Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD Whistleblower)

During the weekend of May 16-19, 2025, the San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center – IndyBay which operates as open platform news source against injustice, scrubbed two years of news articles ranging from May 2023 – May 2025.

The focus of these articles was corruption, fraud and scandal in the Los Angeles Community College District, primarily at Los Angeles Valley College’s Media Arts Department.

A few of these articles summarized.

Erika Endrijonas faces new questions in LACCD fraud | May 2, 2023 |

Pasadena City College President-Superintendent Erika Endrijonas being fired from the institution and trying to get a job at Santa Barbara City College, Mt. SAC, and Los Angeles City College. Endrijonas had been subjected to a vote of no confidence by the Pasadena Academic Senate, Pasadena Full-Time Faculty Union, protests by Part-Time Faculty, and finally the vote to reduce her contract by the newly elected board of trustees.

The article dived into Endrijonas’s tenure at her previous institution – Los Angeles Valley College. Endrijonas was announced in her new role at PCC in December 2018, the same week that a jury in Van Nuys awarded a former LAVC employee $2.9 million jury award for illegal retaliation and abuse. A few months earlier, the Los Angeles Times published a major story about the Valley Academic and Cultural Center – a project meant to be Endrijonas’s crowning achievement – being an alleged massive racketeering scheme.

Further it documented the Media Arts Department the VACC would house had a lengthy history of lawsuits and accreditation complaints against the faculty for not providing the education and training advertised – negating the need for the new building. The building’s approval vote happened in August 2016, the lawsuit happened in 2009, and the Accreditation Complaints happened in June 2016.

Dozen LAVC Cinema Students Narratives challenge Erika Endrijonas’s LACCD Success Story | May 5, 2023 |

This article covered a release of an email thread from a dozen students in 2016 that was ultimately sent to the Accreditation Commission for Junior and Community Colleges in 2016, substantiating that there was widespread fraud in the department. Classes were not scheduled by Department Chair Eric Swelstad, training was not provided, labs were not held, etc . . .

Van Nuys/Los Angeles College Screenwriting Professor Faked Writer’s Guild Membership | May 17, 2023 |

Revealed that LAVC Media Arts Department Chair Eric Swelstad faked his membership in the Writer’s Guild of America – West, and then used it in multiple professional bios.

Los Angeles Valley College perpetuated wage theft against students on Julie Su’s watch | May 19, 2023 |

Documented how Grant Director Dan Watanabe engaged in wage theft against students for two years from 2013 – 2016.

Two Los Angeles Film Professors Bilked Taxpayers Over $3.5 Million Dollars | May 21, 2023 |

Described how LAVC Media Arts Department Founder Joseph Dacursso’s retirement first as Department Chair, then as a full-time faculty in 2012, left Department Chair Eric Swelstad and Arantxa Rodriguez to engage in petty infighting and squabbling that spilled over into scheduling decisions. In short, two faculty members collected six-figure-salaries while putting students in the middle of department in-fighting.

LAVC Omsbudsman Stalked Whistleblowers | August 8, 2023 |

Described how LAVC’s Dean of Students, Annie G. Reed (Goldman) retaliated and stalked students that went to Accreditation, going as far as running a smear campaign that one of them was a potential school shooter. Worse, she began stalking him after he left school – including on social media.

[Image: Annie G. Reed Goldman, Dean of Labor and HR at LACCD]

Further articles questioned where Academic Degrees were given out to students who had not completed Academic classes and criteria, the role of Jo Ann Rivas turned YouTube Personality ‘AuditLA’ who was on the Los Angeles Valley College Citizen’s Building Oversight Committee, whether a number of students with falsified resumes received payments from a Grant as ‘Professional Experts’ etc . . .

The scrubbing of these articles coincided with the formal appointment of Alberto J. Roman as the new Chancellor of the Los Angeles Community College District, following the retirement of disgraced administrator Francisco Rodriguez.

It also came with the publication of two final articles. One about Annie G. Reed’s being named as a Defendant in a lawsuit by former faculty at Los Angeles City College, who came to her about an administrator engaging in illegal behavior – including planting drugs on employees to get them fired.

The second article, probed Los Angeles Valley College Department Chair, Eric Swelstad’s professional bio again and provided evidence that he repeatedly lied and engaged in deceptive advertising and practices for two decades. It provided students who held loans with information about student borrower defenses.

