1 wedpac/edpac 10.30.13 california community colleges chancellor’s office

1

WEDPAC/EDPAC10.30.13

CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGESCHANCELLOR’S OFFICE

California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

Agenda

10am – 1:00pm• Welcome & Introductions• Policy Discussion

– Context– Research Findings– Facilitated Discussion & Working Lunch

1pm - 2:00pm• Update on Doing What MATTERS for Jobs & Economy

– Interactive Map, Onboarding & Self-Help Resources– Key Talent ‘Meet and Greet’

• Jose Anaya, Sector Navigator, Advance Manufacturing• Steve Glyer & Lynn Shaw, LA/OC Regional Consortia

• 2013-14 EWD Expenditure Plan• Consent Items• Next Meeting: January 22, 2014, 10AM-2PM

• Public Comments

California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students 3

Policy Discussion

Context: California Economic Summit ‘Workforce Action Team’Van Ton-Quinlivan

Amy Wallace, California Workforce Investment Board

“Workforce Investments: State Strategies to Preserve Higher-Cost Career Education Programs in Community and Technical Colleges” ReportJodi Lewis, Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy

Facilitated Discussion & Working Lunch

Facilitators: Catherine Swenson, Elaine Gaertner and Denise Brosseau

4

Jobs & Economy Goals:

• Supply in-demand skills for employers• Create relevant pathways and stackable credentials

• Get Californians into open jobs• Promote student success

What are our Jobs & Economy Goals?


• San Diego/Imperial-----• Los Angeles• Orange County-----• East Bay• North Bay• SF/Mid Peninsula• Silicon Valley• Santa Cruz/Monterey-----• Inland Empire/Desert-----• Greater Sacramento• Northern Inland CA• Northern Coastal CA-----• South Central-----• Central• Mother LodeCalifornia Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

California’s reality: many regional economies


• Phase 1: Doing What MATTERS for Jobs & Economy Framework– Target incentive investment (EWD, SB70, Perkins 1B)

• Sector

• Region

• Technical Assistance

– Braided RFA

– Common accountability metrics

Administrative Fixes Empower Regions Rethink Funding

• Phase 2: Moving the Needle

• Phase 3: Scaling Excellence


Continuum for increasing system’s responsiveness to workforce needs

Administrative Fixes Empower Regions Rethink Funding

DIFFICULTY

IMPACT

Low

Medium Medium High

Medium High

8

Cost Creates Disincentive to Offer CTE10-year trend in CTE portfolio of community colleges (as % of Full Time Equivalent Students)



The Convergence

10

- California State Workforce Plan - Feedback from Regional Forums - Community college field feedback

Unmet Regional Need for In-Demand and High-Growth CTE

Workforce Investments: State Strategies to Preserve Higher-Cost

Career Education Programs in Community and Technical Colleges

Nancy ShulockJodi LewisConnie Tan

Institute for Higher Education Leadership & PolicySacramento State University

The California Context

• Enrollment funding = one rate for all programsInstructional Costs Per Student Credit Hour

National Averages (2011-2012)Humanities/Humanistic Studies $52

Biology, General $64

Engineering-Related Technologies $73

Allied Health and Medical Assisting Services $131

Drafting/Design Engineering Technologies/Technicians $163

Respiratory Care Therapy/Therapist $265

Source: National Community College Cost & Productivity Project, National Higher Education Benchmarking Institute

Scope of Study• Examine how 20 states are using finance

strategies to preserve high-cost CTE/workforce programs– Limited to the use of state general funds– Limited to postsecondary institutions

CTE in Other States• Thoughtful prioritization of CTE• A larger portion of associate degrees (includes Associate of

Applied Science)

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

CTE Degrees as Percent of All Degrees inPublic Two-Year Colleges, 2010-11

Strategy Number of States (out of 20) California Approach

Separate technical institutions/system

11 All colleges have comprehensive mission

Differential funding based on costs

13 Constant funding rate regardless of program

Performance- or outcomes-based funding

14 Enrollment-based funding

Differential tuition (either for whole system or individual college discretion)

11 Same tuition for all programs

Differential course fees 17 Course materials fees limited by statute

Strategies that May Preserve CTE/Workforce Programs

Separate Technical Systems/Institutions

– 11 out of 20 states have “technical” colleges in 3 types of governance structures, e.g.,

– “Technical” Colleges within a comprehensive system• Washington SCTCS• Louisiana CTCS

– Technical college systems • Technical College System of Georgia • Texas State Technical College System

– Free-standing technical colleges not in a system• Kansas• Ohio

Differential Funding

• 13 of 20 states differentiate funding by discipline• Assign costs to discipline categories• Incorporate cost differentials in final allocations– Usually 3-6 categories– Higher-cost programs funded 2-3 times higher

