Open Doors and Open Minds: Improving Access and Quality in California's Community Colleges

---'~~~I"~~~~~~~~-- LittI~ I~loove-~' ~ommi~si-o~ -1 r + + + + + + gil lunl R. Tn/l.lfl (.'hllrm!lYl ~ro Promot~e I~corlomy and Efficiency i-vkk1l"1 L Alpert 1/«' Cj,,71 Yllldn The little Homer ('c,mmission, fmllulh' kI1()\\11 ,1S the 1\liltol1 ~t!l Call1phcll Marks 'Little ~ i()()\'Cr'" 1:(II11mission on Clliforni,l SLlle (;(l\'crntnt'nt .'1 '"("til 1'/1'111(,111 h(") Org,lniz,Hlol1 ,1Ild En'lwnw, is ,1Il inciependcnt sLltc ()\crsight (,.nll), C)\'Ili' .lgcnc\' I ),1I11l'1 \\'. ! Lllll: Ilk Bv ~Lltute, the Comllli >sion is J. bip:u"tlSJIl bo,lrd cumposcd of fih' "lily I Ll\icc': puhlic members <lppollltcd Iw the Cmerllllr, four public llll'mbl'1~ .j ;'(,IIlN)'IIl(,lIliJ(,) appointed bv the lcgi~Llture, ': \\,) SCILlt0 l":; ,llld t \\() As::.emhlymemlwr·" 11.\ 'Ie, S. P()(lc\lIhl,lIl \e II (/ / IJr In ere,Hing the (( >1l1111i"i()ll in 196.~. the l.egisLnllrc df'cl.lred it-; II. f',Ill SCh()lkm,lll purpO'i(': f' '/111 \".l'l(Jllldl(h' ... tn s('(I{re ,1ssisunu/ 1 ))'zhc Go,)errzor ,~(nd ascI/in promoting C(()II()J)l\', S,'fl,//r))" rificicNt)' and Impnrucd;('!":'ZlCS m thcfr,;:m,IltiOlI o(/hc puNzc/Jf{sllICSS 0/ ill the V,IrIOU5 dC{"nll'l1t1its,:1gCm.,IC5 ,m.l Insfmmcnt,di/ic,\ the exccutl'UC /))",111(/1 (J/t/lc .,I.{:':~():'(TIl'I7C'!t, ,ulli m nukllZg tI.,c O/J('I",I/WI! (~( ,Ill sute dl'/len/nullt" ,1gCllcies .md IJlSznOlIClltalu/('", ,/lid cd! c'(/,CIlditurcs 0/ pith/Ie /ul/d\, lJI(lre (/irectly rcspollsiz.'c to t/'(''U.'IS/'('S u(tl,(' /,eop/e,.,'s expressed 1,\' [heir c[cued U'/,r"'iJl{,ltl;:'CS. .. hll"Il1Cr (.ommissioncrs Who ,",crvcd During the Study The C)l11t111Ssion fulfill" this chargll by listening tll the publi,.', + + + + + + consulting with the experts ,md conl"erring with t!1l' \\isl'. 111 the course of ilS 111\ e>,t:g,l1 lOllS, the CClmmlssion typic.lliv l'mp,lI1els P,lP,llL1ki,':' \ 11<,,1(' ,ldvi~ol v committees. conduct" public he'lrings and \isib g()\l'mll1l'l1t \111 (<)IJI!III//cc (j,,11I 0pcLltl0ns 111 ,Ktlon. (,.11\ ! !. f IUl1t lt~ COI1,·IU:'ltIl1S ,liT ',Ubl111lcd tu the C;, 1\'('rn(lr ,md lhl' lcgI:,Lltllll' I()l" \l()"I(," (,\\('11 t hCllI' t ol1Sidt'Llll UII. Rl'\'om me II cLn i ()11~ (l(tcn l.l kl' t he I,) I'm ()f Icgisi.l1Io11, \\hi(h the (:tJ]l1l1lis~i()n supp(,n., lhrtll1hh the Iq:isLl1i\c pnlCCS" (~01l11l1ission Staff ++++++ lllll<," P l\ Ll\cr /-\((1,'/"'(' lJII"C( IiiI' All correspon<icllct' slJ(lltid lw ,Iddressed tu thc Cmnmissloll <1t :\'lIll)" M. IvnJl', [)/,/'lil\ FYI'Ulilc'I' [)ue(/()y I (,h L\\"1I1).', .:. Telephone: (CJlh) '~,E)-212:) FClX. (qlbl J22-i'/()Q [)HiI(" I ,,>!,l//(IP'/ .:. Worldwide Web: Additional copies uf tnis report may be purchascci. for 8:1 per Cop". The report is 'H',:.i;ah1c on the CCmmlSSllln"s \\'cbsi\l'. State ofC alifornia LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION March 28, 2000 The Honorable Gray Davis Governor of California The Honorable John Burton The Honorable Ross Johnson President pro Tempore of the Senate Senate Minority Leader and members of the Senate The Honorable Antonio Villaraigosa The Honorable Scott Baugh Speaker of the Assembly Assembly Minority Leader and members of the Assembly Dear Governor and Members of the Legislature: For many years the Little Hoover Commission has heard complaints that community colleges were poorly funded and poorly governed. In the course of other studies, the Commission found that community colleges are routinely asked to offer more services to more people. And so the Commission undertook this study to determine if the colleges were being asked to do too much with too little, and to examine how well these community-based institutions were meeting state goals. We found that for many Californians the community colleges are the gateway to self-sufficiency and a world class education. But for too many Californians the colleges are a false hope. Many students are learning their way out of poverty and off public assistance, and for them the colleges are their only chance to get ahead. For some, the colleges are doing a noble job. At a machining program at Cerritos College, we found students developing the skills, the confidence and the hope to leave neighborhood gangs for jobs with a future. From other campuses, we heard from students who are the first in their families to attend college. These are wonderful accomplishments for the colleges and their students. For others, particularly those facing multiple barriers to prosperity, the colleges too often do not provide the access, resources and support needed to overcome the hurdles. One college president tells of a student who drove through the parking lot seven times before stopping to ask about classes. How many more never make it past the parking lot? In the course of this review, we learned that the success of the community colleges depends on the quality of teaching and true access to the educational services that individual students need. While the colleges have multiple missions, their fundamental purpose is to teach. They are California's best opportunity to foster lifelong learning among adults. Unfortunately, quality teaching is not a universal priority. Similarly, the community colleges are known for providing "universal access" to all who can benefit. To ensure access, the State maintains the lowest fees in the nation. In fact, millions of potential students do not enroll for reasons not associated with fees. Classes are unavailable or full. They are offered at inconvenient times and course schedules do not accommodate many people with jobs or families. Equally troubling, many students enroll but do not benefit. Getting into a class is not the same as gaining knowledge, developing skills and learning how to learn. More than half the people who enroll in math courses do not finish them. Tens of thousands who enroll one semester, do not come back the next. Most of the students who enroll as "transfer" students never make it to the university. The entrepreneurial colleges are working hard to identify the services their communities need, and provide those services in ways that are truly accessible. They are reshaping programs to simultaneously meet the needs of workers and employers. They are partnering with neighboring universities to create a smooth transition for transferring students. But to look at a budget or a ballot or the Board of Governor's website, there is nothing to distinguish excellence from mediocrity, real opportunity from latent potential. State funding mechanisms do not support desired outcomes - but they could. The governance structure has not created the accountability or facilitated the leadership necessary to develop the colleges - but it could. The first step toward excellence is accountability. Employers, parents, civic leaders and students should know which services the colleges are providing for the funding they receive. Community leaders and voters should understand which services the colleges are offering, whom they are serving and how well they are doing their jobs. Appropriations should reward growth, achievement and success - by colleges, by faculty and by students. In turn, we believe governance by the state and local boards will be reinvigorated. The potential for the community colleges is to directly improve the well-being of most Californians. The hallmarks of each and every community college should be teaching quality, meaningful access and real benefit - and that would make it the jewel of the State's system of higher education. The Little Hoover Commission stands ready to assist you in these efforts. Sincerely, </~R.:J:Cl' Chairman Open Doors and Open Minds: Improving Access and Quality in California's Community Colleges March 2000 Table of Contents Executive Summary _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ i Introduction --------------------.--------------.-------------------------------------------------------------_.--------------------------------- Background _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 5 Making Teaching Count ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 25 Ensuring Access and Benefit for Alt __________________________________________________________________________________________ 41 Aligning Funding With Purpose __________________________________________________________________________________________________ 59 Reinvigorating Governance _________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 69 Conclusion 91 Appendices _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 93 Appendix A: Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses _________________________________ 95 Appendix B: Advisory Committee Members ______________________________________________________________________ 97 Appendix C: California Community College Districts and Colleges _________________________________ 10 1 Appendix D: Community College Effectiveness Data_ ______________________________________________________ 103 Notes & Additional Works Cited 145 Notes ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 14 7 List of Additional Works Cited 155 Table of Sidebars Meeting Educational Needs: Billy, Danny and Regina ______ _ 2 Overview of California's Public System of Higher Education_________ ______ _ 6 Community College Missions____________________________________________ __________________ 10 Reaffirming Mission: AB 1725_________________________________________________________________ ______ 11 Tidal Wave II: Projecting Future Community College Enrollments__________________________ _ 14 Consultation Council 15 Improving Transfer_________________________________________________ ________________ __________________________ _ 21 Community College Transfers to the University of California ___________________________________ _ 22 Legislative Efforts on Common Course Numbering____________ _ 23 Minimum Qualifications for a Faculty Teaching Position ____ _ 27 Part-Time Faculty Vacancy Notice: Child Development ______ _ 28 The Significance of Effective Teaching ________________________________________ _________________ _____ 29 Community College Faculty and Staff Development Fund_____________ ____________ 30 Los Angeles Valley College Staff Development Program Flyer ________________________________________________ 32 Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges_ ____ ____ _______ ______ _ _ ___________ 35 The Purpose of Tenure Review_______________________________________________________ ________________ 37 Full-time and Part-time Faculty___________________________ ____________________ _ ___________38 Finding Lost Students __ 45 National University Learning Format____________________________________ __________ _ ______ _______ _ 46 The Colorado College Block Plan_____________________________________ ____________ _____________ _______ _ 46 Hiring More Faculty to Serve More Students__________________ ____ _ 47 Weak Transfer Opportunities: An Access Barrier to a Four-Year Degree _____ _ 48 Will Electronic Distance Education Increase Access?____________ _______ _ 50 Career Development and Workforce Preparation________________ __ _________ _ 51 Metropolitan College____________________________________________________________ ______ _ 54 Which Schools are Transfer Schools? 56 Clarifying Expectations and Responsibilities with Funding____________________ _ 66 The Challenge of Effective Governance _________________ _ 74 The Gateway Cities Partnership________________________________ ________ _ 76 The Chancellor's Office Statewide Responsibilities___ _______________ ________ _ 80 The Chancellor's Office Community-Level Responsibilities________ _ ____________ _ __ _________________ B1 Potential Performance Report Data ____________________ _ 87 Table of Charts & Graphs The Community Colleges: A Public Higher Education System to Benefit All Californians ___________ xi Student Profiles: What Are Student Goals? 8 Student Profiles: How Many Receive Public Assistance? ___________________________________________________________ 8 Student Profiles: Who Enrolls? _______________________________________________________________________________________________ . ____ 8 Student Profiles: How Many Course Sections Are Offered? ___________________________________________________ 8 Master Plan Vision 9 13 Community College Campuses Transfer 30% of all Transfer Students ______________ . ____________________ 12 Map of Colleges in Los Angeles County and Surrounding Areas ______________ . ____________________ . _________ . ___ 12 Community College Funding: How Are the Colleges Funded? ____ . __________________________________________ .16 Community College Funding: What Do Students Pay? _______________ .. ____________________________________________ 16 Transfers to UC & CSU: How Many Students Transfer Each year? ____________________________________________ 19 Transfers to UC & CSU: What Percent of Community College Students Transfer? _____ ._._. _______ ....... 19 Outcomes for Transfer Students 20 Professional Deve Io pment Funds ___________ .. _______ . ________ . _____________________________________________________________________ 31 Average Annual Earnings, by Highest Degree Earned_______ __________________________________________ ._. ____________ 42 More High School Students Are Preparing for College __________________________________________ .. __________ . _________ 43 Fewer High School Graduates Attend California's Public Colleges and Universities _________________ .. 43 Funding Is Provided for a Limited Number of Community College Students ....... _._ .. ___ . _______ .. __ .. _._.44 Course Enrollments in Selected Disciplines, Fall 1998. .... _.. ........ __ ..... _.. __ .. _. ....... _______ . ___________________ 53 Sources of Revenue 1999-2000_. __________ . _______________ . _________________________________________________ . ______ ..... ______ . ______ 60 Funding by Full-Time Equivalent Student__________________________________ ____________________________ .. ________ .. _______ . __ 61 Student Persistence & Retention Show No Improvement. . ________________________________ .. _____ . _________ .. _____ . __ ]8 Governing from Sacramento __ . __________________________________________________________________ . ______ .. _______________ . ______________ .84 Bringing the Chancellor's Office Closer to Communities __________ ._. ____________ . ________ .. ________________ . _______ . ___ 85 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive Summary C alifornia's community colleges are an essential component of the state's premier system of higher education. They guarantee our historical commitment to provide every Californian access to higher education. The community colleges also are a public investment in the potential of all Californians. To protect that investment, state and college leaders need to strengthen systems of teaching and learning, quality assurance, responsibility and accountability to ensure that each college offers quality education to its entire community. The future of our community colleges is being rapidly and profoundly reshaped by two inevitable trends - simply identified as "The New Economy" and "The New California." First, as California enjoys an economic renaissance, the digital economy and global marketplace are breaking traditional ties between geography, jobs and wealth. For many, this new economy will require skills that do not exist now for jobs that do not exist now. Quality education will be the single greatest determinant in the long-term competitiveness of our residents and our regional economies. Some of California's foremost economists assert that our current prosperity provides an extraordinary opportunity to invest in education as a vaccination against economic uncertainty. We have a responsibility to seize this opportunity. The second trend is the changing face of California and Californians. The children of yesterday's baby-boomers are now in the K-12 system and will soon be knocking at our college doors. They are joined by immigrants, former welfare recipients and refugees from the cold war economy - all seeking new skills to succeed in this new economy. At the same time, California is being profoundly redefined to reflect a global citizenry. "The New California" reflects traditional communities of Latinos, Mrican-Americans, Asian-Americans and whites, along with growing numbers of distinct racial, ethnic, religious and cultural communities. We are Taiwanese, Filipino and Hmong, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, Ukrainian and Iranian, Mexican and Brazilian and many others. Analysts are debating whether the surge in college enrollments will be big or very big, and whether to build more classrooms or to limit enrollment. But for certain, these students will be far more diverse - in the languages LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION they speak, in their cultural frameworks, in how they learn and in what they need to know for their future success. For the majority of Californians, their only viable option for post secondary education is the system of community colleges. For significant numbers of California businesses, the community colleges are the primary source of much needed skilled and enthusiastic employees - our California workforce for the 21 st century. To effectively respond to each of these challenges, the Little Hoover Commission has concluded that we need to commit ourselves to one central strategy: The best way for our community colleges to deliver more education is to ensure they deliver better education for all. [J The state needs our community colleges to develop lifelong learners, yet teaching quality has too often taken a backseat. Fostering lifelong learners will require a more explicit commitment to developing quality teachers throughout our community college system. The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges recognized in 1991 that few faculty come to our colleges prepared as skilled teachers, and few colleges devote resources to improve their faculty's teaching skills. Nearly 10 years later, University of California researchers assert that little has been done to remedy this critical problem. D Access has been defined too narrowly as only low cost, when it must include attention to flexible schedules and teaching methods tailored to the needs of individual students. Limited research shows that many factors besides fees deter students from participation, including access to counselors and attractive course offerings. Overall, 19 percent of students who start classes do not finish them; 39 percent of the students who take a class one semester do not re enroll the next. D There is wide recognition that higher education funding should create incentives for quality improvement. Under the Partnership for Excellence program, the Governor and the Legislature offered the community colleges $2.8 billion in supplemental funding over seven years to increase the number of transfers and of courses, programs and degrees completed by community college students. Despite this years-long effort to tie funding to outcomes, the bulk of community college funding remains tied only to the number of seats occupied on a given day early in each semester. D The perennial fight over governance has been about more collaboration without sufficient attention to student success and ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY accountability. In 1988 the Legislature directed the Board of Governors to establish an annual accountability report, yet the Board's Effectiveness Report presents data only for the state as a whole. It does not identify which colleges are excelling and which are not. As a result the report has not created accountability for student success. Some of our community colleges are making giant strides - seeking out those who otherwise would have the narrowest hope of succeeding and giving them a real opportunity to participate in the new economy and contribute to our new society. For some students, our colleges are delivering a real chance to graduate from the University of California and the California State University. For other students, success amounts to a skill and a job, and the community college is the link between them. For their communities, these colleges are satisfying the demand for skilled workers and entrepreneurs - before those jobs and those paychecks leave the state. These colleges are responsive and innovative. They are partnering with communities, businesses, universities and their students to develop meaningful educational programs. They teach skills that are needed in the marketplace to those who want to succeed in the workforce. And they do so in ways that empower people to become lifelong learners. Yet other community colleges still function like the extension of the K-12 system that they once were. Classes are offered each semester based on what instructors want to teach to those fully prepared and capable of seeking out the opportunity. In the name of providing "access," fees are kept low, but the consequences of failure are kept low as well. A professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, considered a premier scholar on community colleges, says one of our biggest problems is the casual student - who repeatedly enrolls and drops out - together with the colleges that assume the path to success is paved with tolerance and neglect rather than standards and support. Besides consuming scarce resources, these students and colleges create a culture of low expectations that infects all. Unfortunately, students, voters, community leaders and policy-makers have a difficult time distinguishing the enterprising colleges from the stagnant ones. The State funds both equally based on the number of students in seats on the fourth Monday in each semester. The primary financial incentive for colleges is to enroll students, rather than to teach them. iii LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Absent a huge scandal, when voters go to the polls to elect college trustees they do not know whether the local colleges are responding to community needs and providing quality services. Perhaps most importantly, students do not have the information necessary to make smart choices as consumers. They may find their opportunities limited by colleges that inadvertently create barriers to success. Some of the best educational institutions in our nation are known for not letting their students fail. Some community colleges function in ways that seem to accept failure. The State recently realized in its Healthy Families program that it is not sufficient to "offer" health services to uninsured families with children. The benefits - to the children first, and to society over time - only accrue if the services are of high quality and are actually utilized. Our community colleges are in the same situation. To Live up to their potential, our colleges must identify teaching quality as their first priority and dedicate the time and resources necessary to ensure that faculty have the skills to offer the highest quality education. Our colleges must publicly and assertively work with their students, businesses and their communities to determine whom they are going to serve, what services they are going to deliver and how they are going to deliver those services. They must track and publicly report their progress on each of these fronts. To encourage and enable our community colleges to live up to their potential, the State needs to provide financial incentives to colleges to design and deliver high quality programs. Students should also have incentives to participate in and complete those programs. The State needs to facilitate regional cooperation and ensure that statewide interests are served. And it needs to promote accountability of each of the community colleges by publicly reporting their individual performance. Measuring educational performance is a complicated and controversial issue. But while success is elusive, barriers cannot be overcome without a clear understanding of what is or is not being accomplished. With accurate information, students and voters and community and business leaders will be able to make smart decisions about their colleges and therefore about their lives and their futures. And over time, Californians will see colleges that better prepare individuals and communities for dealing with our new, evermore competitive economy. IV EXECUTIVE' SUMMA RY Toward these ends - and a finer community college system and a healthier state - the Little Hoover Commission offers California these four guideposts: 1. Make Teaching Count in Our Community Colleges. The most essential and universal component for future success will be quality teaching. Regardless of the path students are on or the skills they need to acquire, faculty need the expertise to teach and inspire increasingly diverse Californians to become lifelong learners. 2. Ensure Access and Benefit for All Californians. California has taken pride in limiting financial barriers to higher education. Now our college leaders must also address other barriers that limit access, such as course schedules that do not reflect the complexities of modern life. Our colleges must ensure that all doors to education remain open. 3. Align Funding with the Purposes of Our Colleges. Every funding formula produces responses, intended or otherwise. We need to fund our community colleges in ways that promote continuous improvement in the quality of teaching and the development of lifelong learners. 4. Reinvigorate the Governance of Our Colleges. The needs of our various communities will not be met without strong local leadership. And our state goals will not be met without strong state leadership. Mter much testimony, analysis and deliberation, and with the assistance of many persons dedicated to serving California's community college students, the Little Hoover Commission has reached the following findings and recommendations: Making Teaching Count Finding 1: While the fundamental mission of community colleges should be to help millions of Californians become lifelong learners, this opportunity is often lost because insufficient attention is given to the quality of teaching. Our community colleges cannot teach the New Californians to succeed in the New Economy unless they provide excellence in teaching and learning. They must be prepared to teach a more diverse student body with a wider range of learning needs and levels of academic preparation than was true in the past. v LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Each college needs to pursue every opportunity to ensure that its faculty have the skills and expertise they need to provide teaching excellence. Some community college faculty bring exemplary teaching experience and skills to their jobs. Yet the Board of Governors has recognized that most faculty are hired with little or no teaching experience or teacher education. And research at the University of California on community college teaching reveals that few colleges offer effective teacher education programs for faculty. In this void, researchers concluded, trial and error has become the dominant way most faculty learn to teach. The colleges have three distinct opportunities to improve teaching: at the point of hiring, through professional development activities and through tenure review. The Board of Governors establishes minimum standards for hiring. Currently the colleges are not encouraged to assess the capacity or potential of applicants to become quality teachers. The State pays for professional development, but research points out the money is often spent instead on personal development or ineffective seminars. And tenure reviews, which have the potential to set a standard for teaching excellence, seldom emphasize teaching skills in that permanent hiring decision. To bolster the quality of teaching, the community colleges should pursue all avenues to attract, improve and recognize faculty with excellent teaching abilities, for full-time and part-time faculty. In some disciplines the colleges can hire experienced teachers. In others, such as emerging technologies, the colleges may have to rely more on professional development and only award tenure when instructors have demonstrated that they have developed the capacity to teach. Nothing is more critical to preparing Californians for the New Economy than emphasizing quality teaching in our community colleges. Recommendation 1: Policy-makers, college leaders and faculty should make quality teaching and learning the hallmark of the California community colleges. A policy focused on quality teaching should: D Establish hiring qualifications that include teaching excellence. The Board of Governors should set minimum qualifications for full-time and part-time faculty hiring that require evidence of teaching skills as well as discipline-specific expertise. The Board should consider requiring education in pedagogy as a prerequisite to employment, or at least as a condition of continued employment. D Develop teaching and learning centers. The Legislature should establish and the Board of Governors should administer a competitive grant program to encourage community college faculty vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY members to create learning communities, teaching centers, or other programs that promote teaching and learning excellence. Teaching and learning centers need to be responsive to the needs of full-time and part-time faculty. D Transform tenure to motivate teaching excellence. No instructional faculty member should be awarded tenure without demonstrating teaching excellence. College leaders should transform the tenure process and other personnel decisions to motivate quality teaching. D Create incentives for institutions and faculty to improve teaching and learning. The Board of Governors should establish incentives that are appropriate for full-time and part-time faculty, including: ./' Basing employment and tenure decisions primarily on teaching quality. ./' Subsidizing tuition for faculty participating in teacher education programs . ./' Rewarding faculty with recognized education in pedagogy . ./' Recognizing teaching excellence with annual awards . ./' Designating select faculty members as "Mentoring Teachers" based on validated teaching excellence. D