The censorship also came months after Jo Ann Rivas aka AuditLA, herself probed by the articles, launched a barrage of attacks for about a week in January about a former student who had grievance's against the school. Rivas had previously engaged in a similar barrage in July 2020.

This was not the first time that an attempt was made to censor this news stream.

In 2020, an attempt was made to hack the community news feed account on Twitter/X.com @LACCDW. Then a week before the LACCD Board of Trustees election in November 2020, Twitter suspended the community newsfeed altogether. It was only restored two years later after Twitter's sale and the re-evaluation of previous suspended accounts.

In a final update – The Valley Academic and Cultural Center, despite having a 2018 completion date, remains unfinished. According to minutes of the LAVC Work Environment Committee Minutes from 2025-05-08;

“The Valley Academic and Cultural Center (VACC) is as of Friday, May 8th, about 80% complete. They are still patching the roof. There are still some critical items like stage protection net.”

HEI Investigation: Campus.edu

In a sector under constant strain, Campus.edu is being heralded by some as the future of community college—and by others as a slick repackaging of the troubled for-profit college model. What many don’t realize is that before it became Campus.edu, the company was known as MTI College, a private, for-profit trade school based in Sacramento, California.

Campus.edu rebranded in 2020 under tech entrepreneur Tade Oyerinde, is backed by nearly $100 million in venture capital. Campus now markets itself as a tech-powered alternative to traditional community colleges—and a lifeline for students underserved by conventional higher ed.

The rebranding, however, raises red flags. While Campus.edu pitches a student-first mission with attractive promises—zero-cost tuition, free laptops, elite educators—the model has echoes of the troubled for-profit sector, with privatization, outsourcing, and digital-first delivery taking precedence over public accountability and academic governance.

The Promises: What Campus.edu Offers

Campus.edu markets itself with a clean, six-step path to success. The pitch is aspirational, accessible, and designed to appeal to working-class students, first-generation college-goers, and those shut out of elite institutions. Here’s what the company promises:

1. Straightforward Application – A simple application process, followed by matching with an admissions advisor who helps identify a student's purpose and educational fit.

2. Tech for Those Who Need It – A free laptop and Wi-Fi access for students who lack them, ensuring digital inclusion.

3. Personal Success Coach – Each student is assigned a personal success coach, offering free tutoring, career advising, and 24/7 access to wellness services.

4. Elite Educators – Courses are taught live via Zoom by faculty who also teach at top universities like Stanford and Columbia.

5. Enduring Support – Whether transferring to a four-year college or entering the workforce, Campus promises help with building skills and networks.

6. More Learning, Less Debt – For Pell Grant-eligible students, Campus markets its programs as costing nothing out-of-pocket, with some students completing degrees debt-free.

It’s a compelling narrative—combining social mobility, digital access, and educational prestige into a neat online package.

Behind the Curtain: MTI College and the For-Profit Legacy

Campus.edu did not rise out of nowhere. It emerged from the bones of MTI College, a long-running, accredited for-profit vocational school. MTI offered hands-on training in legal, IT, cosmetology, and health fields—typical offerings in the for-profit world. The purchase and transformation of MTI into Campus.edu allowed Oyerinde to retain accreditation, avoiding the long and uncertain process of seeking approval for a brand-new college.

This kind of maneuver—buying a for-profit and relaunching it under a new brand—is not new. We’ve seen similar strategies with Kaplan (now Purdue Global), Ashford (now the University of Arizona Global Campus), and Grand Canyon University. What makes Campus.edu unique is the degree to which it blends Silicon Valley aesthetics with the structural DNA of a for-profit college.

Missing Data, Big Promises

Campus.edu boasts high engagement and satisfaction, but as of now, no independent data on student completion, debt outcomes, or long-term career impact is publicly available. The company remains in its early stages, with aggressive growth goals and millions in investor backing—but little regulatory scrutiny.

With investors like Sam Altman (OpenAI), Jason Citron (Discord), and Bloomberg Beta, the pressure to scale is intense. But scale can come at the expense of quality, especially when students are promised the moon.

Marketing Meets Memory

Campus.edu is savvy. Its marketing strikes all the right notes: digital equity, economic mobility, mental health, and student empowerment. It presents itself as the antidote to everything wrong with higher education.

But as its past as MTI College shows, branding can obscure history. And as for-profit operators adapt to a new digital age, it’s essential to distinguish innovation from opportunism. Without transparency, regulation, and democratic oversight, models like Campus.edu could replicate the same old exploitation—with better user interfaces.

