I would like to express my thanks to all of you that were able to attend the second advisory committee meeting for the Little Hoover Commission's study on community colleges. Please return the fax sheet at the end of this summary to let us know if you plan to attend the next meeting. If you were unable to attend this meeting, but would like to stay on the Advisory Committee, please indicate so on the fax sheet. Otherwise, you will be dropped from the list.

The next Advisory Committee meeting will be held February 24, 1999 in Room 340 of the Library and Courts H Building at 900 N Street in Sacramento from 9:00 to 4:00 p. m.

The following is a summary of the major points covered during the second advisory committee meeting:

The advisory committee discussed the five missions of the Community Colleges: Preparing Undergraduates for Transfer, Vocational Education, Economic Development, Citizenship and English for Immigrants, and CalWORKs.

Summary of Major Discussion Points for Transfer Mission

•   Rita Mize of the Community College League of California provided an overview of the transfer role of the community colleges as defined in the Master Plan. She noted that the UC is supposed to have a higher proportion of upper to lower classmen (60% vs. 40%), to provide slots for transfer students. CPEC recommends that the community colleges be basic skills and transfer institutions, encourage minority enrollment, increase high school outreach, and develop articulation and enrollment programs.

•   Transfer students are often those who didn't have the scores or couldn't afford to go directly to CSU/UC. Of transfer students, 7 out of 10 (45,000-49,000 per year) go to CSU, 1 out of 10 (over 10,000) go to UC, 1 out of 10 to an in-state independent college, and 1 out of 10 out-of-state.

•   A small number of community colleges supply most of the transfer students: 30 of the 106 community colleges provide 70% of the transfers. These colleges tend to have more full-time, younger, non-minority students. They tend to be in large urban areas, near four-year institutions, and they have established transfer centers. (The State doesn't mandate transfer centers, but it does provide funding.) Other factors that affect transfer rates include:
The last community college attended by a student gets credit for the transfer. Also, the high-transfer colleges may get more students who are already eligible for UC/CSU. Low-transfer colleges may have more historically underserved populations.
The amount of focus on transfer varies by community college according to local constituent needs. (Emphasis on transfer tends to be greater near four-year institutions, etc.)
Community colleges with the most success have developed support mechanisms and relationships with four-year institutions. They also tend to have leadership that is committed to the transfer mission.

•  Barriers to transfer include complexity and lack of standardization between colleges. This is more true for UC than CSU. The CSU system has delegated authority that allows its campuses to designate which courses are transferable, but individual departments may not accept community college courses as credit towards a major.

CPEC noted that the community colleges and CSU had, at one point, put together a comprehensive transfer program, with transfer centers, matriculation, etc. Financial difficulties decreased the program components and effectiveness - full-time transfer center directors became part-time, etc. This was compounded by similar cuts in high schools. Prior to the 1991 recession, with federal and state money for transfer centers, the colleges had more resources and were increasing outreach.

•  Another transfer barrier is the availability of counselors. Many students don't know they will want to transfer when they start at the community colleges. Additional counselors would most help this group. There was some discussion among the group as to the potential for attracting counselors through pay increases.
The group also expressed a need for additional information about and within the education system:

•  The Community Colleges are obligated by law to have a transfer program. The State judges compliance by the transfer trends for each college over time (but doesn't compare the colleges). One suggestion is to identify the campuses with the "most value added" 'most students who transfer who weren't previously eligible, and look at these and other best practices.

•  The State doesn't track individual students, so it is unable to determine which courses a student must repeat at a four-year institution. This should be tracked, along with the number of transfer students who find themselves back in remedial courses at a four-year institution. With longitudinal monitoring, one could also measure the amount of time a student spent actually enrolled in a community college (students may leave and return).

•   There is no commonly accepted method for calculating transfer rates. CPEC suggests that the success measure be the number of "transfer-ready" students, whether the student transfers or not.

•   Also, the State needs better longitudinal information on K- 12 education. It needs a feedback loop, with community colleges communicating with high schools regarding student proficiency. UC and CSU do this with high schools; they need to include community colleges in the loop. There is some of this done informally.

