AB 148 revises the statutory rules for California’s Middle Class Scholarship (MCS) program. It keeps the MCS framework but changes award calculations across multiple academic-year cohorts, sets precise household income and asset thresholds (with annual COLA adjustments), and directs the California Student Aid Commission to scale awards based on available appropriations.
The bill also imposes protections on institutional aid (UC/CSU may not supplant their own need- or merit-based grants), requires campus-level reporting on awards and borrowing, creates indexing rules for expected student contribution, and guarantees full awards for current or former foster youth despite appropriation-driven scaling. For financial aid officers, campus CFOs, and budget staff, the result is a more complex, appropriation-sensitive award formula and new compliance and reporting obligations.
At a Glance
What It Does
Sets eligibility for undergraduate UC, CSU, and community college baccalaureate upper-division students, then defines a multi-year transition in award calculations: a percentage-of-fees model through 2021–22 and a cost-of-attendance minus other aid model from 2022–23 onward. The commission must reduce awards if federal gift-aid limits would be exceeded and scale total awards annually to fit the appropriation.
Who It Affects
Directly affects undergraduate students at UC, CSU, and community college baccalaureate programs, financial aid administrators, campus finance officers, and the California Student Aid Commission. Indirectly affects parents of dependent students and state budget offices that set the appropriation.
Why It Matters
Shifts the program from a predictable percentage-of-tuition formula to a COA-based, appropriation-dependent model—raising administrative complexity and making award amounts more sensitive to state funding. It also strengthens institutional-aid maintenance rules and adds reporting requirements that will change campus compliance workflows.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
AB 148 preserves the Middle Class Scholarship program but replaces the static percentage approach used in earlier years with a staged, COA-focused calculation that begins in 2022–23. For 2013–14 through 2021–22 the statute retains the historical up-to-40%-of-tuition approach (with income-based percentage reductions); for 2022–23 and 2023–24 it moves to formulas that subtract other aid, a fixed expected student contribution ($7,898), and specific parental contributions for higher-income dependents from the student’s cost of attendance.
From 2024–25 forward the bill requires the commission to use COA minus specified categories of aid and an indexed student contribution to determine awards.
The commission must cap awards where combined gift aid would exceed federal allowable limits and must reduce awards proportionally if the appropriation does not cover the total liability for all eligible students. The bill instructs the commission to determine that percentage by dividing the available appropriation (less amounts reserved for particular exceptions) by the total projected need-based award liability for all eligible students.
A key carve-out: beginning in 2023–24 current or former foster youth receive the full calculated award even when the program is scaled down because of funding limits.Eligibility rules are precise. The law sets annual household income and household asset ceilings that vary by dependent/independent status, indexes those ceilings for cost-of-living changes, and ties annual adjustments to existing Cal Grant calculation methodologies.
Applicants still must file the FAFSA or California Dream Act application by March 2, apply for all other eligible grants/waivers, meet satisfactory academic progress, be pursuing a first baccalaureate degree (or be admitted to teacher-preparation after a prior degree), be enrolled at least part time, and be exempt from nonresident tuition if applicable.The bill contains institutional and administrative controls: UC and CSU may not replace their own institutional need- or merit-based aid with MCS funds, they must maintain institutional aid per-student relative to 2021–22 levels as enrollment changes, and at least 33% of revenue from any increase to mandatory systemwide undergraduate fees must be reserved for institutional student aid. Finally, campuses must report detailed breakdowns—by parental income deciles or EFC-like buckets—on who receives awards, borrowing levels, cost of attendance by living arrangement, and campus living-arrangement distributions, increasing transparency but adding data-collection work for financial aid offices.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The commission must set the program-wide percentage applied to each student’s calculated award by dividing the annual appropriation (minus required set-asides) by the total projected award liability—so total awards vary with the budget.
Starting in 2023–24, current and former foster youth are exempt from appropriation-driven reductions and receive the full award as calculated under the statute.
The statute fixes an expected student contribution at $7,898 for 2022–23 and 2023–24 and then requires annual indexing thereafter based on percentage changes in California’s minimum wage.
For dependent students with household income above $100,000, the law counts 33% of the parents’ calculated contribution (from Title IV methodology) toward the student’s resources when computing the award.
The University of California and California State University must not supplant their own institutional aid with MCS funds, must maintain institutional aid per undergraduate relative to 2021–22 levels as enrollment changes, and must set aside at least 33% of any increase to existing mandatory systemwide undergraduate fees for institutional student aid.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Covered students and appropriation dependency
Defines the populations eligible for MCS awards: undergraduates at UC and CSU and upper-division students in community college baccalaureate programs. It also makes every award contingent on an available and sufficient state appropriation, which transforms the program into an entitlement only to the extent the Legislature funds it.