• “Fair”– Equity in terms of student access to quality

programs

Performance Funding

• 14 out of 20 states have approved PF• Treats high and low cost programs the same– Rewards completions of degrees and certificates

• Can incentivize variety of workforce outcomes– Some metrics include job placement, wages, high-

need completions, and industry certifications

Differential Tuition

• 11 out of the 20 states • Some use it broadly, some selectively• Some marginally higher, some much higher

Examples of Differential Tuition (by Program)

Number of Tiers/Rates Programs/Disciplines Tuition Rate

Arizona-Pima District

3

General (liberal arts) $65.50 per credit hour

Level A (e.g., aviation tech; respiratory tech)

$85.50 per credit hour

Level B (e.g., nursing, radiologic tech) $91.50 per credit hour

Illinois-Central College

Rates vary by program, for multiple programs

Standard $99 per credit hour

E.g., welding, auto body, health $124-$173.25 per credit hour

Ohio-Mid-East Career & Technology Center

Each program has a separate tuition/fee total listed

Practical nursing $10,214 for 42 week program

Welding $9,280 for 38 week program

Heating & air conditioning $6,031 for 41 week program

Course Fees

• 17 of the 20 states charge course fees• Fees cover lab operation and equipment,

supplies, specialized training, assistants• Examples:– Indiana’s Ivy Tech college course fees range from

$10 to $50 for automotive courses, to $300 for principles of advanced manufacturing

– At Blue Mountain CC in Oregon, fees range from $80 for music courses, to $150 lab fees in welding

Conclusions

• There is much to learn from other states– Most states are very thoughtful about the issue of

finance– Most celebrate the CTE mission without

hesitation, and without detriment to the transfer mission

• These 5 strategies are adaptable

Implications for California

• Strategy 1: “Technical colleges”– Messaging is important

• Strategy 2: Differential funding– A different take on equity

• Strategy 3: Performance funding– Flexible applications to incentivize workforce outcomes

• Strategy 4: Differential tuition– Could apply very selectively

• Strategy 5: Course fees– Could loosen statutory restrictions

Clarification Questions?

• Contact Information: [email protected]

• IHELP Publications: http://www.csus.edu/ihelp

Strategy Number of States (out of 20) California Approach

Separate technical institutions/system

11 All colleges have comprehensive mission

Differential funding based on costs

13 Constant funding rate regardless of program

Performance- or outcomes-based funding

14 Enrollment-based funding

Differential tuition (either for whole system or individual college discretion)

11 Same tuition for all programs

Differential course fees 17 Course materials fees limited by statute

Strategies that May Preserve CTE/Workforce Programs

Poll & Discuss


The Courageous Conversation

26

- California State Workforce Plan - Feedback from Regional Forums - Community college field feedback

Unmet Regional Need for In-Demand and High-Growth CTE

Is there a path forward?


1st Group of Internal & External StakeholdersName Organization Category

Alma Salazar L.A. County Chamber External/Workforce Partner

Amy Wallace California Workforce Investment Board External/Workforce Partner

John Melville California Economic Summit External/Workforce Partner

Rebecca Miller SEIU United Healthcare West External/Workforce Partner

Tim Rainey California Workforce Investment Board External/Workforce Partner

Larry Good Corporation for Skilled Workforce External/Workforce Partner

Nancy Shulock Institute for Higher Ed Leadership & Policy External/Workforce Partner

Sarah Bohn Public Policy Institute of California External/Workforce Partner

Susan Hackwood CA Council on Science and Technology External/Workforce Partner

Beth Smith Academic Senate (ASCCC) Internal

Jeff Cummings CCC Assoc of Occupations Educators (CCCAOE) Internal

Jonathan Lightman Faculty Association of the CCs (FACC) Internal

Jon Sharpe Chief Business Officer/Los Rios CCD Internal

Linda Collins Career Ladders Project Internal

Mary Benard Chief Instructional Officer/Mira Costa College Internal

Rock Pfotenhauer Bay Area Regional Consortia/CTE Dean Internal

Van Ton Quinlivan CCCCO Internal

Cris McCullough CCCCO Internal

Debra Jones CCCCO Internal

California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students28

1st Group of Internal & External Stakeholders

Name Organization Category

Catherine Swenson CCCCO Outreach/Facilitation

Denise Brosseau Thought Leadership Lab Outreach/Facilitation

Elaine Gaertner CCCCO Outreach/Facilitation

Rhiannon Surrenda CA Corp College/Cabrillo College Outreach/Facilitation

Pat McNellis Compression Planning Facilitation

Jerry McNellis Compression Planning Facilitation


Is There a Path Forward?