Hold the Board of Governors and local boards of trustees accountable for teaching and learning quality. The Legislature and Governor should fund periodic independent evaluations of efforts by local boards and the Board of Governors to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the community colleges. Evaluations should review the extent that teaching styles respond to the diverse learning needs of California's students and should apply to the work of full-time and part-time faculty. Ensuring Access and Benefit For All Finding 2: The promise of universal -access to community college is unfulfilled. While State policy says that all who can benefit should have access, participation is limited by how resources are allocated, how, where and when courses are offered, and other administrative practices. The Master Plan for Higher Education envisioned our community colleges offering every Californian access to higher education, including entry into a baccalaureate degree program as a transfer student. For more than a generation this goal was pursued by maintaining low fees and low eligibility requirements. Even so, experience and research show that many students are turned away. And many students who do enroll are thwarted in their efforts and do not complete their education. vii LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Barriers to access are numerous. Funding caps limit the number of students admitted and semester-based schedules discourage people already in the workforce from taking classes. At Glendale College, which has one of the best reputations in the state, 40 percent of the admitted students do not enroll, most for reasons associated with how courses and services are offered or structured. Many students who do enroll do not make progress. One reason is that counselors are overwhelmed. At Sacramento City College, the student to counselor ratio is 1,500-to-1. Retention efforts also fail to keep students on track; statewide just 22 percent of students who enroll in basic skills math courses advance to a higher level math course. Overall, one-fifth of the students who start classes does not finish them. Some student progress is limited by funding choices. The Chancellor's Office has repeatedly stated that the colleges have to turn away students from English and other core academic courses, while the colleges offer more classes in physical education than in most other core academic disciplines. College supporters maintain that low retention and advancement rates are signs of satisfaction - that the system is flexible enough to meet diverse student needs. Alternatively, it could mean the low cost of failure, rigid class schedules and poor support services discourage students from completing classes and programs. And without a doubt, dropouts consume limited resources and prevent other students from getting the classes they want. Increasing access requires improving services to students. For students who want to transfer, barriers must be lowered. For those seeking marketable skills, programs need to be linked with regional economies. Colleges must identify potential students, provide the services necessary for their success and confirm that they benefit. Recommendation 2: To make universal access a reality, each community college should determine which community members they should serve, what services they should provide and how those services will be provided. D The Board of Governors should require each local board to annually, publicly identify community needs and establish goals to meet them. Each local board should assess - publicly, deliberately and within the context of state-established missions - how its colleges can best serve its communities. Each local board should publicly and clearly establish which services it will provide, such as transfer, workforce development and adult education. v1n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D The Board of Governors should require each local board to determine which community members it will serve and how it will serve them. Each local board should identify its students and tailor services - including outreach, matriculation, scheduling, curriculum, and teaching - to ensure successful outcomes for those students. I:J The Board of Governors should develop a plan for improving matriculation services. The Board of Governors should present a plan with annual updates to the Governor and Legislature for improving and funding matriculation services. The plan should identify ways for the State to improve availability and quality of services. The plan should pay particular attention to students who repeatedly drop classes or who are taking classes unrelated to their entrance goals and require them to attend academic counseling sessions to focus their efforts. The Chancellor's Office should develop a guide for individual colleges to aid in assessing when intervention is necessary. D The Board of Governors should encourage regional cooperation, discourage inefficient duplication and ensure statewide access goals are met. The Board of Governors should periodically assess the regional availability of all mission-oriented services - such as undergraduate transfer and workforce development programs - and develop plans to close gaps and improve program effectiveness. D The Governor and the Legislature should fund an evaluation process to determine which students our community colleges are serving and which they are not. The State should determine who has true access to the community colleges and who is left out and understand the opportunity costs of current access policies. Aligning Funding With Purpose Finding 3: Community colleges are not funded in a way that encourages universal access, teaching excellence or student success. Community colleges are largely funded on a simple formula based on how many students are in class on a single day early in each semester. In fiscal year 1999-00, the colleges received approximately $4 billion through this process. For the most part, local districts have discretion over which classes to offer and how to spend the resources. The shortcomings of this process are threefold: Funding is not tied to state or community priorities. The financial incentive is to enroll students, rather than to help them ix LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION complete courses or programs. And the funding system is not being used to account for and improve the performance of our colleges. The State has tied some funding to specific programs, such as economic development. Yet overall, funding is not tied to goals established for the colleges. For example, the State puts a priority on preparing students for transfer to four-year universities and completing vocational education programs. In many communities, there is a shortage of nurses and electronics workers. But the colleges receive the same funding for students enrolled in physical education as students enrolled in biology or electronics. Given that it is more expensive to offer nursing classes, the formula can actually discourage colleges from proactively serving community needs. By funding colleges based on enrollments early in the semester, the formula does not encourage colleges to help students complete classes and programs. There are no direct incentives to identify why students give up on classes or drop out of programs. And since those efforts would require resources, the colleges are actually discouraged from diverting funds from efforts to enroll students to efforts to retain them. Finally, the funding formula limits the ability of the State to influence the performance of the colleges. And the performance of different colleges varies dramatically. Course completion rates, for example, range from 62 percent to 87 percent. Yet those numbers are not even considered when allocating scarce resources. Policy-makers have agreed on the need to improve such outcomes as successful course completions and student transfers. The Governor and the Legislature have even been willing, through the Partnership for Excellence program, to give the colleges more resources to improve those outcomes. But the State is still a long way from a funding system that serves to align resources with priorities, that encourage colleges to improve outcomes, and directs resources to colleges that are truly serving students and communities. Funding colleges based on the value they bring to their communities is controversial. Across the nation, educators and policy-makers are struggling with ways to reward outcomes and encourage improvement. To craft an effective and accepted funding policy for California would require significant analysis, extraordinary expertise, and persistent leadership. The Commission believes that task falls within the roles and responsibilities of the Chancellor and the Board of Governors. The first step, however, is for state policy-makers and college leaders to commit themselves to a funding system that encourages colleges to meet x EXECUTIVE SUMMARY the needs of regional economies and individual students, and directs resources to those colleges doing the most to prepare all Californians for the New Economy. Recommendation 3: The Governor and the Legislature should require the Board of Governors to develop a funding system that encourages universal access, teaching excellence and student success. Specifically the Board of Governors should: Q Revise the community college funding mechanism. Community college funding formulas should include variables that encourage colleges to expand educational opportunities and improve outcomes. Base funding should create incentives for each college to: ./ Recruit and serve educationally disadvantaged members of its communities; ./ Promote course and degree completion; ./ Transfer students to four-year colleges and universities; ./ Move students into high-wage employment. Q Create incentives for the colleges to improve their services. In addition to stable base funding linked to outcomes, the colleges need incentives that promote service improvement. Wherever feasible, the Board of Governors should build incentives into existing categorical funding and grant programs to leverage improvement in student outcomes. Q Establish compacts to fill unmet needs. When the Board of Governors determines that state-established missions are not adequately addressed in a given community or region, it should enter into funding compacts with community colleges in that region to provide targeted services. Q Establish incentives for students to complete a program of study. Among the options the Board of Governors should consider: ./ Gradual and moderate increases in student fees for students who repeatedly drop and re-enroll in courses. Targeted fee increa,ses should create a disincentive to repeatedly drop courses . ./ Educational scholarships and workforce grants for students who obtain associate's degrees, who transfer with advanced standing to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, or who obtain a certificate within a set timeframe . ./ Fee rebates for students who obtain degrees or certificates within set timeframes. xi LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION CJ Evaluate and refine incentives. Incentives for colleges and students should be designed to promote outcomes while ensuring that no student is prevented from attending a community college because of financial need or other barriers. Reinvigorating Governance Finding 4: The Board of Governors is not sufficiently ensuring that statewide goals are being met. local boards are not universally ensuring community needs are being met. Policy-makers, community leaders, students and voters lack the information necessary to hold both local and State board members accountable. The debate over how to govern the community colleges has bounced back and forth between calls for either a strong state-controlled system or a system of locally autonomous colleges. The existing structure is a hybrid in which authority, responsibility and accountability have become muddled, diminishing the ability of our community colleges - both as a system and individually - to respond to the challenges before them. The Board of Governors has the authority to establish state policies and oversee the performance of the colleges. But the board has not provided the outcomes requested by the Governor and Legislature: including higher transfer rates, more degrees and certificates, and improved student retention and persistence. While the board is hobbled with a cumbersome decision-making process, its authority is further eroded when dissatisfied parties "appeal" its decisions to the Legislature. The 71 locally elected boards are expected to administer the colleges, but their performance is as varied as they are numerous. Because voters do not have the information to judge their performance, election box accountability is diminished. Because students lack information, they cannot be smart consumers. Some advocates, including the Citizens' Commission on Higher Education, recommend replacing locally elected trustees with appointed advisory boards and creating a strong "state" community college system. But as presently constituted the Board of Governors and the Chancellor do not have the capacity to administer 107 colleges. A strong state system also would diminish the ability of individual communities to shape the colleges to their distinct needs. The challenge is to develop a governance system that ensures that statewide goals are met, that regional economies are understood, and that colleges respond to the diverse needs and learning styles of all xii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY potential students. Those demands require a governance model that provides leadership and accountability both from the top down and from the bottom up. The Board of Governors and the Chancellor's Office have statewide responsibilities, including setting standards for teaching quality, ensuring that all students have reasonable access to appropriate programs, and using the budget and other means to encourage colleges to improve services. If strengthened, they could set higher standards and inspire the colleges to exceed them. The Chancellor's Office also has responsibilities that are regional in nature, including promoting economic development, curriculum development and transfer and articulation. These responsibilities are based on local relationships between the colleges, their communities and universities. The Chancellor's office needs to be reorganized to effectively administer these programs. The colleges, meanwhile, are preparing the next Rhodes Scholar for transfer, supporting foster parents, teaching pre-collegiate English and educating the next wave of technology innovators. They respond to the needs of their respective communities by specializing. These efforts can best be led by local boards, provided they are sufficiently connected to their communities - business and civic leaders, students and voters. Given information, these constituencies can choose excellence and advocate for change. California needs colleges that are individually responsive to the