1. Kevin Bontenbal, South Representative Michelle Pilati, President Jane Patton, Task Force Member

2. 1. Process the recommendations and resolutions (existing & proposed) 2. Consider the intent of the recommendations. Disagree? What would you propose? 3. Missing recommendations? Revisions to argue for?

3. 8.1. Consolidate select categorical programs 8.2 Invest in new Student Success Initiative 8.3. Promote flexibility & innovation in basic skills through alternative funding mechanism 8.4 Do not implement outcome-based funding at this time

4. Note: 9 of 18 programs slated for consolidation are already subject to “ flexibility ” 1. “Student Support Initiative” 2. Faculty Support Initiative 3. Workforce Development Initiative 4. Other programs

5.  Basic Skills, Financial Aid, *CalWORKs, *Foster Care, Matriculation  Physical Plant and Instructional Equipment  Child Care Tax Bailout  Fund for Student Success = MESA, Middle College High School, and Puente

6. Note – Shifting of resources is not mandated. “ This fund would then be augmented as the first priority for new state monies. ”

7. Existing Positions OPPOSE consolidation of categoricals > eight existing resolutions

8. Proposed Positions None Consider the intent of recommendation ◦ If you agree with “what” but not “how,” what would you propose?

9. Combine four existing programs into one consolidated faculty support program. Equal Employment Opportunity Part-Time Faculty Office Hours Part-Time Faculty Health Insurance Part-Time Faculty Compensation Note: All programs are currently subject to “ flexibility ”

10. Combine: Economic & Workforce development CTE Nursing Support Apprenticeship

11. Career Technical Education and Nursing Support would be“consolidated”. Neither is currently subject to “flexibility”. Economic Development and Apprenticeship are already subject to “flexibility”. (According to the 2010-2011 report on the use of categorical flexibility, there was no statewide funding for career technical education).

12. SSI established in 8.1 Beginning with 2012-2013 budget, new system monies would be used to augment SSI Funds to be used to support student success

13. Develop and submit a plan consistent with goals established in Chapter 7 – “ and address student equity impacts ”. Implement 2.1 (common assessment) Implement 7.3 (accountability score card)

14. Existing Positions S 11 5.01 Metrics & Performance Based Funding: “ assert that the best approach to increase all measures of student success is to support students in meeting their goals and that colleges should be incentivized to ensure the provision of such services. ”

15. Proposed Positions 5.03 Endorse Student Support Fund 13.05 Support for Student Success Courses

16. 8.3. Establish alternative funding model to encourage innovation & flexibility in basic skills instruction The Story of “ Eddy ” Progress-based funding Requires adoption of 2.1 (common assessment) in order to “ ensure the fair and uniform implementation of this alternative funding model ”.

17. Existing Positions F97 05.02 Performance Based Funding (direct opposition) F98 05.05 Oppose Performance Based Funding (direct opposition) F97 06.02 Appropriate Funding Per FTE (Support FTE based funding instead of performance based)

18. Proposed Positions 5.01 Oppose Student Success Task Force Recommendation on Basic Skills Funding 9.01 Encourage Local Flexibility and Innovation in Revision of Basic Skills Delivery 13.03 Support Centralized Assessment Instrument with Local Cut Scores for Placement

19. “ Split decision ” Recommendation 7.3 – Accountability Score Card

20. What does the SSTF need to know?