Commission on the Future Community College League of California 2013-14.

Commission on the FutureCommunity CollegeLeague of California

2013-14

Process

• Commission discussions– Student Success Update– K-12 Pipeline, Dual and Concurrent

Enrollment– Demographic and Completion Update

• League staff will work with subject area teams following meeting to draft paper for League policy boards.

• Second meeting in the spring?

Ground Rules and Workflow

Ground Rules•You are a professional without a title.•This is a safe room.

Workflow•Today: Introduction, Student Success Update•Tomorrow: K-12 and demographic issues•Wednesday: Recommendations and Conclusion

Materials•www.ccleague.net/cotf/

The CaliforniaGraduation Initiative:

A 2020 Vision for Student Success for California’s

Community Colleges

A report of the Commission on the Futureof the Community College League of California

The recent focus on student successis not

• an indictment of the work of community college faculty, staff and leaders.

• a political fad.• a rationale for cutting budgets.• pie in the sky.

The recent focus on student success is

• economically necessary• morally incumbent• achievable

America is losing ground internationally

Economically necessary

California is losing groundto other states

(Rank Among States in % with College Degrees)

Age Group Assoc. or Higher Bach. or Higher

>64 3rd 4th

45-64 14th 13th

35-44 26th 17th

25-34 31st 26th

Economically necessary

By Race/ethnicity 66.7% for Asian students 53.5% for white students 39.5% for Latino students 39.0% for African-American

students

Morally incumbent

By Age 52.0% - age under 20 38.5% - age 20-24 34.5% - age 25-49 30.3% for students over 50

Associate Degree/Transfer/Certificate Completion Rates*

California Community College Participation Rates(age 20-24: average 116 per 1,000)

American Indian: 70 per 1,000 adultsAsian: 215 per 1,000 adultsBlack: 147 per 1,000 adultsHispanic: 143 per 1,000 adultsWhite/Other: 112 per 1,000 adults

* Student Success Scorecard definition: attempted at least 1 college level English or math class

According to NCHEMS, California needs 23,006 additional degrees and certificates annually to

reach its share of the national goal, a 5.2% annual increase.

5.2% annual increase

Achievable

In California’s community colleges:• From 92-93 to 08-09, headcount

went up 28%.– AA/AS production went up 64%.– Certificate production went up 125%.

• Total degree production went up 82%.

Achievable

2008-09 2011-12Headcount enrollment

1,823,741 1,655,095

Transfers

UC:CSU:ISP:OOS:

14,05649,77019,82715,927

15,97656,95920,42818,964(2010-11)

AA/AS Degrees 84,948 90,098Certificates 49,428 52,424

Completion Update

Achievable

National average: 19.9/100 FTE

California 2008-2009: 11.0/100 FTE

California 2011-12: 12.8/100 FTE

The Vision:In California, all residents have the opportunity

to complete a quality postsecondary education in a timely manner.

• Access - California should continue to lead the nation in participation.

• Success - Programs and support services should be designed to maximize the ability of students to complete a postsecondary education.

• Equity - Access and success should regularly be monitored in a disaggregated manner and interventions to close achievement gaps should be a campus priority.

The Goals

• Success: California’s community colleges will increase completions by 1 million by 2020.

• Access: California’s community colleges will close participation rate gaps.

• Equity: California’s community colleges will eliminate the achievement gap among enrolled students.

The Completion Goals in Numbers

Status Quo: Annual

(2008-09)

Current(2011-12)

Goal: 2020

Annual

Status Quo:

Cumulative

2010-11 to

2019-20

Goal: Cumulati

ve2010-11

to2019-20

Improvement

AA/AS 84,948 90,098 178,700 849,4801,459,30

0609,820

Certificate 41,166 52,525 145,800 411,660 991,200 579,540

TOTAL 1,189,360

Basic Skills

Transfer andDegree

Completion

Assessment,Placement &Prerequisites

Finance, Fees &

Affordability

Research, Accountability &

Leadership

Visible, high level Visible, high level leadership.leadership.