needs of their students and their communities. It also needs a system of colleges that meets the needs of all Californians. A State and local partnership is required - but one in which responsibilities and authorities are clear and all parties can be held accountable for their respective performance. Recommendation 4: The Governor and the Legislature should reform the community college governance structure to increase the accountability and efficacy of college leaders. Specifically: a Strengthen the state Board of Governors. The Board of Governors should be empowered to facilitate excellence in the community colleges, to establish statewide access and educational goals, and to enable voters and students to scrutinize their colleges. Two ways to strengthen the Board of Governors would be: ./ Revise the make-up of the Board of Governors. The board may be a more independent, robust and credible voice and force if it represents legislative as well as executive interests and concerns. xiii LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION ,r Improve scrutiny of potential appointees. The appointing authorities should recruit to the Board of Governors high caliber persons who are willing to dedicate the time and resources necessary to lead our community colleges toward realizing their full potential. I:l Align the Chancellor's Office with its various levels of responsibilities. The Board of Governors should replace the single statewide, central office with a smaller central office and several regional offices. The central office should handle statewide responsibilities where the Chancellor serves as the head of the system. Regional offices should handle those functions that are community-based and designed to support the needs and successes of the local colleges and college students. I:l Create a California Community College Office of Accountability. The Office of Accountability should be created within the Chancellor's Office and charged with monitoring quality control in our community colleges. Its responsibilities should include performing oversight functions, assessing weaknesses and proposing improvements. The Office of Accountability should publish the annual accountability report that should be revised to include effectiveness data for each of our community colleges. I:l Require all local boards to annually publish and disseminate information on their goals and results. Based on the assessments called for in Recommendation 2, all local boards should be required to publish an annual mission report that details the district's goals for the upcoming academic year. District goals should be based on the expertise of each college and address the needs of their economic, academic and business communities. The report should identify goals for transfer students, professional enhancement priorities and vocational education and establish which services will be provided to support these goals. To better aid the public in understanding, clearly and easily, how local districts are spending limited financial resources, and to better hold districts and individual colleges accountable, all local boards should be required to publicly release their mission reports in a press conference to be followed by an open meeting to discuss the elements of the district report with the public. The press conference/meeting should occur on the same day statewide to ensure maximum public focus and exposure. The public also should be well aware of which interests are supporting the election of each community college board member. Annual mission reports should refer the public to sources of information that identify campaign contributions received by community college trustees. xiv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Community Colleges A Public Higher Education System to Benefit All Californians California's community colleges are a tremendous resource. Their potential is not realized. Takentogether~ the Little Hoover Commission's recommendations would strengthen the Board of Governors to lead and serve the community colleges as a system and fortify the ability of local boards to respond to community needs. The State Board of Governors The Cotnmission's recommendations would fortify the role of the Board of Governors and the Chancellor to: the D Ensure that community colleges improve the quality of teaching. D Ensure that all Californians are able to benefit from the range of college services. D Ensure that funding rewards students.and colleges for quality and efficiency. D Ensure that the colleges perform their functions. D Ensure that students, college board memoors,parents, business owners, taxpayers, voters and other constituencies have access to clear and compelling information on the quality and .. adequacy of their colleges. . Local .. Community College Boards . . The Commission's recommendations challenge locally-elected boards to: D Ensure that college facUlty and students.become lifelong learners. D Ensure that colleges offer those services most needed .bytne community and actively pursue those who can benefit. . · . D Ensure that faculty, students and administrators are motivated and have incentives to work aggressively and efficiently toward outcome goals. D Ensure that the public is well aware of the priorities the colleges have identified and the level of success the colleges have achieved. xv LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION xvi INTRODUCTION Introduction » Number of technicians that S. . cramento-areahigh-techfirms .saythey will.~ ,in 2002: 2,400.1 . » At the present rate, amount of time it would take for Sacramento-areacommunit,)'colleges to graduate 2,400 students with associate's .d egrees in ,electronics: 24 years,,:2 ". » Rank of sports instructors and coaches on list of occupations withgreatest"growthin California: 46th of 50.3 .' » Rank of physical education classes in terms of communit,)' college course entdlments: 3rd.4 F or most Californians, community colleges offer the greatest opportunity for achieving economic and social well-being. Whether to get started on a four-year degree, hone job skills, make a career change or improve basic education, community colleges are an affordable path toward individual goals. California's leadership in the digital economy has offered newfound wealth to record numbers of people. Yet more than one million Californians are still counted among the working poor. The labor market no longer pays high wages for those who can only offer hard work for long hours. The New Economy requires new skills and values "knowledge workers" - people employed for what they know and their ability to learn, rather than for their physical labor. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future asserts that individuals will not succeed in a dynamic society and economy without a quality education.s In tum, society and the economy will not succeed without people who are well educated. Paralleling change in California's economy, California's communities have evolved to reflect a global citizenry. Population growth has been matched with growth in population diversity. "The New California" reflects traditional communities of Latinos, African-Americans, Asian Americans and whites, along with growing numbers of distinct racial, ethnic, religious and cultural communities. We are Taiwanese, Filipino and Hmong, Christian, Hindu, Muslim and Sikh, Ukrainian and Iranian, Mexican and Brazilian and many others. Recognizing the value of education, California heavily invests in public colleges and universities. The University of California, California State University and California's community colleges comprise an 1 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION internationally recognized network offering educational opportunities for all Californians. The role of the community colleges in Meeting Educational Needs: this network is growing in Billy, Danny and Regina sophistication and significance as the California economy becomes more The community colleges represent an immense competitive, local communities become infrastructure of talent, facilities and capacity to more diverse, and the population educate. The first three chapters of this report begin increases. The continuing strength of with vignettes describing the challenges students face California's economy will require a with teaching quality, access and funding. The fourth chapter describes how the governance structure has skilled workforce capable of responding failed to address the needs of these students. to turbulent economic times. Teaching Quality: Billy recently graduated from high More students will rely on community school. He sees the community colleges as his link to colleges as a gateway to universities. a four-year degree and a good job. Some of his More people who have relied on welfare teachers have connected with him and helped him work through his learning disability. Others fail to will depend on learning new skills to even learn h is name. gain financial independence. In short, the long-standing responsibility of the Access: Danny is looking for a new career. He is community colleges - education for all entering a private, professional study program and who can benefit, particularly those who turned to the community colleges to take prerequisite have no place else to turn - is courses. Course offerings that were limited to day classes and a rigid 17Y2-week semester schedule sent becoming increasingly important to the him to a private, for-profit school where he could take future prosperity of the State and its classes on weekends in 4-week segments. residents. Funding: Regina is married and has three young The Commission initiated this review to children. She is returning to school to improve her assess the effectiveness of California's employability and earning power. The current most popular higher education structure of community college funding encourages inefficient decision-making that is costing her time and segment. The Commission wanted to money. gauge the return on the public's multi billion dollar investment in the Governance: Where do these students turn for relief? community colleges. And the Who is responsible for the decisions that affect their Commission wanted to detennine the education? Who is accountable? The present capacity of the community colleges to governance structure can provide clear answers to these questions and improve the quality of the prepare themselves and California for community co lieges, but it needs better leadership and the challenges ahead. accountability. The Commission focused on two Billy, Danny and Regina come from different walks of overarching issues: life. Each represents a constituency the community colleges say they serve. Each has been disappointed . and continues to face artificial challenges to their First, the Commission wanted to success. Taken together, the recommendations in the understand the evolving mission of the report would address those challenges. community colleges. In a state that also invests heavily in the University of 2 INTRODUCTION California and the California State University systems, what roles do the community colleges play in post-secondary education? Second, the Commission wanted to know if the colleges successfully realize that mission. The public spends more than $4 billion to support the community colleges each year. The consequences will be tremendous if the colleges do not succeed, but the payoff will be even greater if they do. Overall, the Commission found that the colleges do an exemplary job in many ways, yet are challenged by leadership, bureaucratic and political barriers. For example, the colleges face multiple missions, and many campuses excel in their efforts to serve their communities. At the same time the attempt to "be all things to all comers" hampers the ability of some campuses to focus on a manageable number of goals. While teaching is the widely recognized function of the colleges, it is hard to identify how the colleges work to make teaching a priority. Similarly, access to community colleges - as traditionally defined - is generally good. And access will likely improve as the colleges expand the use of distance learning opportunities. But having access to a service does not uniformly translate into benefiting from the opportunity. The courses that are offered, when they are offered and how they are taught limit accessibility to large numbers of students. This report describes the potential of the California community colleges, and identifies measures that the Commission believes would strengthen the ability of the colleges to live up to that potential. The Commission challenges college leaders, policy-makers, students, and California communities to ensure the colleges fulfill their promise and promote educational opportunity for all. This is the second time the Commission has examined community colleges. In 1986, the Commission urged the Governor and the Legislature to improve accountability within the colleges and improve the ability of the Board of Governors to exercise its leadership role. Today, those concerns remain. The colleges' funding and governance structures do little to promote desired outcomes and public accountability. As part of this study, the Commission convened public hearings III January, March and April 1999. A list of the witnesses is included in Appendix A. The Commission also brought together an advisory committee representing community college leaders, faculty, students, policy-makers and other experts to discuss the roles of the colleges and the challenges they face. A list of advisory committee participants is included in Appendix B. 3 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The Commission also visited community college programs, spoke with business owners employing community college-educated workers and talked with researchers and foundations striving to understand and improve the quality of educational opportunities. Throughout the eight months dedicated to this study, the Commission also reviewed research materials, attended conferences and spoke with hundreds of individuals who are working hard to ensure easy access to a world-class education through the community colleges. A bibliography of materials reviewed is attached at the end of this report. The Commission's findings and recommendations are presented in four sections: o Making Teaching Count The community college system pursues multiple and divergent missions and consequently fails to emphasize teaching. Quality teaching is not prioritized in hiring, professional development or tenure decisions. Nor does the Board of Governor's promote teaching as a core competency of the colleges. o Ensuring Access and Benefit For All The community colleges were established to provide higher education access to all. Universal access continues as a goal and challenge of the colleges. Debates over broad student access focus on the affordability of college and the level of student fees. Meanwhile, many potential students are denied access by enrollment caps, restrictive course schedules and limited course offerings. The colleges fail to identify the potential students they intend to serve, the barriers that prevent those populations from benefiting from the colleges or how resource decisions can best serve access goals. o Aligning Funding With Purpose Community college funding is baseline and enrollment driven. Funding structures do little to encourage individual colleges or the colleges as a system to promote efficiency, cost-effectiveness or access. Similarly, funding mechanisms fail to provide incentives for students to make good progress toward their academic goals. o Reinvigorating Governance Community college governance has evolved over many years. Historically, independent local boards governed the colleges. Today, community college governance is bifurcated between state and local decision-makers, both of them bound by procedures intended to give all parties a seat at the table. In the absence of leadership, this muddled governance mutes responsibility and accountability for the quality and the cost-effectiveness of services offered. 