Transcript incentivizingstudentsuccess

The Future of the California
Community Colleges – Incentivizing
Student Success
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?
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?
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
Senate Bill 1143
ASCCC Positions
Performance-based Funding
The ‘Washington Model’
The ‘Florida Model’
Discussion
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
Task Force on Student Success
• (1) Multiple measures and effective programs
for assessing student success and completion,
including, but not limited to, attaining collegelevel 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Why?
• Use of “crude measures”
• Funding issues
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 precollege 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.
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”?
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
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
A Performance-Based Funding
Model?
Unintended Consequences
• Do the potential unintended
consequences outweigh the
intended ones?
• Will the intended ones happen?
• What ‘controls’ need to be
implemented?
Discussion, Questions,
Conclusions