Leadership andAccountability

Longitudinal Longitudinal data System, K data System, K thru workforce.thru workforce.

Disaggregate all Disaggregate all data.data.

Remove specificRemove specificbarriers to barriers to

scaling.scaling.

Renewed Renewed professional professional

development.development.

Teaching andLearning

Enhanced basic Enhanced basic skills funding skills funding

model.model.

Contextualize & Contextualize & accelerate accelerate

curriculum. curriculum.

Transfer-oriented Transfer-oriented associate degrees.associate degrees.

Course scheduling Course scheduling for student for student

success.success.

Expand credit for Expand credit for demonstrated demonstrated

knowledge.knowledge.

Examine academic Examine academic hiring practices.hiring practices.

IntensiveStudentSupport

Mandatory Mandatory assessment and assessment and

counseling.counseling.Mandatory Mandatory orientation.orientation.

Enforce Enforce registration registration deadlines.deadlines.

““Students donStudents don’’t t do optional.do optional.””

Finance &Affordability

Moderate, Moderate, predictable predictable

enrollment fees.enrollment fees.

Align BOG Waiver Align BOG Waiver requirements w/ requirements w/

federal aid.federal aid.

Additive, categorical Additive, categorical incentive funding incentive funding

program.program.

Funding is Funding is insufficient.insufficient.

Small Group Discussions

State Performance Goals

Stated goals:•Improve system quality, relevance and performance•Reinvent higher education for 21st century within today’s fiscal realities•Control costs; stop using tuition increases to prop up unsustainable business model

Plan Elements

For CSU and UC:•Up to a 20% increase in General Fund appropriations over four years (a 10% increase in total operating funds)•Freeze on tuition for four years•Augmentations contingent on progress made towards four goals

UC/CSU Goals

• Ten percent improvement of on-time graduation rates (for both freshmen and transfers) (in 4 years)

• Ten percent increase in the annual volume of CCC transfer students (in 4 years)

UC/CSU Goals

• Ten percent increase in annual volume of degrees completed (first-time, transfers, and Pell recipients) (in 4 years)

• Ten percent improvement in undergraduate degree completions per 100 full-time equivalent enrolled students (in 4 years)

Other Plan Aspects

• If a segment partially meets its targets, it receives a proportional share of the augmentation

• Segments can recoup lost funding by making subsequent cumulative targets

• Targets are backloaded to later years (1%, 3%,6%, 10%)

• Annual progress reported

CCC Goal Setting

“A note on community colleges: CCCs will also receive commensurate funding increases over the four year term of the funding plan. Corresponding performance measures for CCCs will be developed later this year and introduced in the Governor’s 2014-15 Budget proposal.”

CCC Goal Setting

• Negotiations likely to commence soon for inclusion in December budget (for 14-15)

• Goals commensurate with funding augmentations (10% = 10% expectation)

• Prop. 98 guarantee adds complexity• CCC and BOG need to begin process of

developing similar framework for negotiations

Why not use Scorecard?

• Scorecard metrics are all rates and cohort studies;

• they take years to track and develop• CSU/UC metrics have volumes, which

show more current outputs• A mix of both types of metrics is

desirable to show both increased volume of output and efficiencies

Chancellor’s Position

• We propose a parallel, but slightly more appropriate set of CCC goals, given our multiple missions, open access, and funding

• We propose goals be advanced equal to general FTES growth in access and also backloaded

Metric 1: Annual Volume of Awards

•Defined: Total annual volume of CO approved awards•Gov’s Plan: UC/CSU have the same metric•Goal: increase at a rate => FTES growth

Metric 2: Median Units above Award Requirement

• Defined: Median difference between units required for award and actual units earned (less remedial).

• Gov’s Plan: UC/CSU required to reduce “time to degree”

• Goal: Any reduction over time represents progress (not a growth-based target)

Metric 3: Annual Volume of Degree Applicable/Transferrable Math/English

Completions

• Defined: Annual volume of successfully completed (A,B,C,CR) math and English enrollments at degree-applicable (math only) or transferrable level.