4 BACKGROUND Background » Number of course enrollments the community colleges will offer over the next five years: 45,000,000.6 » California adults who will enroll in a community college next year: 1 in 10.7 » Percentof students who declare transfer<astheirgoal: 31.8 » Percent of students who transfer in a given year: 3.9 T he California community college system is the largest in the country: 107 campuses governed by 71 locally controlled districts with a combined budget of $4 billion for fiscal year 1999-00. The 2.2 million students enrolled in the community colleges during the course of a year account for seven out of 10 public college students in California and one out of 10 public college students in the United States. 10 Beyond size, the community colleges are known for their multi-faceted mission and the broad access they afford students. Originally part of the K-12 school system, the colleges now serve anyone over age 18 who could benefit from post-secondary education. Historically, a primary purpose of the colleges has been to provide general education to students who ultimately transfer to four-year universities. Community colleges also have long provided vocational education in a variety of fields. As the economy has changed, so has the role of community colleges in helping workers to upgrade their skills. Most recently, the colleges have been given the task of helping welfare recipients develop the work-related skills to transition from public assistance to financial independence. The traditional role of the community colleges was defined in the California Master Plan for Higher Education, which was formalized by the Donahoe Higher Education Act of 1960. This statute codified a system of higher education with three segments: the University of California, the California State University and the community colleges.ll Much has changed since the master plan was crafted. K-14 education in California has shifted from being locally supported and controlled to being state funded and controlled through the budget and legislative process. Student popUlations have changed and grown. Technology has created alternate venues for education, as well as increasing demands on students and faculty to develop new skills. Furthermore, California's higher education institutions will be challenged in the next few years by 5 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION a projected surge in student population. The majority of these new students are expected to enroll in community colleges. This evolution of mission and governance are at the heart of many of the controversies that beset the colleges. Who are they to serve? How are California's students best served? And who should make these decisions? From K-12 to Post-Secondary Education T he first public two-year institution was established in 1901 at a high school in Joliet, Chicago. The president of the University of Chicago promised advanced standing to high school students who completed the first two years of coursework there, initiating the transfer mission of community colleges. A 1932 report of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching advocated that "junior colleges" also offer occupational education. Some trace the philosophy of universal access to the 1948 "Truman Report," produced by the President's Commission on Higher Education. 12 The California community colleges date back to the late 1800s, when they were part of the local school districts and seen as an extension of high school into grades 13 and 14. California's first junior college program independent of K-12 schools began in 1920 in Fresno. In 1921, the Legislature authorized the creation of local community college districts, which were locally governed by a board of elected trustees.13 Until 1960, the State Board of Education and the Superintendent of Public Instruction oversaw community colleges. Overview of California's Public System of Higher Education University of California (UC): The UC consists of eight general campuses and one health science campus. UC provides undergraduate education leading to baccalaureate degrees, master's, doctorates and professional degrees. UC also has exclusive jurisdiction over basic research and the professions of law, medicine, dentistry and veterinary medicine. In 1998, UC enrolled approximately 161,000 students. California State University (CSU): The CSU consists of 22 campuses. CSU provides baccalaureate and master's degrees, and may award doctorates jointly with Uc. In 1998, 350,000 students enrolled in CSU. California Community Colleges (CCC): The CCC system contains 71 districts and 107 colleges. Admission to a community college is open to any high school graduate or person over the age of 18 who could benefit from instruction. CCCs offer associate degrees and academic programs designed to prepare students for transfer to four-year institutions. Additionally, certificates and degrees are awarded in various occupational and vocational areas. In 1998, the community colleges enrolled 2.2 million students. Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. The Conditions of Higher Education in California. 6 BACKGROUND With the creation of the Master Plan for Higher Education, the community colleges became part of the State's post-secondary education system. The master plan was a landmark document. It formally declared the inherent right for all Californians to have access to affordable higher education. It delineated the tiered roles of the University of California, California State University, and California community colleges, in an attempt to reduce competition and improve the efficiency of higher education. And, it defined the community colleges as the gateway to advanced learning for many Californians, guaranteeing students who earn an associate's degree a place in a public university. In 1967, the statewide responsibility for oversight of community colleges was transferred from the State Department of Education to the Community College Board of Governors and a state chancellor. Since the master plan was created, three fundamental events have impacted community colleges: D Proposition 13. In 1978, Proposition 13 reduced local property taxes by 57 percent and severely curtailed the ability of local districts to raise revenue. Funding control shifted to the State, with the Legislature increasingly involved in community college operations. D Proposition 98. In 1988, Proposition 98 guaranteed K-14 schools funding equal to 40 percent of the state General Fund. Although the initiative was expected to stabilize funding for the colleges, it did not guarantee the colleges a set portion of Proposition 98 funds. In some years, Proposition 98 has defined a "ceiling" for educational funding rather than a "floor" - with community colleges competing with K-12 districts for a share of the pot. D Economic Uncertainty. The recession of the early 1990s significantly reduced all education funds, including those for community colleges. Some students were unable to fulfill course requirements because classes were no longer offered. The number of teachers also was reduced, and community colleges accelerated a trend toward employing part-time faculty members. Finally, the recession reinvigorated discussions about the statewide role of community colleges. These trends have required policy-makers and education leaders to reassess the mission, governance and funding of community colleges. 7 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Who Attends the Community Colleges T he student body of California's community colleges reflects the growing diversity of the New California - in their ethnic heritage, in their lifestyles, and in their educational needs. More women (57 percent) take advantage of community college programs than men. The majority of students are under 30 (59 percent), they study on a part-time basis (62 percent), take courses during the day (67 percent), and receive some form of financial aid (58 percent). But the Commission was also told the bulk of course enrollments are taken by traditional students - day classes, taken by full-time students, who are recent high school graduates. 14 Almost one-third of all community college students seek transfer opportunities (31 percent) while others pursue vocational skills (23 percent) or basic skills (5 percent) courses. Student Profiles As is true with California's population in general, What Are Student Goals? Latinos represent an increasing percentage of the community college student body.ls Participation by other non-white ethnic groups has held steady. Basic Skills One measure of student access to the community 5% colleges is the number of "sections" offered. Sections represent the number of courses that are taught to mUltiple classes; each class referred to as a section. The community colleges offered close to 150,000 How Many Receive sections in 1997.16 Public Assistance? A measure of the access to the community colleges for ::D~,I low income Californians is the number of students who are on public assistance. The percentage of community ~:L-~ college students on public assistance has hovered 94/5 95/6 96/7 97/8 between 8 and 9 percent since 1994. During the Source: Chancellor's Office, data on file. 1997-98 academic year, however, the percentage of students on public assistance dropped slightly,17 Who Enrolls? How Many Course Sections Are Offered? 150,000 ,--------------------.. ----... : 145,000 =-:.-'-. 140,000 135,000 _ - .. r-- 130,000 -- -- 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 Source: Chancellor's Office, Effediveness report, 1999. Source: Chancellor's Office, Effediveness report, 1999. 8 BACKGROUND The Master Plan for Higher Education Preserving access to higher education has been a core goal of California's higher education system. The Master Plan envisioned a tripartite system in which the California State University drew from the top 33.3 percent of high school graduates and the University of California drew from the top 12.5 percent. With the community colleges offering open access, a strong transfer program from the community colleges to CSU and UC would provide all students opportunities to earn two-year and four-year degrees. The Master Plan also recognized that the community colleges need to safeguard the public investment by adopting retention standards that "guarantee that taxpayers' money is not wasted on individuals who lack capacity or the will to succeed in their studies."IB The Master Plan for Higher Education envisioned open access to the community colleges, but not inefficient, unrestricted use. Master Plan Vision HIGH SCHOOLS Percent Eligible for Admission to Public Higher Education 100% 12.5% 33.3% 100% COMMUNITY UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA COLLEGES OF STATE CALIFORNIA UNIVERSITY L~",~,~.,_--- ) Minjm~rJ.grade-- "~-__ ~"~.~ ..l 2.4 2.0 '-",- poinraveriige~r '> r'-"'~--~ .-----•. --·. . · transfer to 4-yeat··<··-.-_~~._~. ___ . .. i nst ituti on ; v Source: California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960-1975. 9 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Evolving Mission 1"'1"'\ hE" nnmRrv mission of the community collee:es is to "offer academic LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 13 Community College Campuses Transfer 30% of all Transfer Students Individual Cumulative Rank College UC CSU Total Percent Percent 1 De Anza 379 1,263 1,642 2.79 2.79 2 Orange Coast 412 1,153 1,565 2.66 5.45 3 Diablo Valley 453 1,106 1,559 2.65 8.10 4 Santa Mon ica 601 872 1,473 2.50 10.60 5 San Francisco 239 1,231 1,470 2.50 13.10 6 Fresno 87 1,212 1,299 2.21 15.31 7 San Diego Mesa 324 972 1,296 2.20 17.51 8 Pasadena 277 1,009 1,286 2.18 19.69 9 Mt. San Antonio 189 1,075 1,264 2.15 21.84 10 American River 211 1,023 1,234 2.10 23.94 11 EI Camino 244 980 1,224 2.08 26.02 12 Palomar 172 1,030 1,202 2.04 28.06 13 Fullerton 134 1 015 1 149 1.95 30.01 Total 3,722 13,941 17,663 30.01 30.01 Other Campuses 6,770 34,408 41,178 69.99 100.00 Source: Chancellor's Office. 1998. Report on Transfers and Degrees and Certificates Awarded, 1996-97. legend Coli"". o1olh . Cony""", o csu c~mpu~ Leo Anll"tal MIUlon or o Glenoda l-e Citrus o loa Anll"lo. loa A"II"I •• looAnllOlu 0 ® PQrnon.p " ~ " l.o. AnIlO"'. Trade-fe.hnle E0as t loo Ang_l. . ® $<onl .. MOlll"" 0 IIIIt. Son• A nl"",o • Won ILooA""ol •• Loa Anve o yS i Southwu"t Ce,o.,.l t"" Ccm o p wn ullerton•F u lk®or ton Santiago Cao.n) ,o-n CGtlege Sa "to Aona Colle"" Golcl.nWo• • t eo. ..m no o 0,0•"" . Coos! BACKGROUND Ensuring access in an environment that does not provide unlimited funding for the community colleges requires college leaders to make decisions about whom will be served, what services will be provided and how to provide them. Some colleges have answered those questions with specialization. Unfortunately, specialization decisions are not always made explicit and they are often unsupported or discouraged by existing policy. Evolving Governance G overnance is an issue in most college systems, and is particularly controversial among California's community colleges. This controversy reflects the evolving history of the schools, their size and diversity, and the size and diversity of the state. At the district level, locally elected boards have responsibility for major policy decisions governing community colleges. They oversee academic programs and courses of instruction. They establish academic standards and personnel employment practices including benefits and salaries. And they oversee physical operations and facility development.21 The local boards also are responsible for appointing the president or CEO of the college. If there is more than one college in a district, a district chancellor is often responsible for district-level affairs. At the state level, the 16-member, state Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges guides the overall system. The Governor appoints members to the Board of Governors. The Board selects the chancellor. The Board provides leadership to the community college districts, establishes standards of operation, proposes the annual budget for the colleges and apportions state funding to local districts. For policy issues, the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges represents faculty. For collective bargaining, the California Teachers Association, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors represent faculty in different districts. Some faculty are unrepresented. Part-time faculty members have organized their own union - the California Part-time Faculty Association (CPFA). Other organizations represent college administrators, trustees, students, and the CEOs of the colleges. 