The stakes are high. For students already at the margins, a false promise can be more damaging than no promise at all.

Community College Meltdown: Can It Get Worse?

The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has documented the decline in community college enrollment for more than a decade.  And the Higher Education Inquirer has been reporting on the decline for much of that time.  

The question we are asking now is, where is the floor for the community college meltdown?  The answer, from what we gather, is not clear. Folks should not assume the bottom has already been felt, even if there are signs of a rebound. 

The downward path for community colleges is likely the result of several factors related to economics (including the economics of individual states and counties), demographics, and consumer choices.  And we do not see these variables, in general, improving in the near future. Especially in states with declining youth and young adult populations. 

If state-level austerity lies ahead for many states, the floor could be lowered, even though these community colleges provide job training at a fraction of the cost of state universities.  Working class folks, in particular, would have to change the way they think about themselves and their perceptions of community colleges. And community colleges would need to provide stronger returns on investment for those who attend. 

There are some bright spots, including the use of College Promise (low-cost college) in many states and proposed increases in funding in California.  Community colleges have also shored up these declines with dual enrollment (high school students taking courses).  

Public enrollment of schools that offer programs of 2 years but less than 4 years.  

(Source: US Department of Education, IPEDS)

New higher education enrollment numbers: a mixed bag (Bryan Alexander)

How is higher education enrollment changing?

Today the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center published its first analysis of student numbers for fall 2024.  This is important data, as ever, and I’ll dig into it with this post.

It’s a mixed bag. Total enrollment rose, but a key indicator fell.

 

One caution: this is the first such report for the semester, representing just over one half of the Center’s respondents’ data. They’ll revise this over the next few months.

The good news: total post-secondary enrollment rose 2.9% compared to fall 2023, with undergrad numbers rising 3% and grad school up 2.1%.   The heart of this growth is to be found in community colleges, who are using dual enrollment (teaching high school students) to rebuild their classes for the third year in a row.  For-profit colleges are also doing very well, seeing their numbers up 5%.

The main degree growth is not from graduate or undergrad degrees (not the BA, BS, MA, PhD, and so on), but from undergrad certificate seekers (a 7.3% rise).

There are other positive findings.  The sophomore retention rate (the proportion of first-year students who return for their second year) did better, as the drop out rate decreased.  Returning student numbers were higher.  In terms of race, all non-white populations enjoyed increased numbers: “Undergraduate and graduate enrollments for Hispanic, Black, Asian, and Multiracial students are seeing strong growth this fall.”  Historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs) all saw increases. In terms of economic class, there were more students from the lowest economic quintile.

In terms of gender, there were no meaningful differences, as both male and female numbers rose at roughly the same amount.

Geographically, nearly all states enjoyed an increased in overall enrollment at the undergrad level:

At the graduate level things were still rosy, although more mixed:

Primarily online institutions (think Arizona State, Southern New Hampshire, Western Governors, etc.) saw enrollment rise by more than 6%.

Yet with all of these bright spots, the Clearinghouse shared some bad news.  First-year student enrollment dropped 5% overall.  This decline reversed gains made in 2023, taking things back to 2022 levels, and was especially pronounced in public and private four year institutions (-8.5% and -6.5%):

In terms of age, “an almost 6% drop in the number of 18-year-old freshmen (a proxy for those enrolling immediately after high school graduation) accounts for most of the decline.”  In terms of economic class, this decline was especially true of state schools serving more Pell-eligible students, which saw drops of 10% and more.

Further, one negative sign of race and enrollment involves the caucasian population: “Undergraduate White students, on the other hand, continue to see enrollment declines (-0.6%).“  The Chronicle of Higher Ed generated this helpful and contrasting graphic:

I and others who attended a briefing asked Clearinghouse staff to speculate on the decline.  Vice president for research Doug Shapiro thought multiple factors were in play: the FAFSA chaos, the attraction of the job market (unemployment being low), fear of student debt.  The Supreme Court ruling against academic affirmative action might have discouraged some minority students from applying, at least to elite institutions.

What might we take away from this report?

I need to preface my remarks by reminding readers that enrollment matters for two vital reasons.  To the extent that the United States wants more people to have more college study, the number of students who actually pursue higher education indicates how successful we are in reaching that goal.  And since we’ve effectively privatized most of higher education economics, student enrollment means essential revenue for keeping college and university doors open.