Deliberation of OptionsCost: - Start up - Do

Time: - Buy-in - Do

Difficulty: - Start up - On-going

Impact & side effects to CA’s community college system:- Primary- Secondary- Tertiary

IHELP research on 20 states

Initial mix of external and

internal stakeholders

Structured discussion technique

How likely will this strategy fix the funding

barriers to offering

in-demand, high growth and more costly CTE courses?

The Filters

The Strawman

Vet &Refine

The Process

The Issue

How to meet

regional need for in-

demand and high-growth

CTE?

Path forward:

Explore differential

(or enhanced) funding

Is there a “shared

investment” concept

Shared ownership

Differential Funding:A Closer Look at Models Being Used

in Other States

Outcomes of DF

• A college with more students enrolled in higher cost programs (e.g., CTE) would receive, on average, more funding per student than other colleges

• Overall funding is more closely representative of the actual costs to serve students

• Equal opportunity for students to access programs• Equal opportunity for colleges to offer the programs

their regions need

One Concept: Many Approaches

• 13 of the 20 states we studied use DF• Disciplines assigned to cost categories• Funding rates assigned to categories• Costs based on data from the state’s colleges or

national cost studies • 3 main approaches: – Rate based on student/faculty ratio– Rate based on total cost – FTES weighting

ArkansasFunding Based on Four Cost Categories Derived from

Student Semester Credit Hours (SSCH)

Cost Categories Sampling of Disciplines (based on CIP codes) Workload Standards

General Education Agriculture, business, natural resources, communications, education, engineering, foreign languages, law, letters, liberal studies, biology, visual/ performing arts, social sciences

22 students (660 SSCH)

Technical Education Marketing, Communications technology, engineering technology, construction trades, mechanics, protective services

16 students (480 SSCH)

Basic Skills Remedial/developmental 16 students (480 SSCH)

Allied Health Health professions 12 students (360 SSCH)

Source: Arkansas Department of Higher Education

IllinoisCredit Hour Rates by Category

Baccalaureate Business Technical Health Remedial Adult Basic Ed

FY2011 Unit Cost $254.60 $287.49 $277.88 $345.00 $220.43 $242.14

FY2013 Weighed Cost

$261.28 $295.03 $285.18 $354.05 $226.21 $248.50

Less:

Tuition & Fees $105.06 $105.06 $105.06 $105.06 $105.06 -

Local Tax Revenue $103.83 $103.83 $103.83 $103.83 $103.83 $103.83

Total $52.38 $86.14 $76.28 $145.16 $17.32 $144.67

Source: Illinois Community College Board

Nebraska• Courses are weighted, and colleges receive funding

based on FTES enrollment in courses– 1.0 weighting for academic transfer courses– 1.5 weighting for technical courses that don’t require

expensive equipment– 2.0 weighting for technical courses requiring expensive

equipment (e.g. welding and nursing)

Other Examples

Cost-Based Method

Number & Type of Rates RangeKentucky 52 per credit hour rates Highest: Construction Trade $286

Lowest: Protective Services $56

Texas 29 per credit hour rates Highest: Career Pilot $29.27Lowest: Psychology, Social Sciences, History $7.16

Kansas 25 course rates Highest: $382Lowest: $146


Facilitated Discussion QuestionsRound #1

Address:- Pros & Cons of each design- What must occur for this design to be successful?

Design A:Tiered Funding –

Based on cost

Design B:Weighted

Funding – 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc.

Design C:CTE Equipment Enhancement

Funds

California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students38

Facilitated Discussion QuestionsRound #2

Address:- What constituency concerns must be consideredor addressed?

Design A:Tiered Funding –

Based on cost

Design B:Weighted

Funding – 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc.

Design C:CTE Equipment Enhancement

Funds


Next Steps

• Facilitators will provide feedback to California Economic Summit (CAEconomy.org) on designs

• Other designs?


Update

Interactive Map, Onboarding & Self-Help Resources

Key Talent ‘Meet and Greet’

EWD Budget


doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu


Download banner link to Interactive Map:http://www.doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu/CommunicationToolKit.aspx#share


Meet & Greet of Key Talents

Jose AnayaAdvanced Manufacturing

Director & Sector Navigator

Steve Glyer & Lynn ShawLA/OC Regional Consortia

Chair & Vice Chair

49

2014-15 Proposed Expenditure PlanSB-1042 Economic & Workforce Development (EWD) Program


Recommendation:Request restoration this categorical to $46.3M*

Approve 2014-15 expenditure plan for $22.9M of that pot

* (from 2002)


Consent

Next Meeting: January 22th, 10AM-2PM

Public Comments


Public Comment

1 wedpac/edpac 10.30.13 california community colleges chancellor’s office

Documents