13 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION state board also would establish system-wide performance standards and resolve labor issues.29 Evolving Funding P rior to 1978, community college funding was similar to that of K-12 schools. Locally elected boards made policy and fiscal decisions and could levy taxes to implement those decisions. However, the passage of Proposition 13 affected community college funding much the way it did K-12 education: by making the local districts dependent on state funds, and more vulnerable to the instability of the state budget process. Subsequently, Proposition 98 dedicated a portion of state funds for K-14 education, but did not necessarily establish the fiscal stability that many educators sought. The community colleges share has been approximately 10 percent of the Proposition 98 Community College funding allocation, with the balance going to K-12 education. Given the complexity of the law that How are the Colleges Funded? defines education spending, there is rarely (in millions) agreement on appropriate funding levels. As one report says, appropriate funding levels are 1998-99 1999-2000 "whatever the Governor and Legislature say they State Funds $2,174 $2,307 are. "30 local Revenues $1,442 $1,569 Student Fees $155 $150 The majority of funding for community colleges - 93 percent - comes from the state General TOTAL $3,771 $4,026 Fund and local property taxes. An additional 5 (Source: Chancellor's Office. 1999-2000 Budget percent is collected from student fees and 3 Information Workshop, July 1999. Page 6.) percent from the California Lottery. One consequence of state funding for community colleges is that significant fiscal decisions are What Do Students Pay? made at the state level and implemented locally. $6,000 , __ Like K-12 funding, community colleges have $4,878 $5,000 ~ __ -----,------ experienced "boom and bust" periods in funding, which is felt by students in the fees $4,000 -0-- - they pay and the courses that are available. $3,000 $2,582 t From the student perspective, the average $2,000 . $1,122 ,_ annual cost of attending a community college is ~D_ $1,0:: $1,122, including tuition, fees, books and -L-----l. .- . supplies. Students also incur indirect costs, CCC CSU UC including transportation, housing, meals and Sources: Sacrarrento aty College, other expenses. CSU Sacrarrento, l.lC Davis. BACKGROUND Capital Outlay. Although considered as a separate budget, capital outlay funds for community colleges have similar state and local tensions. Most capital projects are funded with state general obligation and lease revenue bonds. Some facilities, such as student activity and health centers, have been funded from student fees. The statewide community college capital outlay plan is basically a compilation of the districts' five-year plans. The State has not had a system-wide method for assessing needs or establishing priorities. However, the state Chancellor's Office has committed to providing such a plan.31 Prior to Proposition 13, the state and local districts shared the cost of capital projects based on a formula that considered enrollment in the district and enrollment statewide. After the passage of Proposition 13, many districts could no longer afford these costs. According to the LAO, the State has funded 100 percent of capital projects since 1990. The LAO believes districts should share in capital outlay costs as a way to disci pline spending.32 With the approval of Proposition 1A in November 1998, $2.5 billion is available for capital outlay at higher education campuses, a portion of which will help meet the needs of community colleges. Impacts of State-controlled Funding. One outgrowth of state controlled funding is the policy that allows any student to attend any community college - a policy known as "free-flow." Free-flow has changed the nature of community colleges from local institutions to ones that draw students from around the state. Centralized funding also gave the Chancellor's Office an oversight function that it had not traditionally performed. The Chancellor's Office now requires local boards to file quarterly fiscal statements. Several "triggers" are intended to prompt closer monitoring by the Chancellor's Office. These include declines in general fund balances; a pattern of deficit spending over a period of several years; salary increases above COLA; a significant decline in enrollment or significant audit findings. The Chancellor's Office assigns three "priority" levels to districts whose financial condition requires closer monitoring. Priority 3 is assigned to districts that have "displayed certain characteristics that we wish to analyze further and to discuss with district staff so as to avoid major problems in the future." Priority 2 is assigned to districts that "require a greater degree of involvement and action." Priority 1 is assigned to districts that are in "imminent danger of failure or bankruptcy and require immediate action." Based on data from the fourth quarter of the 1998-99 fiscal year, no districts were in priority 1 or priority 2. Three districts were in priority 3: Allan Hancock, Contra Costa, and Marin.33 17 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION State-controlled funding also has increased the role of the Legislature in setting policies guiding the community colleges. In turn, community college interest groups have hired lobbyists or directed staff to represent their interests in the legislative process. Partnership for Excellence. The community colleges, like many other publicly funded institutions, are being asked by constituents and policy makers to document their effectiveness. As higher education enrollments increase faster than iiscal resources, there is an increasing need to assess whether public money is well spent. In response, the 1998-99 budget for community colleges contained $100 million for a program titled "Partnership for Excellence." The 1999-2000 budget provided $145 million for the program. And the Governor's 2000-01 budget provides $ 170 million. The Partnership for Excellence is a step toward performance-based budgeting. Among the potential outcomes that will be measured: the number of students who transfer to four-year programs; the number of degrees or certificates awarded; successful course completion; successful completion of vocational and fee-based programs for workforce development; and the number of basic skills courses for students in welfare-to-work programs. 34 For the first three years the colleges have discretion with how to spend Partnership funds and the money is distributed based on enrollments. After the third year, the Board intends to link funding to actual outcomes. A Crosscutting Issue: Transfer T he Master Plan provides that students will be able to take the first two years of a baccalaureate program within the community college system, and if they perform adequately, transfer smoothly to UC or CSU. To provide for transfer students, the Legislature requires UC and CSU campuses to maintain more upper division than lower division slots. The Legislature also established that community college transfer students should be given "priority" admission to UC and CSU.35 The high number of four-year colleges and universities in California provides community college transfer students with a variety of choices. A major barrier to effective transfer, however, is the independence of each campus and each segment of higher education. Each CSU and UC department establishes its own degree requirements. To facilitate transfers, each community college campus must establish transfer agreements with every CSU and UC department. Transfer agreements 18 BACKGROUND outline the coursework that must be completed before a student will be accepted into a CSU or UC major with advanced standing. A transfer agreement must be negotiated to transfer into a history program at UC Berkeley. A separate agreement must be negotiated to transfer into history at CSU Hayward. Each individual community college must negotiate transfer agreements with every other college, for every major and every course. As course content and major requirements change over time, transfer agreements also must be updated. Transfers to UC & CSU How Many Students Transfer Each Year? The number of transfers from the Community Colleges to the University of r------------------, California, California State University and 60,000 independent colleges and universities has 50,000 remained relatively stable from 1989 to CSU 1996. Determining transfer rates is more 40,000 difficult because there is no uniform definition of a community college student for 30,000 __ _ purposes of transfer. 20,000 But the number and percentage of community college students who 'IJ,OOO successfully transfer is low, just 65,756 of UC 2,241,681 students transferred in 1996-97, O+-_,-___- ,_ ____- --------~~ or 3 percent of all community college 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 students.36 In short the number of students An estimated 10,000 students transfer to private institutions each year. who transfer is below expectations - despite a steady stream of legislative efforts and What Percent of Community College despite the fact that nearly a third of all Students Transfer to CSU or UC? community college students say they want to transfer and 64 percent take transferable 3.0% -,.-__________________- --, courses.37 2.5% While preparing students to transfer to four year universities has been a primary 2.0% purpose of the community colleges; the effectiveness of transfer programs is a 1.5% persistent issue. One overriding concern is the number of classes that community 1.0% college students must retake once they reach universities - adding to the costs of 0.5% education and the time necessary to 0.0% complete degrees. Another is ensuring that 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 California residents have opportunities to transfer from a community college to a Source: Chancellor's Office. Effectiveness report. 1999. 19 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION University of California or California State University campus, regardless of where they live in the state. Outcomes For Transfer While a relatively small percentage of community college students transfer to the University of Students California and California State University (65,756 of 3 Years After Transfer to a 2,241,681 students or 3 percent), they make up a Four-Year Institution significant percentage of the student body at those institutions. The California Postsecondary University of California Education Commission reports that in the 1997-98 Transfer Students academic year, 32.2 percent of the students awarded Graduated a bachelor's degree from the University of California 65% Still Enrolled had transferred from a community college (9,533 of 10% 29,609 graduating students). That figure was 59.9 Not Enrolled percent for 1997-98 graduates of California State 25% University (32,040 of 53,496 graduating students).38 For community college students who had transferred to UC, three years after transferring, 65 percent California State University have graduated, 10 percent are still enrolled and 25 Transfer Students Still percent have dropped out or moved to another Graduated university. Graduation rates for transfer students 36% 28% are consistent with those of other UC students.39 Not For students who transferred to CSU, after three Enrolled 36% years, 36 percent have graduated, 28 percent are still enrolled and another 36 percent have dropped out or moved to another university. The most recent Total: 60,000 Transfer data available from the California Postsecondary Students Education Commission tracks transfer students and Source: CPEC, Condition of Higher non-transfer students at CSU over 12 years. The Education, Fall 1998. graduation rate over a 12-year period is slightly better for transfer students (63 percent) than it is for non-transfer students (60 percent).40 Several efforts have been made to improve transfers. Among them: o Intersegmental General Education Transfer Curriculum (IGETC). IGETC is a set of courses that are recognized by UC and CSU as fulfilling lower-division, general education requirements. However, completion of the IGETC does not guarantee admission to a particular university or to the major a student wants to study. There are no system-wide agreements for transferring from one higher education segment to another that work for all majors.41 20 BACKGROUND o The California Articulation Number System (CAN). CAN is a system of common course identifiers assigned to similar courses offered by the University of California, the California State University and the California community colleges. C-CAN is a parallel effort that is used to identify courses in common across community college districts.42 o ASSIST (Articulation System Stimulating Interinstitutional Student Transfer). ASSIST is a data system that stores articulation information for use by students, counselors, faculty, and staff.43 o Transfer Centers. Each of the 107 community colleges is required to have a transfer center to work with students to identify transfer requirements and assist their transfer efforts to the University of California, California State University, other community colleges and private colleges and universities. 