Other comments included:

•   CPEC: The constant change in funding and laws means that articulation and transfer will never be "fixed." The Master Plan routes students through the Community Colleges before CSU/UC. This is a successful experiment: transfer students account for roughly 60% of the BA's given at CSU each year, and over 25% of the BA's given each year at UC.

•   Priority of different Community College missions changes with demographics: the colleges expanded their course offerings to accommodate a growing population of new high school graduates. When this population shrank, the courses were no longer being filled, and the colleges began offering proportionally more courses for the general public, rather than transfer courses.

Summary of Major Discussion Points for the Vocational Education Mission

•  Evelyn "Sam" Weiss gave an overview of how this mission has changed over time, from preparation for jobs to employment to careers. With the number of different careers each person may have, colleges must now prepare students with general skill sets, such as critical thinking and teamwork, that they can carry with them. The Community College system is the largest provider of vocational education in the state; most funding for vocational education is from the state (2% federal). The value of vocational programs has been measured in higher wages.

•  Vocation education students are older, enrolled for a particular skill set, and may return for other skill sets. Many students will receive certificates and eventually transfer to four-year institutions for a BA (usually 2-5 years later). Students also enroll to obtain new skills necessary to keep their jobs.

Barriers to vocational education include money and access:

•    Vocational education is expensive. Colleges must have state-of-the-art equipment to make their students employable. In order to afford equipment, programs can form partnerships with industry. There is a tension in this, however, as community college programs cannot allow industry to dictate their courses.
In addition, virtually all programs now require computers - an added expense for every department. Some equipment (i.e. Multimedia) is very expensive, and must be replaced often. One possible solution is to partner with nearby schools serving different populations (e.g., day and night schools can share classrooms and equipment).

•  Vocational education must balance the best program with availability and access. Many people can't commute, therefore colleges must offer some duplicate programs. Different local economies also necessitate different specialties. There is a need to balance local needs with regional access for all.
Campuses watch local labor markets, other campus' offerings, etc. to ensure that supply matches demand. There is also some regionalization, so that different campuses in an area may offer different sub-specialties within the same subject.

•  Vocational education certification: the Chancellor's office must approve full occupational certificates (18+ units), to ensure the colleges aren't oversupplying the market. Faculty would like to create more cumulative certificates - smaller certificates that would lead up to a higher degree or certificate.

•  Vocational education hires part-time faculty working in industry - they have experience, but not enough time to devote to students. Full-time faculty need a way to get back into industry while still teaching.

There are differences between community colleges and other occupational training:

•  Regional occupation centers (ROC's) train more narrowly for specific skills. Community colleges integrate academics and occupational skills training. The colleges also offer services and information beyond occupational training..

•  No one has reviewed the comparative effectiveness of the community colleges, ROC's, and adult education. Each may serve a certain function or population best. CPEC can only review the colleges, and has yet to do so.

There are also private sector vocational training institutes (the State approves over 2400). Should these programs be incorporated into the state strategy? They are supervised by a new bureau in the Department of Consumer Affairs, under new laws, so there are some concerns about the effectiveness of state oversight (rigorous laws enforced from 1990-95 added credibility to this sector).

Overview and Summary of Major Discussion Points for CalWORKs Mission

•  Linda Collins, Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, introduced the topic. The major issues for the colleges axe funding, time allotted, and local social service agencies' priorities. Another concern is that the colleges are not prepared to handle other problems that this population faces - drugs, domestic violence. The colleges are developing relationships with social service agencies, which may alleviate this concern.
Funding: The Community Colleges are given Proposition 98 funds (redirected from K- 12, but no new money). In addition, courses for CaIWORKs. students are so basic that no one else wants to take them. If social service agencies do not refer enough CalWORKs students, the courses will not fill.
Time: California gives AFDC recipients 18 months to find a job. This includes local social services processing, a job search, and then (for some) education at a community college. This gives the college roughly one year to train these students. This is not enough time to provide adequate training.
One partial solution: turn multi-year programs into one-year certifiable blocks, and hope that the students return for the next block.
Priorities: For CaIWORKs, work is the first priority. This means that AFDC recipients are only trained as a last resort, with even less time for training than the original 18 months. The community colleges want to provide each student with a career path, not just a marketable skill. These ideals are at odds with the CalWORKs mission of getting a job first.
The community college faculty (Academic Senate, administrators) want to keep the CalWORKs mission, but do not agree with the current program. They want more time with CalWORKs students, and they want these students to return for additional skills. They view this as keeping people in the labor force in the long-term, versus providing "short-term skills" that won't ensure permanent employment.

