california state university, sacramento financing community colleges: policies, incentives, and...

California State University, Sacramento

Financing Community Colleges: Policies, Incentives, and

Language Matter

Nancy ShulockAchieving the Dream State Policy Meeting

Atlanta, GAFebruary 5, 2008


Overview

The California context

Finance policy and incentives matter for student success

A new approach: “Invest in Success”


California’s Performance is Lagging

Preparation- 35th and 49th in high school students taking advanced math

and science

- Bottom 1/5 in 8th graders scoring “proficient” in all subject areas of the NAEP

Participation- 40th in direct to college from high school

- 48th in full-time college enrollment

Completion- 47th in BA degrees per 100 undergraduates enrolled

- 46th in degrees/certificates awarded per 100 students enrolled in 2-year colleges


Percent of Adults with an Associate Degree or Higher by Age Group—Leading OECD Countries, the U.S., and

California

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Canada Japan Korea Spain France U.S. California

Per

cent

of

Adu

lts w

ith A

ssoc

iate

Deg

ree

or H

ighe

r

Age 55-64 Age 45-54 Age 35-44 Age 25-34

Source: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Education at a Glance 2007; Not shown on the graph are Belgium, Norway, Ireland and Denmark, which also rank ahead of the U.S. on attainment among young adults (attainment is increasing for younger populations as in the other countries)


California Is Becoming Less Educated Than Other States

(Rank Among States in % with College Degrees)

Age Group: AA or Higher BA or Higher

>64 2nd 5th

45-64 11th 10th

35-44 21st 16th

25-34 30th 23rd


California Community College Facts

Size and Governance: 109 community colleges in 72 districts 2.5 million students per year Over 70% of public undergraduates Locally elected boards Collective bargaining – local contracts Highly regulated Highly politicized

Finance-Related: Lowest fees in the nation Low funding per student High participation rates Low completion rates


Tuition/Fees in 50 States

$-

$1,000

$2,000

$3,000

$4,000

$5,000

$6,000


Our Student Success Research

Rules of the Game – February, 2007 Policies are impeding completion – especially finance

policy Beyond the Open Door – August, 2007

We know what works: student success strategies Patterns that are more/less successful in the CCC

Invest in Success – October, 2007 Finance policies are misaligned with priorities A new funding approach can reward performance fairly

It Could Happen – Forthcoming, February, 2008 Reform is possible but requires finance policy reform

and external pressure on system to change


520,407 Students

Policies toPromote Access

314,034 Students

206,373 Students

Policy Barriers to Completion

Incoming CCC Students

1999-2000

238,352 Students

75,682 Students

Non-Degree-Seekers, 40%

Degree-Seekers, 60%

Job Skills, 49%

Basic Skills, 9%

Personal Enrichment, 42%

Complete Certificate, Degree or Transfer within 6 Years, 24%

Do Not Complete within 6 Years, 76%


Age and Race/Ethnicity Matter

Rates of completion: 27% for students age 17-19 at enrollment 21% for students in their 20s 18% for students in their 30s 16% for students age 40 or older

33% for Asian students 27% for white students 18% for Latino students 15% for black students


Enrollment Patterns Matter – Especially Full-Time

Figure 8: Certain Enrollment Patterns are Related to Higher Completion

0%5%

10%15%

20%25%30%

35%40%

45%50%

Full T imeMajority of

Terms

ContinuousEnrollment

OrientationCourse

Drop <20%Courses

Register Late<20% Courses

Perc

ent C

ompl

etin

g C

ert/D

egre

e/T

rans

fer

Followed Pattern Did not Follow Pattern


Community College Reaction

“This is another typical ‘university view’ of our community colleges written by people who have no experience in our institutions.”

Authors seek to “remake community colleges into another elite university system.”

“It is clear that the authors have little or no understanding of our colleges or our students and their work is not helpful….”

“The study is insulting to community colleges.”


Support Emerges

“The resistance you're experiencing is an indication of how badly the message needed be delivered.”

“There are a number of us who resent the defensive manner in which the system responded to your report. You have put critical issues on the table that we have ducked for a long time because of political timidity.”

“Please accept my commendation for your courage in thinking out loud about issues that have for years been repressed and avoided by the systematic work of institutional defensive routines.”


What Finance Policies Impede Student Success?