First, the Clearinghouse report is very good news for community colleges, who are enjoying growth after years of losses.  Their strategy of reaching into high schools is making up for their losses in the rest of their communities. It’s also good for for-profits, who saw their sector flattened during the Obama administration.

Second, certificates are in the lead.  The Center’s director told me that this sounds like a short-term trend, as the number of students pursuing shorter-term credentials is continuing to grow.  How many campuses will be inspired to expand their own certificate offerings as a result, sensing a growing market?

Third, there aren’t any clear signs of students responding to abortion policies.  That is, we might expect younger people (who tend to be more liberal) and especially younger women to avoid states with strict abortion bans, but the geographic data does not bear this out.

Fourth, in terms of how we think about higher education, the major developments here focus on the parts of academia which don’t normally get much attention or media buzz: for-profits, community colleges, certificates, online learning.  I don’t know if most academics in public and non-profit higher ed, and most Democrats, will be happy to see for-profits strengthen.

Fifth, this decline in first-year students could depress enrollments for years to come.  It might mean fewer sophomores next year, fewer juniors the year after, and so on.  Colleges will have to do heroic feats to boost retention, and high schools ditto to expand graduation and application, to nullify this issue.

Sixth, institutions which teach mostly online continue to grow. This is a long-running trend and feels likely (to me) to keep building up.

Seventh, it’s good to see higher ed actually grow after more than a decade of decline.  We’re still nowhere near the numbers we enrolled in 2012’s peak and have a long way to go before reaching that.  Meanwhile, America’s total population has grown, thanks to immigration, so we have farther still to go in reaching our peak proportion.

One last note: keep an eye out for updates to this data, as the Clearinghouse gets more evidence from its affiliated institutions.

This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org

What are ‘Promise Programs’ and how can they help make college more affordable? (PBS News Hour)

 

Since its inception in 2015, College Promise has been steadfast in its commitment to making postsecondary education, including career-technical colleges and apprenticeships, accessible, tuition-free, fees, and wraparound supports, and readily available to all.

In 2023, College Promise celebrated 425 Promise programs located in all 50 states. This milestone measures significant growth since the initiative's inception, when 53 programs were initially identified. 

The local and state leaders driving these Promise programs have facilitated the provision of scholarships from both the public and private sectors to eliminate tuition and fee costs and have extended their efforts to provide vital support services, including advising, counseling, mentorships, transportation, basic needs, and career exploration. 

Research suggests these comprehensive measures enhance student access, retention, and success in education, career, and civic mobility.

For information about participating institutions, visit College Promise here.

Community Colleges at the Heart of College Meltdown

Community college enrollment has dropped by 1.6 million students (23%) in the last six years.  Even worse, full-time enrollment at community colleges has dropped by 36% over the last 6 years. Source for Data: National Student Clearinghouse.

US college enrollment has dropped by about 2.5 million students over the last six years, but this College Meltdown has not been spread evenly.

For-profit colleges have been hardest hit in their percentage decline of students and campus closings. But community colleges, which may be the best educational value for working families, have been even harder hit in the sheer numbers who are not attending.

While the for-profit college crash has been well documented in the media, the crisis in community colleges has been under-reported.

For-profit colleges have seen a decline of about 600,000 students since their peak, but community college enrollment has declined even more, by 1.6 million.

[Image below:  Most US community colleges have seen enrollment declines. Data from National Center for Education Statistics]

The reaction to the community college downturn has ranged from punitive to progressive: reduced state and local funding, higher tuition, reduced student and family services, fewer teachers, lower educational standards--and free college tuition:

• In Arizona, state funding has been eliminated and services have been cut. 
• In Louisiana, there have been large program cuts and teacher layoffs. 
• In Nebraska and Iowa, tuition is being raised.  
• In Virginia and Arkansas, tuition is also being raised. 
• In Florida, placement exams have been eliminated, and funding has been cut for developmental education.
• In New Jersey, Rowan University has partnered with two community colleges for seamless transfers. 
• In Texas, community colleges are offering dual enrollment for high school students in order to fill seats. 
• In Tennessee and Oregon, community college tuition is free.
• In New York, community college tuition will be free for families making less than $125,000 per year, starting in June 2017.

In 2003, 53% of all community colleges offered campus child care. In 2015, only 44% had it.

At the national level, the dearth of reporting on the community college downturn begs more questions:

1. What community colleges have been hardest hit?
2. What has happened to all the people who have decided not to go to a community college?
3. Why do you think the enrollment crisis in US community colleges has been under-reported?