strange patch. I wonder if this could plausibly cause some families to purposefully get kids placed into foster care 1 or 2 years before college. Hopefully not. Usually that whole experience is a nightmare. Letting everyone attend state college for free is the real deal. To save costs fire 90% of the admin staff. (I have not done research on the California state specifically but most colleges have absorbed far too many admin roles. Then due to cost not done enough to expand the teaching staff)

hermannj314 3y ago

Any links to the bill? For many, foster care is a temporary program with an agency directive at reunification of the family. I was a foster parent and one kid was briefly in the system due to a clerical issue where the father was not awarded custody after the mother was arrested. Would that 14 day clerical issue now be awarded with a free education? Cause that system can be easily gamed.

keiferwiseman 3y ago

If I was in California and had kids I would simply abandon them and then foster them so they would get free tuition.