Appropriations Enrollment-driven funding

Restrictions on college use of resources Fee policy

Low fees for all Fee revenue is an offset to state funding

Financial aid Low use of financial aid No incentives for students


Readiness Access Affordability Completion Workforce Efficiency

Proposition 98 - - - - - Apportionments - +/- - - - Growth - +/- - - - Categoricals: Matriculation - +/- - - - EOPS + + + + - DSPS + - - PT Faculty +/- - - Fin Aid Admin + + - +/- Expenditure restrictions: 50% instruction - +/- - - - 75% / 25% - +/- - - 60% part time - - - - 2 semester temporary - - - - Student employment - - - Fees: Lack of policy - - - Low fees +/- +/- - - - Waivers + +/- - - - Revenue offset - - - - No fee non-credit + +/- + +/- + - Prohibit fees - - - - Financial Aid: BOG waivers - +/- + - +/- - Cal Grant +/- +/- +/- + +/- +/- No integration - - - -


Base Appropriations (Enrollment-Driven)

Readiness - Disincentive to stress readiness because it could reduce FTES

Access +/- Incentive to increase enrollment; no incentive to favor enrollment of degree-seekers over personal enrichment

Completion - No incentive for course completion; incentive to allow late registration and to minimize prerequisites

Workforce +/- Disincentive to meet workforce needs in high-cost and new fields

Efficiency - Focus on inputs does not direct funds where they would have the most impact on outcomes


Categorical Program: “Matriculation”

Readiness - Discourages readiness with 109 definitions of readiness (109 local assessment practices)

Access +/- Promotes broad access but not necessarily by degree-seeking students

Completion - Formula is richer for new students than continuing and remedial and based on enrollment, not services provided

Workforce - No incentive for students to obtain, or colleges to provide, advising about academic pathways and careers

Efficiency - Complex approval and validation process; 95 percent prior year funding guarantee


Restrictions on Spending: 50% Law

Readiness - Discourages time spent by faculty and staff on K-12 alignment and readiness

Access - Limits spending on functions supportive of access (outreach, financial aid administration, orientation)

Completion - Discourages investment in support services that are critical to persistence and success

Workforce - Disincentive for faculty to participate in curriculum development crucial for workforce education

Efficiency - Imposes artificial constraints on use of resources


Financial Aid Focus on Fees, Instead of Affordability

Access - Impedes access because students do not maximize available financial aid

Affordability - Students get too little aid for major costs of college

Completion - Leaving aid unused leads to too many work hours and lower completion

Efficiency - State funds used for costs that the federal government would cover


Key Reforms Require Changes to Funding: From FTES to Success

Mandatory assessment/placement Mandatory orientation Enforced prerequisites Integrated academic/student services Remove spending requirements Increase fees for non-needy students


The Question that Continues to Perplex American Higher Education

How can we best incorporate measures of success into funding decisions?


How Traditional Performance Budgeting Has Typically (Not) Worked

Make no changes in basic funding incentives Create a small performance pot – preferably new

money of 2-5% of total Select measures (usually controversial) Select targets (necessarily arbitrary and

controversial) Mete out rewards (or not - what to do with low

performers?) Performance problems not solved Performance funds get cut Everyone is frustrated (or worse)


What’s Wrong with this Picture?

Performance has become marginalized - an “add on” responsibility to basic operations

Set up to fail – how can 2-5% of total funding solve performance problems?

Performance

Operation


Invest in Success

Not AFTER colleges are funded “to operate” Incentives for success are built into core funding Re-think what is “workload”

Enroll students for a full term Serve disadvantaged students Get students to threshold # units Get students to complete, or advance in, remedial work Get students to complete programs


Trade-offs and Challenges

Design Issues: Which workload factors to include – new incentives Importance of each factor – the “stability” question How to use the factors fairly Phase-in time period

Institutional Culture: Focus on funding students, not institutions Ideological resistance to rewarding performance Baggage from failed performance budgeting


Lessons We Have Learned

Incentives are powerful – we get exactly what we design through policy

Changing policies – needs external support Performance funding needs a new language “Invest in Success” – so far, so good

Copies of reportsOnline: www.csus.edu/ihe Request hard copies: [email protected]

california state university, sacramento financing community colleges: policies, incentives, and...

Documents

california state university

california source

success slide

sacramento age

students age

students policies

sacramento tuitionfees

rd slide