The Future of the California Community Colleges – Incentivizing Student Success

1. The Future of the California Community Colleges – Incentivizing Student Success

2. The Future… • Presenters • Michelle Pilati, Rio Hondo College • Kale Braden, Cosumnes River College • Debbie Klein, Gavilan College • Is our current funding model the best model for our system?

3. Questions to Consider • What is #5 of the “10+1”? • Are there ways to modify how our colleges are funded that provide the appropriate balance for access and success? • What models might be appropriately considered for our system?

4. Overview • Senate Bill 1143 • ASCCC Positions • Performance-based Funding • The ‘Washington Model’ • The ‘Florida Model’ • Discussion

5. Senate Bill 1143, Liu • Requires the Board of Governors (BoG) to: • Adopt a plan for promoting and improving student success within the California Community Colleges. • Establish a Student Success Task Force

6. Task Force on Student Success • (1) Multiple measures and effective programs for assessing student success and completion, including, but not limited to, attaining college-level skills, accumulating college-level course credits, earning a degree or certificate, or transferring to a four-year college or university. • (2) Statutory and regulatory barriers to student success and completion.

7. Task Force on Student Success • (3) Best practices for promoting student success and completion, including, but not limited to, the acquisition of basic skills. • (4) Alternative funding options for providing necessary services to students and promoting best practices for student success and completion.

8. Task Force on Student Success (5) Alternative funding options instituted in other states for improving student success and completion. (6) The effective use of technology by community colleges and districts to promote, evaluate, and improve student success and completion.

9. ASCCC Positions • Rely Primarily on Faculty • 05.02 (Spring 1999) “Resolved that the Academic Senate urge the Chancellor to rely primarily on the Academic Senate in the consultation process to recommend measures of student success in the Partnership for Excellence.” • Oppose Performance Based Funding • 05.05 (Fall, 1998) .. the ASCCC reaffirm its opposition to performance-based funding as a means of distributing educational resources.

10. ASCCC Positions • Performance Based Funding • 05.02 (Fall, 1997) .. the ASCCC oppose performance based funding as a mechanism for distributing funds to colleges and districts. • “Performance Based Funding: A Faculty Critique and Action Agenda” • Adopted Spring, 1998

11. A Faculty Critique and Action Agenda • Reaffirm positions and resolutions opposing performance based funding, and in particular, the use of district specific performance payouts as a means of distributing state educational resources for the CCCs. • Urge the Chancellor and the BoG to redirect their energies and policies toward protecting and enlarging access, promoting the success of all CCC students, and promoting sound educational policy.

12. History of Performance-Based Funding • Although states such as South Carolina, Tennessee and others in the late 1980s and early 1990s began allocating some of their funds for colleges through new metrics based on performance rather than traditional enrollment-based formulas, the idea did not catch on widely, and was seen as having relatively limited impact in most states that experimented with it.

13. Why? • Use of “crude measures” • Funding issues

14. The Washington Model • “momentum points” • “.. extra money for students who earn their first 15 and first 30 college credits, earn their first 5 credits of college-level math, pass a pre-college writing or math course, make significant gains in certain basic skills tests, earn a degree or complete a certificate. Colleges also will be rewarded for students who earn a GED through their programs.

15. The Washington Model • “All of these benchmarks are important accomplishments that help propel students forward on the road of higher education.” • What does this statement – and the funding model – presume? • A causal connection. • Does the Washington model “work”?

16. Florida Model • The Statewide Course Numbering System • Transfer AA • Sounds remarkably like SB1440 • Student/Data Tracking K-20 • Articulation Coordinating Committee • Standardized Assessment • Statewide Standards for CTE Moore, C. “Some lessons from Florida for California’s postsecondary education policy”. POLICY BRIEF: Strategies for Improving Higher Education in California . Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Lessons-from-Florida_0310.pdf

17. Florida Model: Challenges • K-12 and Florida College System governed by FLBOE, the State University System of Florida is governed by a Board of Governors • Two distinct performance based systems (one now defunct) • “Shared Governance and Strong Unions in California are a barrier to the California Legislature enacting Florida-like types of programs in California.” Moore, C. “Some lessons from Florida for California’s postsecondary education policy”. POLICY BRIEF: Strategies for Improving Higher Education in California . Retrieved from http://www.csus.edu/ihelp/PDFs/R_Lessons-from-Florida_0310.pdf

18. A Performance-Based Funding Model?

19. Unintended Consequences • Do the potential unintended consequences outweigh the intended ones? • Will the intended ones happen? • What ‘controls’ need to be implemented?

20. Discussion, Questions, Conclusions