44 Despite these efforts, problems still exist. According to the staff at the Improving Transfer California Post-Secondary Education Commission, the issue of transfer is The State has made several investments to improve either "extremely simple or extremely the ability of community college students to transfer complex, depending on your to four~year colleges and universities. perspective.» Several problems define • The State dedicated $337 million for the the issue. First, not all students Transfer Center Pilot Program (1985). attend a community college to transfer • AB 1725 (Vasconcellos) required analysis of to a four-year degree program. Many student transfer data (1988). pursue occupational goals, basic skills • The Boam of Governors adopted minimum classes or attend for other reasons. standards for transfer centers (1990). The diversity of goals within the • The Intersegmental General Education Transfer community college student body Curriculum (IGETOwas established (1990). presents difficulties in determining how • SB 121 (Hart) required course acceptance many should transfer and how agreements and community college transfer adequately they are prepared. services (1992). Secondly, some students enter • The Board of Governor's Basic Agenda community college with goals not reiterated the significance of transfer (1992). related to transfer but decide later to • SB450(SoUs) required a genera! common pursue a baccalaureate degree, course numbering system for the commun ity' complicating efforts to serve them and colleges (1995). to track how well they are served. In 1998 UC and the Chancellor established a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to increase Measuring the effectiveness of transfer transfers to 14,500 or more. . by the year 200~6. programs is difficult, whether it be by The Chancellor and CSU are working on a MOU to number or rates. CPEC advocates increase transfers to 64,200 by the year .2005. multiple measures to assess transfer, The community college Partnership for Excellence including absolute numbers as well as targets a totafof 92,500 transfers by the year 2005. rates.45 The issue then is the ability of 21 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Community College Transfers to the University of California The greatest concerns regarding transfer will have junior standing and the number of opportunities involve the University of new students that will be admitted is California. Community college leaders argue determined by the university's attempts to that UC admissions policies often deny maintain a ratio of 60 percent upper division community college students access to students to 40 percent lower division students. particular campuses or coveted programs. New students are admitted before transfer Improving preparation at the community students. The only priority that community college level will do little good, they state if college transfer students receive is over l UC refuses to accept students. transfer students from other UC campuses, CSU or other colleges. In response, UC argues that it gives priority to and admits all eligible community college Definition of Availability: Transfer into UC transfer applicants. However, UC points out is problematic because of changes in the that it does not have adequate space to availability of space in particular programs. accommodate all applicants in their choice of For impacted programs - which constitute the majors. majority on some UC campuses - the CPA threshold for admission changes. It is By law, properly prepared community college common to require a 3.5 CPA for admission students should receive priority access to UC to programs that are popular in a given year. above all other students, except those In other years, changes in the number of slots continuing their studies at those institutions. and the number of applicants may require the But in practice, these students are often denied department to reduce the CPA requirement to access: meet admissions targets. As a result, Definition of a Community College community college students may have Student: Each UC campus establishes a satisfied all of the requirements to transfer to a definition of a "community college student" for desired campus or major, but supply and purposes of awarding preferred admission. demand may prevent their admissions. UC Riverside, for instance, defines community Definition of Prepared: Although UC does college students as follows: "Students must offer admission to all eligible transfer have been enrolled full-time in a California applicants to an alternate campus or an community college in the term previous to alternate major if not their first choice, transfer their enrollment at Riverside." preparation requirements often differ from This definition denies preferred admission to campus to campus and from one major to the the larger number of community college next. As a result, a student prepared for one students who attend part-time. UC officials program may not qualify for the same report the definition does not present a barrier program at another campus where there is to transfer students. Informally, UC staff space. report that it is a barrier. UC is working on a The University of California was unable to systemwide definition of community college respond to the Commission's request to clarify student for purposes of transfer admission. actual minimum CPA requirements for l Definition of NPriority": Each University of impacted programs and whether they differ for California campus establishes admissions transfer and non-transfer students. UC was targets for each year. Each school, program also unable to provide the Commission with and department also establishes targets. data on the number of transfer students Programs also identify the openings available offered alternate admission or the rate of to new students and those available to transfer enrollment in alternate majors or on alternate students. The number oftransfer students who campuses. Source: Ensuring Transfer Success Counselor Institute. 1998. "The Most Often Asked Questions ... And The Answers: A Transfer Q & A. 22 BACKGROUND community colleges to document the transfer readiness of students. Once transferring students are identified, the next step is to track how many transfer students graduate with baccalaureate degrees. To facilitate transfer into a specific major, individual community colleges must negotiate specific agreements with other campuses. Transfer agreements identify the compatibility of courses and the pattern of courses that must be taken before a student is eligible to transfer. For example, Sacramento City College has articulation agreements with UC Davis. Those agreements are course and major specific. They indicate that UC Davis Legis/ative EHorts on Common will accept a course taken at Sacramento City Course Numbering College in lieu of its own course. Transfer agreements must be negotiated for each In 1994, the California Student Association course, by each department for each campus of Community Colleges sponsored 5B 150 before transfer can be facilitated between (Solis) that required the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges to campuses and departments. develop, maintain and disseminate a system of common course numbering for A separate factor complicating transfers is community colleges. The measure passed, space availability. From the community but language mandating the implementation college perspective, any student who is eligible of the system was removed during the should have the opportunity to enter a UC or legislative process because of an anticipated CSU. However, community college transfer fiscal impact to the state General Fund. Task groups were formed to explore the policy students compete with existing UC and CSU implications of a common course numbering students as well as students wishing to system, but faculty groups opposed the transfer from other colleges and universities. legislation and despite efforts to move this Although CSU and UC are required to give issue forward, little has been done. priority to community college transfer students, transfer opportunities remain elusive. There is often not enough space in the four-year system for all the students who would like to attend. More specifically, popular UC and CSU campuses and majors are impacted by more demand than can be accommodated. Community college students often do not compete well against new UC and CSU applicants and other students for limited space in popular majors and on popular campuses. The Commission addresses this issue in Finding 2. Summary T he history of community colleges in California has been one of transition, from an extension of high schools to independent colleges. In tum, the colleges themselves have been expected to help Californians transition - from high school to universities, from one job to another, from welfare to financial independence. The governance and funding aspects of the colleges also have changed, but not always in 23 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION ways that encourage efficiency and provide for accountability. The colleges will continue to evolve. But a growing number of academicians and business interests question whether the colleges are evolving in ways that best meet the needs of the state's diverse communities. 24 MAKING TEACHING COUNT Making Teaching Count Finding 1: While the fundamental mission of community colleges should be to help millions of Californians become lifelong learners, this opportunity is often lost because insufficient attention is given to the quality of teaching. Billy E. has never been the star student. He owns a car but can't afford to keep it running. Dressed in black clothing and tattoos, he pushes his skateboard to get to class on time. Most people on the street shy away - alerted by the scratching of his wheels, his baggy clothes and the long bright blue "tail" of hair falling from his otherwise closely cropped head. Community college is Billy's chance to earn a college degree: "I don't know what I would do without college. I'm sort of counting on school to give me a ladder, or a rope to hold on to. It's the best path for me right now." He has attended two community colleges. He considers some of his teachers excellent, and he calls some of them incompetent. One in particular, he suggests, is making him "dumber." He looks for teachers who reach out to him and make course materials come alive. "Mr. Perry was the best teacher I ever had. He likes what he does and he makes his classes interesting. He made me want to read philosophy ... and he knew everyone's name. Now in my classes, none of my professors know my name. My art teacher calls me Betty." Billy has a learning disability and struggled in high school. He says he learns very well when his teachers can help him connect with new material, but does poorly when they cannot or do not. He is testimony to the significance that faculty play in student learning and success. The quality of community college teachers determines whether he, and millions of other community college students, learn new skills. O ur community colleges cannot teach the New Californians to succeed in the New Economy unless they provide excellence in teaching and learning. They must be prepared to teach a more diverse student body with a wider range of Our community colleges learning needs and levels of academic preparation than was cannot teach the New true in the past. Who the colleges teach and what they teach Californians to succeed in will make little difference if faculty are not effective teachers the New Economy unless and students are not encouraged to become lifelong learners. they provide excellence in Yet the community college system fails to actively improve the teaching and learning. quality of teaching or confirm that students are learning. Political, community, and business leaders assert that education is the most beneficial investment society can make to promote individual and 25 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION social achievement. California's communities, they argue, will be better prepared to respond to social, economic, and technological challenges if residents are well-educated, skilled and equipped to learn. In turn, faculty are required to educate people with increasingly diverse learning needs. College leaders must respond to growing cultural diversity, changing student and social values, and an expanding range of skill levels. The Significance of Teaching Quality C alifornia's ability to promote lifelong learning rests heavily upon the shoulders of teachers. Concentrated attention on K-12 teaching demonstrates that teacher quality is the strongest indicator of student achievement.46 What has been learned within K-12 can be applied to the community colleges. Teacher quality within the community colleges affects student learning. One expert noted: Research shows that the single most important determinant of what students learn is the expertise of the teacher. '" We know that teachers need to know their content area. And it matters even more how much they know about student learning. They need to know how to design and develop curriculum and diagnose student needs, so they are scaffolding students' learning in careful steps.47 Nationwide, 98 percent of faculty identify being a good teacher as a very important or essential personal goal. And the California community 48 colleges have faculty who demonstrate excellence in the classroom. Their skills allow them to recognize learning styles, identify students who are struggling and respond appropriately. These faculty are the exception. The Board of Governors, in its 1991 Basic Agenda, recognized that most faculty have little teaching experience or teaching skills when they are hired and few colleges Most faculty have little offer teacher education programs. 49 In this void, trial and error teaching experience or has emerged as the dominant way most faculty learn to teach. 50 teaching skills when Traditionally, tenure reviews allow colleges and universities to they are hired establish performance standards and motivate faculty toward distinguished service. In the community colleges, however, tenure does not effectively promote quality teaching. Poor teaching can have consequences beyond the failure to educate students. Billy charged that one of his teachers is actually making him dumber. Robert Wolke, a professor emeritus of chemistry at the University of Pittsburgh, has written that "negative teaching" can have a 26 MAKING TEACHING COUNT lasting adverse impact on students. Negative teaching extinguishes the fascination with learning, the enthusiasm for discovery and the motivation to stick with challenging materia1.S! The community colleges have a daunting challenge in offering education to all Californians who could benefit. It is important that the colleges are structured to identify and reward teachers who facilitate student achievement and nurture a sustained desire to learn. Three Missed Opportunities to Instill Quality T he Legislature and the Governor have declared that faculty hiring, professional development and tenure policies should support student success. But their intentions have not made their way into practice. Hiring requirements focus on subject-specific knowledge; they do not recognize that community college teachers need to know their materials and know how to teach it. Professional development resources are Minimum Quaiifications fora limited, and are often spent on personal Faculty Teaming Position development instead of teacher development. Similarly, tenure decisions can be a The Board of Governors has established mechanism to promote quality teaching faculty hiring qualifications that will attract throughout the colleges. However, the quality instructors while providing flexibility to community college system of tenure does not hiring committees. prioritize teaching excellence. 