•  One reason for including community colleges in CalWORKs is access to Proposition 98 money, both for training and for child care. The community colleges feel that they can serve a segment of the AFDC population. Social service agencies also refer to a broad range of educational institutions, including adult education (which costs $2000 more per student than the colleges) and ROC's.

Summary of Major Points of Discussion for the Economic Development Mission

•  Diana Rudé, of Senator Polanco's office, introduced this topic. Economic development initiatives began in the 1980's, to give businesses a single point of contact with the community colleges. There are now 23 initiatives, for a total of $30 million available, including $5 million to help train welfare recipients. Community colleges compete for these regional initiatives, and are evaluated based on the quality of their grant writing. This means that the college that is awarded an initiative isn't necessarily located in the same area as the appropriate industry. For example, the multimedia industry is clustered in the Bay Area and Los Angeles. The college awarded the multimedia initiative, however, may be located anywhere in the state.

•  The Economic Development Program sunsets in June. The LAO is supposed to conduct a sunset review. The Community Colleges conducted a program review, but the document doesn't clearly show outcomes jobs created, value to businesses, etc.)

•  Earlier, in the vocational education discussion, the group compared vocational education and economic development. The discussion was revisited in this section. Economic development is industry-focused. It is designed to meet the needs of industry clusters and attract businesses to an area. It may also serve to open up entry-level jobs for welfare recipients. Ideally, the colleges find out about new job needs locally, and incorporate this knowledge into their course offerings. This model is contrasted with vocational education, which is student-focused and designed to give students marketable skills.

•  There are two ways that a college can participate in economic development:
Economic development initiatives are aimed at the economic health of a region. They must be proposed, and approved by the Board. The State supplies seed money for new and developing or endangered initiatives.
Colleges can also contract individually with businesses. The college would design a course, typically held at the business location, to meet a specific need of the company. These services are paid for by the business.

•  There is some concern about the impact of Economic Development initiatives on the colleges. As contracts with individual businesses, the economic development programs were self-regulating. With initiatives, they are driven by grant-writing skill, not local economic need, and may distract the college from its other missions. There is also concern, however, about the lack of oversight of community college contracts with businesses.

Summary of Major Points of Discussion for the Citizenship/ESL Mission

•  ESL is taught through adult education (K-12) and community colleges. At the colleges, ESL courses can be for-credit or not for-credit. The colleges began this mission in the 1980s, when K-12 funding was short and the adult education system couldn't handle the full load. Citizenship courses are generally incorporated into ESL programs.

•  There was some discussion in the group as to whether the colleges are duplicating adult education efforts. There is some duplication, but the colleges feel that they can serve a different population than the adult education population. In general, the community colleges should teach ESL to students who are, in their first language, at an education level equivalent to other community college students. The non-English speaking community college population should mirror the English speaking population (literate, working).

Final Comments

•  One concern raised is the issue of universal access versus course-readiness. This issue cuts across most disciplines. There was some discussion regarding the intent of the Master Plan phrase "access for all who can benefit from instruction." Even at entry-level courses, there is a broad range of student ability, and some students may not be adequately prepared for the course. How much remediation should community colleges do?

•  The group felt that the State should set mission priorities, rather than giving each mission equal importance.

See Disclaimer

Last modified by rsutter@cuesta.edu

Return to The CPFA Forum Opening Page