Multi-year award formulas and COA transition
Lays out the phased calculation: a percentage-of-fees model through 2021–22, then a COA-minus-other-aid approach for 2022–23 and 2023–24, and a COA-based model with indexed student contribution from 2024–25 forward. The provision details which categories of aid are deducted (federal, state, institutional need-based in later years, private scholarships, and specified emergency assistance), and instructs the commission to reduce awards to remain compliant with federal gift-aid rules.
Income, asset thresholds, and administrative consistency
Sets household income and asset ceilings that vary by student dependency status and ties annual adjustments to the same COLA measure used for Cal Grants. The section requires the commission to calculate income and assets consistent with Ortiz‑Pacheco‑Poochigian‑Vasconcellos Cal Grant rules—meaning financial aid offices will use familiar definitions but must keep different thresholds for MCS eligibility.
Award scaling, minimums, and foster youth exception
Specifies income-phase reductions for earlier years and a statutory minimum annual award for full-time students (historically $90 in earlier cohorts). Critically, it creates an appropriation-based scaling mechanism: beginning in 2022–23 the commission computes a percentage to scale each student's calculated award to fit the appropriation. It preserves a targeted exception so current or former foster youth receive the full calculated award starting 2023–24, even when other awards are scaled down.
Institutional aid maintenance and reporting requirements
Requires UC and CSU not to supplant their institutional need- or merit-based grants with MCS funding and to maintain institutional student aid relative to 2021–22 levels as enrollment changes. It also mandates campus reports (via the existing Section 66021.1 mechanism) that break out award recipients and average award sizes by parental income or EFC deciles, student borrowing rates and averages, and campus cost-of-attendance and living-arrangement statistics—creating both compliance obligations and new transparency data for policy analysis.
Full‑time equivalency and pro‑rata for part‑time students
Defines the award as a full‑time equivalent grant and sets pro‑rata rules for part‑time enrollment: 6–8 semester units receive up to half of a full award; 9–11 units receive up to three quarters. The statute preserves parity in selection so part‑time students are eligible and cannot be discriminated against in award decisions, but campuses must implement unit-based calculations in awarding aid.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Middle-income undergraduates at UC and CSU and upper-division community college baccalaureate students: the statute preserves and restructures MCS to target these students and, when fully funded, can cover a meaningful share of COA.
- Current and former foster youth: the bill guarantees full-calculated awards for this group beginning 2023–24, insulating them from appropriation-driven cuts.
- Lower‑to‑middle income families near the eligibility thresholds: indexing of income and asset ceilings to COLA and a defined expected student contribution creates clearer eligibility rules year-to-year compared with ad hoc changes.
Who Bears the Cost
- University of California and California State University: must maintain institutional aid at or above 2021–22 per‑student levels and set aside 33% of fee-increase revenues for institutional aid, reducing flexibility in fee revenue allocation.
- California Student Aid Commission and campus financial aid offices: face added administrative workload to compute COA-based awards, apply complex deduction rules, index amounts, manage appropriation-scaling calculations, and produce detailed reports.
- State budget and appropriators: program outcomes and award sizes will depend on annual appropriations, creating pressure on the budget to either increase funding or accept scaled-down awards for eligible students.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between targeted generosity and budgetary realism: the bill aims to expand and target aid (shifting to cost-of-attendance and protecting foster youth) while also making the program dependent on annual appropriations—creating unpredictability for students and campuses and forcing a trade-off between stable entitlement-like benefits and legislative control over total spending.
The bill turns the MCS into an appropriation-sensitive program. That linkage gives the Legislature control over total spending but makes individual awards volatile: students and campuses cannot reliably predict award sizes until the commission publishes the appropriation-driven percentage.
The technical formula—deducting various categories of aid, applying a fixed then indexed expected student contribution, and applying a parent‑contribution carve-out for higher-income dependent students—adds administrative complexity and potential for calculation errors or disputes, especially when campuses must reconcile institutional aid packaging with MCS rules.
Another implementation challenge is federal coordination. The requirement to reduce awards that would exceed federal gift-aid limits means campuses must routinely cross-check MCS awards against Title IV EFA/OFA calculations.
That interaction can produce unexpected reductions for students who receive multiple private or institutional awards. Finally, the institutional-aid non‑supplant and 33% fee set‑aside rules create a funding tension: regents and trustees must preserve institutional grants even as fee revenue rises, which could constrain other campus priorities or require campus decisions about enrollment growth and aid targeting.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.