Commission on the Future

1. Commission on the Future Community CollegeLeague of California 2013-14

2. 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?

3. 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/

4. The California Graduation Initiative: A 2020 Vision for Student Success for California’s Community Colleges A report of the Commission on the Future of the Community College League of California

5. 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.

6. The recent focus on student success is • economically necessary • morally incumbent • achievable

7. America is losing ground internationally Economically necessary • Once first in the world, America now ranks 10th13thin the percentage of young adults with a college degree. • For the first time in our history, the current generation of college-age Americans will be less educated than their parents’generation – unless things change quickly.

9. California is losing groundto other states(Rank Among States in % with College Degrees) Economically necessary

10. Morally incumbent California Community College Participation Rates (age 20-24: average 116 per 1,000) American Indian: 70 per 1,000 adults Asian: 215 per 1,000 adults Black: 147 per 1,000 adults Hispanic: 143 per 1,000 adults White/Other: 112 per 1,000 adults By Race/ethnicity • 66.7% for Asian students • 53.5% for white students • 39.5% for Latino students • 39.0% for African-American students Associate Degree/Transfer/Certificate Completion Rates* • By Age • 52.0% - age under 20 • 38.5% - age 20-24 • 34.5% - age 25-49 • 30.3% for students over 50 * Student Success Scorecard definition: attempted at least 1 college level English or math class

11. 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. Achievable 5.2% annual increase

12. 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%.

13. Completion Update

14. Achievable National average: 19.9/100 FTE California 2008-2009: 11.0/100 FTE California 2011-12: 12.8/100 FTE

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. The Completion Goals in Numbers

19. Finance, Fees &Affordability Assessment, Placement & Prerequisites Research, Accountability &Leadership Transfer and Degree Completion Basic Skills

20. Renewed professional development. Visible, high level leadership. Remove specific barriers to scaling. Leadership and Accountability Longitudinal data System, K thru workforce. Disaggregate all data.

21. Renewed professional development. Visible, high level leadership. Remove specific barriers to scaling. Leadership and Accountability Longitudinal data System, K thru workforce. Disaggregate all data.

22. Examine academic hiring practices. Enhanced basic skills funding model. Contextualize & accelerate curriculum. Expand credit for demonstrated knowledge. Teaching and Learning Course scheduling for student success. Transfer-oriented associate degrees.

23. Examine academic hiring practices. Enhanced basic skills funding model. Contextualize & accelerate curriculum. Expand credit for demonstrated knowledge. Teaching and Learning Course scheduling for student success. Transfer-oriented associate degrees.

24. Enforce registration deadlines. “Students don’t do optional.” Intensive Student Support Mandatory assessment and counseling. Mandatory orientation.

25. Enforce registration deadlines. “Students don’t do optional.” Intensive Student Support Mandatory assessment and counseling. Mandatory orientation.

26. Funding is insufficient. Additive, categorical incentive funding program. Finance &Affordability Moderate, predictable enrollment fees. Align BOG Waiver requirements w/ federal aid.

27. Funding is insufficient. Additive, categorical incentive funding program. Finance &Affordability Moderate, predictable enrollment fees. Align BOG Waiver requirements w/ federal aid.

28. Small Group Discussions

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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)

32. 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)

33. 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

34. 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.”

35. 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

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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)

40. 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

41. 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

42. Moving Forward • Item is informational • CO will begin internal vetting and Governor’s Office negotiatons • Final proposal back to BOG in Fall, 2013

43. Commission on the Future2013 Summary and Recommendations

44. 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.

45. 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.

46. 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.

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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.

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