WEDPAC/EDPAC 10.30.13

1. CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES CHANCELLOR’S OFFICE WEDPAC/EDPAC 10.30.13

2. 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 DiscussionContext: 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 & PolicyFacilitated Discussion & Working LunchFacilitators: Catherine Swenson, Elaine Gaertner and Denise Brosseau California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

4. What are our Jobs & Economy Goals? Jobs & Economy Goals: • Supply in-demand skills for employers • Create relevant pathways and stackable credentials • Get Californians into open jobs • Promote student success California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students 4

5. California’s reality: many regional economies • 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 Lode California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

6. Administrative Fixes Empower Regions Rethink Funding • 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 • Phase 2: Moving the Needle • Phase 3: Scaling Excellence California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

7. Continuum for increasing system’s responsiveness to workforce needs Administrative Fixes Empower Regions Rethink Funding High Medium IMPACT Medium DIFFICULTY Low Medium High California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

8. Cost Creates Disincentive to Offer CTE10-year trend in CTE portfolio of community colleges (as % of Full Time Equivalent Students) California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

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

10. The Convergence - Feedback from Regional Forums - Community college field feedback • California State Workforce Plan Unmet Regional Need for In-Demand and High-Growth CTE California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

11. Workforce Investments: State Strategies to Preserve Higher-Cost Career Education Programs in Community and Technical Colleges Nancy Shulock Jodi Lewis Connie Tan Institute for Higher Education Leadership & Policy Sacramento State University

12. The California Context • Enrollment funding = one rate for all programs Source: National Community College Cost & Productivity Project, National Higher Education Benchmarking Institute

13. 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

14. CTE in Other States • Thoughtful prioritization of CTE • A larger portion of associate degrees (includes Associate of Applied Science)

15. Strategies that May Preserve CTE/Workforce Programs

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

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

20. Examples of Differential Tuition (by Program)

21. 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

22. 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

23. 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

24. Clarification Questions? • Contact Information: ihelp@csus.edu • IHELP Publications: http://www.csus.edu/ihelp

25. Strategies that May Preserve CTE/Workforce Programs Poll & Discuss

26. The Courageous Conversation - Feedback from Regional Forums - Community college field feedback • California State Workforce Plan Unmet Regional Need for In-Demand and High-Growth CTE Is there a path forward? California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

27. 1st Group of Internal & External Stakeholders California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

28. 1st Group of Internal & External Stakeholders California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

29. Is There a Path Forward? Shared ownership The Issue The Process The Filters The Strawman Vet & Refine • Deliberation of Options • Cost: • Start up • Do • Time: • Buy-in • Do • Difficulty: • Start up • On-going • Impact & side effects to • CA’s community college system: • Primary • Secondary • Tertiary How likely will this strategy fix the funding barriers to offering in-demand, high growth and more costly CTE courses? Path forward: Explore differential (or enhanced) funding Is there a “shared investment” concept How to meet regional need for in-demand and high-growth CTE? IHELP research on 20 states Structured discussion technique Initial mix of external and internal stakeholders California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

30. Differential Funding: A Closer Look at Models Being Used in Other States

31. 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

32. 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

33. Arkansas Source: Arkansas Department of Higher Education

34. Illinois Source: Illinois Community College Board

35. 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)

36. Other Examples

37. Facilitated Discussion QuestionsRound #1 Design A: Tiered Funding – Based on cost Design B: Weighted Funding – 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc. Design C: CTE Equipment Enhancement Funds Address: - Pros & Cons of each design - What must occur for this design to be successful? California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

38. Facilitated Discussion QuestionsRound #2 Design A: Tiered Funding – Based on cost Design B: Weighted Funding – 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, etc. Design C: CTE Equipment Enhancement Funds Address: - What constituency concerns must be considered or addressed? California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

39. Next Steps Facilitators will provide feedback to California Economic Summit(CAEconomy.org) on designs Other designs? California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

40. Update Interactive Map, Onboarding & Self-Help ResourcesKey Talent ‘Meet and Greet’EWD Budget California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

41. doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

42. doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

43. doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

44. Download banner link to Interactive Map: http://www.doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu/CommunicationToolKit.aspx#share California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

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

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

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

48. Meet & Greet of Key Talents • Jose Anaya • Advanced Manufacturing • Director & Sector Navigator • Steve Glyer & Lynn Shaw • LA/OC Regional Consortia • Chair & Vice Chair California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students

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

50. ConsentNext Meeting: January 22th, 10AM-2PMPublic Comments California Community Colleges – Chancellor’s Office | 112 Colleges | 72 Districts | 2.6 Million Students