• Gov’s Plan: No CSU/UC parallel• Goal: increase at a rate => FTES

growth

Metric 4: Ratio of “High Order

Outcomes” per 100 FTE• Defined: [annual volume of (degrees +

certificates + 4-yr transfers + transfer prepared, unduplicated)] / [6-yr running average of total system credit FTES]

• Gov’s Plan: UC/CSU req’d to improve degrees per 100 FTE

• Goal: any increase over time represents progress, or rate => FTES growth

Moving Forward

• Item is informational• CO will begin internal vetting and

Governor’s Office negotiatons• Final proposal back to BOG in Fall,

2013

Commission on the Future2013

Summary and Recommendations

Timeline and Process on Writing

• September: Student Success Update

• November:K-12 Pipeline Issues

• January:Demographic and Participation

• Workgroups, along with voting of all members.

The Vision:In California, all residents have the opportunity

to complete a quality postsecondary education in a timely manner.

• Access - California should continue to lead the nation in participation.

• Success - Programs and support services should be designed to maximize the ability of students to complete a postsecondary education.

• Equity - Access and success should regularly be monitored in a disaggregated manner and interventions to close achievement gaps should be a campus priority.

The Goals

• Success: California’s community colleges will increase completions by 1 million by 2020.

• Access: California’s community colleges will close participation rate gaps.

• Equity: California’s community colleges will eliminate the achievement gap among enrolled students.

Student Success

Leadership and Accountability•Visible, high-level leadership across districts and colleges is essential for student success, with a focus on student equity.•K-12 data must be integrated into the longitudinal student record system.•Best practice tools should be provided for local governing boards and leaders to use to examine data relating to student success.

Student Success

Leadership and Accountability•Professional development on student success needs to be prioritized across all categories.•Pipeline of staff development toward leadership roles needs to be focused on equity and student success.

Student Success

Intensive Student Support•Additional pathways to assessment and placement should be actively pursued.•Messaging efforts should be engaged in to inform students “community college is college,” and encouraging full-time enrollment.•Student support should be interdisciplinary and integrated into curricular areas.

Student Success

Intensive Student Support•Summer bridge programs should be expanded, along with first-year experiences.•Expand connection of advising services to learning resources.

Student Success

Teaching and Learning•Structured instructional pathways should be encouraged by finance and to build cohorts.•Develop alternatives to traditional curriculum sequences using linked or contextualized curriculum.•Encourage inter-departmental scheduling using technology to determine student needs.

Student Success

Teaching and Learning•Encourage equity and teaching understanding in faculty hiring, and focus professional development on it.•Expand and inform students of the ability to receive awards for demonstrated competency.•Incentivize experimentation.

Student Success

Finance and Affordability•Create an additive, categorical incentive funding model that distributes money based upon improvements . . . •A “weighted student formula” addressing equity issues should be considered, with focus should be basic skills innovation.•The apportionment system should be revised to allow flexible models leading to student success.

Think beyond your mandate.

Act beyond your tenure.

K-12/CCC Linkage

• The key to economic equity in California is the connection from high school to higher education, and community colleges play the most critical role.

• Data must be analyzed to understand who is being served and how.

• The state must require K-12 and community college collaboration on Common Core implementation.

K-12-CCC Linkage

• The state must require K-12 and community college collaboration on Common Core implementation.

• Effective high school-to-community college linkages must be focused on at-risk students and barriers must be removed:– Dual enrollment (high school campus)– Concurrent enrollment (community college

campus)– Articulation and credit-by-exam

Demographics and Participation

• The loss of 600,000 community college students since 2008 is a threat to equity and California’s economic future.– Who was lost?– How do we get them back?– How do we focus resources accordingly?

Commission on the Future Community College League of California 2013-14.

Documents

Transcript of Commission on the Future Community College League of California 2013-14.