1. Debbie
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
September 28, 2010 signed into law
Significantly amended from initial bill offered by Liu
Goes into Effect on January 1, 2011
Task Force on Student Success must report back by March 1, 2012
Discussed at BoG 9/14/2010 and 11/8/2010
1. The members of the taskforce shall include a broad representation of stakeholders including, but not limited to, faculty.
2. The taskforce shall develop and present recommendations to the board for incorporation into the plan to improve student success and completion within the CCCs.

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.
These recommendations shall focus on, but not be limited to, all of the following considerations…

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.
These recommendations shall focus on, but not be limited to, all of the following considerations…

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.
These recommendations shall focus on, but not be limited to, all of the following considerations…

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
Paper available at

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.
The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges is committed to the following action
steps in its ongoing efforts to promote sound educational policy, and safeguard educational
quality and access in the California Community Colleges.
1. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges reaffirms its 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 California Community Colleges.
2. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges calls on the Chancellor and
Board of Governors to reconsider its recommendation of district specific payouts and
performance based funding.
3. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges will further call on the Board
and Chancellor to work collegially with the Academic Senate and other institutional and
organizational representatives to seek increased funding for the community colleges and
to make the positive case for the excellence of the system and the need for increased
public support to maintain excellence and expand access.
4. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges urges the Chancellor and the
Board of Governors to redirect their energies and policies toward protecting and
enlarging access, promoting the success of all community college students, and
promoting of sound educational policy.
The Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges urges local academic
senates to educate local faculty, trustees and administrators, staff and students, along with
local legislators about the problems with the Partnership for Excellence approach and to
raise public concern over this policy direction.
6. The Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges will work in concert with
professional faculty and collective bargaining organizations, along with organizations
representing administrators, CEOs, trustees and students, as well as affected internal and
external constituencies (such as DSPS, matriculation and Puente faculty and staff) to
oppose performance based funding approaches and to articulate the case for increased
public support of the community colleges and their programs.
7. The Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges will work to educate the
Legislature and the Department of Finance and the Governor=s Office regarding the
educational implications of performance based funding.
8. The Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges urges local senates to
work through the budget change proposal (BCP) development process to assure that
future BCPs do not include performance based funding, and to reaffirm commitment to
other priorities unfunded in the Governor=s budget. (These include: growth,
COLA, equalization, full-time faculty, faculty and staff development, as well as
augmentations for matriculation, DSPS, and Puente Programs.)

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.
Performance Funding
December 17, 2008
Between 1979 and states enacted some form of performance based funding for Community Colleges but 14 of those states later dropped that funding (though 2 have now moved to reestablish it.)

13. Why? Use of “crude measures” Funding issues
There are several reasons why. Because the data available to policy makers about the performance of colleges and students were relatively sparse then, many states used crude measures such as, for example, graduation rates, which penalize institutions that enroll at-risk students, such as community colleges and urban public universities, drawing objections from those institutions. When state money was tight, colleges balked at any attempt to put precious funds at risk, and when economies improved, many states started spending freely again rather than putting into practice the lessons they had learned from the performance-based experiments.
Performance-based approaches "have often fallen by the wayside, victims of funding cutbacks and resistance from universities that would rather have all of their funding guaranteed," Education Sector, a Washington policy group, said in a report released Tuesday about state governance. "Today, only a handful of states base funding on performance, and those that do make only a small fraction of available dollars contingent on results."

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.
– Inside Higher Ed
What to Measure and Reward at Community Colleges
February 25, 2008
By George R. Boggs and Marlene B. Seltzer

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”?
– Inside Higher Ed What to Measure and Reward at Community Colleges
February 25, 2008
By George R. Boggs and Marlene B. Seltzer

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
Course Numbering
public vocational-technical centers,
community colleges
universities, and
participating private institutions based on course content.
Transfer AA:
The AA is designated as a transfer degree consisting of 36 semester credits of general education (GE) and 24 credits of lower-division major preparation and electives. Students who complete the AA are guaranteed admission to a public university (not a specific campus or program), completion of GE, and junior status.
Articulation Coordinating Committee
Under Florida Department of Education
The ACC maintains a list of common prerequisites by major that public universities are obligated to recognize as fulfilling admission requirements for transfer students. Discipline committees comprised of articulation officers and faculty from both FCS and SUSF institutions make recommendations about the prerequisites, with final approval by the ACC.
Standardized Assessment
All entering FCS students must take the placement test, and all 28 colleges use the same “cut score” to designate the level of performance students must demonstrate to avoid mandatory placement in remedial coursework.
All K-12 districts must administer the placement test in the 11th grade and offer remedial courses for those students who do not make the cut.
CTE
The Division of Career and Adult Education in the FLDOE develops curriculum frameworks for each vocational program offered in the FCS and in the state’s 44 technical centers operated by K-12 districts. The frameworks specify the standards for all certificates (in both technical centers and community colleges) and AS/AAS degrees (only offered in the colleges), including the technical and academic competencies, program lengths (credits), minimum basic skill levels for students, and required instructor certifications.
Moore, C. “Some lessons from Florida for California’s postsecondary education policy”. POLICY BRIEF: Strategies for Improving Higher Education in California . Retrieved from

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.”
Governing
—no over-arching coordinating body for Higher Education.
--weak Legislative oversight of system, they report out but generate little response from the legislature
—In Fiscal Year , the most recent data available, 76% of Florida College System students who started in college preparatory courses and then earned their associate in arts (AA) degrees and transferred to the State University System (SUS) earned at least a 2.5 grade point average in the SUS after one year.  The legislatively approved performance standard for Fiscal Year is 75%. (
Performance Based Funding
Performance Based Budgeting System (PBBs) approximately 1% of funding available over total state appropriations
Workforce Development Education Fund (WDEF) 15% hold back of funds
Moore, C. “Some lessons from Florida for California’s postsecondary education policy”. POLICY BRIEF: Strategies for Improving Higher Education in California . Retrieved from

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