1. Minimum qualifications have been established for each discipline. Applicants The colleges have three opportunities to who do not meet these qualifications may influence teaching quality: at the time of still be eligible for the instructor positions hiring, in professional development, and in if it can be shown that their education and awarding tenure. experience are equivalent to the listed minimums. In many cases, a Bachelor's degree in the subject matter or related 1. Experience undervalued in hiring field and two years of occupational experience in that area may be considered California has several policies defining hiring equivalent. qualifications for faculty. They place little 2. A valid California Community College emphasis on the teaching function of the teaching credential. (these are no longer colleges. issued) in the subject area meets the minimum quallfications. Prior to 1988, the Board of Governors issued 3; To qualify for a teaching position, all teaching credentials to community college applicants must demonstrate a sensitivity faculty. AB 1725 (Vasconcellos) replaced the to and understanding oUhe diverse academic, socioeconomic, .cultural, credential process with a "minimum disability, and ethnic backgrounds of qualifications" requirement. The change was community college students. in response to difficulties that districts had hiring qualified instructors who possessed a Source: Title 5; Regulations on Minimum Qualifications. 27 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION community college credential, particularly in vocational fields. The change also aligned community college hiring procedures with those for CSU and UC faculty. Under current law, the Board of Governors establishes minimum qualifications for community college faculty. Community college districts hire faculty and can adopt employment Part-Time Faculty Vacancy Notice: qualifications above state minimums. Child Development In most disciplines, the Board of Governors Community college districts have the authority requires a master's degree in the discipline to to establish hiring qualifications requiring be taught. Applicants, however, can use work teaching skills. In most cases, teaching experience to satisfy the degree requirement. experience or ability is a desired but not For some community college programs, an required skill for new faculty. associate's degree with appropriate work long Beach Community College recently experience can qualify an applicant for a advertised for a child development faculty tenured faculty position. 52 position with the following qualifications: In 1991 the Board of Governors recognized MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS (1) Master's degree in child development, early childhood that few new faculty have experience as education, human development, home teachers. 53 Yet in the decade since AB 1725, economics/family and consumer studies with a minimum qualifications for new faculty have specialization in child development!early not been amended to require teaching skills or childhood education, educational psychology teaching background. In most cases, teaching with a specialization in child development! experience and teacher education is a early childhood education, or (2) Bachelor's degree in any of the above and a Master's desirable qualification, but not required, for degree in social work, educational community college faculty. supervision, elementary education, special education, psychology, bilinguallbicultural The Academic Senate for the community education, life management!home economics, colleges has encouraged faculty at local family life studies, or family and consumer colleges to adopt broader hiring qualifications studies, or (3) Meet equivalent qualifications that address teaching abilities when reviewing established by the district, or (4) Hold a valid credential in the discipline. faculty applicants for their departments. 54 DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS: Teaching In an informal telephone survey of community experience at the community college or college districts, no district reported using secondary level. Evidence of a sensitivity to and understanding of the diverse academic, more stringent hiring standards. Staff from, socioeconomic, cultural, disability, and ethnic Los Rios Community College District, for backgrounds of high school and community instance, reported that the district follows college students. state minimum qualifications. Los Rios staff Source: Long Beach Community College District. said that when teaching background is desired, potential faculty are encouraged to identify life experiences that are equivalent to teaching - in lieu of actual teaching background. Sierra College staff reported that the district follows state-established minimum qualifications, but added that potential faculty do generally need some 28 MAKING TEACHING COUNT teaching experience to be hired and are asked to provide a presentation of their teaching. 55 The use of teaching presentations as part of the hiring process is common in higher education. Faculty applicants are often asked to give 10- to 15-minute teaching presentations to a group of faculty and students, or even guest-teach an actual course. UC Berkeley Professor Norton Grubb reports that while many departments require a teaching presentation as part of the interview process, these presentations do little to demonstrate effective teaching:56 It has become common to require a "teaching demonstration,» but in every case we learned about, it is so short and artificial as to be laughable. Many colleges schedule a five- to fifteen-minute demonstration to the hiring committee; several instructors noted that they had no advance warning of the short lesson required. It's hard to imagine how even the most gifted instructor could strut her stuff in ten to fifteen minutes. The most active forms of instruction, like small-group discussion and projects, take longer than that to set up. Short demonstrations to educated adults (not students) cannot be good indications of the skill and control that constitutes good teaching. An additional hiring concern of the Chancellor's Office is the tendency for older, established faculty to hire new faculty who resemble their personal teaching style. Referred to as "clone your own," senior faculty, often those with the most "outdated" teaching styles, tend to hire those most like themselves. With no emphasis on teaching ability, the community colleges run the risk of hiring and awarding The Significance of tenure to hundreds of new faculty ill prepared to take on Effective Teaching the challenge of teaching new skills to students with diverse learning styles. Many college leaders are acutely aware of tile need f()r faculty with strong teacningskilfs. The greatest concern, claims Linda Serra Hagedorn, from Cerritos College president Fred the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at USC, is Gaskin argued that hiring quality in the area of vocational education. She argues that faculty is tile most effective way vocational education presents the greatest challenge to serve students: because many vocational faculty have no background in I don't believe I have a more teaching. Similarly, UC Berkeley's Professor Grubb 57 important responsibility than found that unlike their academic colleagues, occupational determining who will teach at instructors have fewer opportunities to discuss teaching Cerritos college for the next strategies that are effective in their fields. And when those 20 to 30 years. opportunities arise, occupational instructors fail to participate. 58 29 -------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Community college leaders - both in local districts and the Board of Governors - recognize the significance of quality teaching on student success and the productivity of the colleges_ However, they have failed to uniformly establish teaching ability as a priority in faculty hiring decisions. 2. Professional Development does not support teaching Faculty development activities began with the rapid expansion of the colleges in the 1960s and early 1970s. Many faculty were new to teaching and the colleges turned to professional development activities to address professional, personal and organizational needs. 59 Today, the State and local community Community College Faculty and Staff college districts fund professional Development Fund development activities for college administrators, faculty and staff. Research As reprinted below, California's Education Code demonstrates that well-guided professional (section 87153) outlines how professional development funding can be used. Appropriate development programs do improve faculty uses of funds include: abilities and the quality of colleges.6o (a) Improvement of teaching. The annual budget process dedicates funds (b) Maintenance of current academic and technical knowledge and skills. for a variety of professional development (c) In-service training for vocational education and programs. The State also pays for "flex employment preparation programs. days" - paid days off from teaching (d) Retraining to meet changing institutional needs. responsibilities - to support professional (e) Intersegmental exchange programs. (f) Development of innovations in instructional and development activities. The goals of each administrative techniques and program program differ slightly but all seek to effectiveness. improve the ability of faculty, staff and (g) Computer and technological proficiency programs. (h) Courses and training implementing affirmative administrators to provide excellent learning action and upward mobility programs. opportunities to students. (i) Other activities determined to be related to educational and professional development pursuant to criteria established by the Board of For the most part, community college Governors of the California Community Colleges, districts establish a committee of faculty, including, but not necessarily limited to, programs staff and administrators to decide how to designed to develop self-esteem. spend their professional development money. Each district is required to submit a Human Resources Development Plan to the Chancellor's Office for review. The Chancellor's Office does not act on the plans other than to note that they have been submitted. Additional professional development funding comes directly from the colleges, which draw from federal discretionary funding, private and community college foundation grants or other resources. In addition to providing funds, the Chancellor's Office sponsors an annual "Mega Conference" to promote innovations and provide a forum for faculty, staff 30 MAKING TEACHING COUNT and administrators to network and share ideas on ways to enhance teaching and learning. A number of organizations also support professional development, such as California Community Colleges Council for Staff Development. Professional development has the potential to educate and motivate faculty to employ exemplary teaching practices. Unfortunately, few professional development resources are used for activities that directly support the teaching function of the colleges. A review of human resource development plans reveals that much of the funding is spent on workshops, speakers, conferences and exchanges. Technology instruction also consumes a significant proportion of development money, primarily through the TTIP program. Professional Development Funds Professional Available Funding Development Program Description (in millions)* Provides time (up to 15 days) for staff to participate in $135 Flex Days activities related to staff, student, and instructional (1997-98) improvement. Faculty and Staff State funding to support locally developed and $5.34 Development Fund implemented faculty and staff development programs. Provides funds to support locally developed Telecommunications and instructional programs for faculty, staff and Technology Infrastructure $6 administrators in technology use, including Program (TTIP) technology to support teaching. Fund for Instructional Revolving loan and direct grant program to support $1.32 Improvement (Fill alternate educational programs and services. Oan - Dec. 2000) Grant program to support planning and institutional Fund for Student Success $3.25 efforts to support student success. *Fiscal Year 1999-2000 unless otherwise noted. Sources: Chancellor's Office. Human Resources Division. While the Chancellor's Office collects fiscal and programmatic information on professional development activities, there are no efforts to analyze that information or report on the efficacy or adequacy of those activities. In his study of community college teaching, W. Norton Grubb argues that workshops and conferences actually do little to improve teaching skills. Another great failing of staff development days is that they are typically one-shot activities with outsiders, and do nothing to generate a culture within an institution supporting teaching. ... 31 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The upshot is that staff development is not taken seriously by many faculty. As one outstanding English instructor commented about the "contrived" in-service program, "A lot of people treat it as a pro forma activity; they're required to put in so many hours, and they make it clear that they're putting in the hours. "61 Other researchers cite similar findings: On the whole, most researchers agree that local professional development programs typically have weak effects on practice because they lack focus, 1:ntensity, follow-up and continuity. In many cases, neither individual nor organizational activities are closely linked to district goals for student performance. 62 Furthermore, professional development funds are often spent on activities that are not teaching-oriented. Professional development funds are used to support discipline-specific education, tuition and book purchases for individual faculty, staff and even administrators earning advanced Los Angeles Valley College degrees. Many colleges choose to use Staff Development Program Flyer professional development funds to pay for personal well-being seminars. Flex days allow faculty time for professional development. As the flier reproduced below In the case of flex days, for instance, the shows, not all flex activities support teaching. Education Code allows colleges to provide facuIty time to attend personal wellness 1fa activities, language classes or other GOLD CREEK activities at best peripherally connected to WORKSHOP building teaching capacity. Among the ways the money has been used: I"Botanical Techniques") D Tuition support. San Joaquin Delta Professor George Hale Community College spent $8,000 to assist 15 classified staff with the costs of their Learn how to identify, collect, press and mount books and tuition for college degrees. local chapparal plants. Another $34,000 was spent to send 73 faculty members to national conferences, Saturday, March 14, 1998 with only three billed as teaching-oriented. 9:00 - 1: 00 PM Three administrators used development money to support the costs of their Bring a sack lunch. Drinks will be provided by the graduate degrees. The second largest Gold Creek Committee. Available for flex credit. expenditure for Delta College's campus wide development activities for 1996-97 Source: Los Angeles Valley College Faculty and Staff went to support glucose testing as part of a Development Expenditure Report. wellness fair.63 32 MAKING TEACHING COUNT D Internet literacy. De Anza College's professional development plan outlines $81,500 in funding. According to the plan, $20,000 is used to teach faculty how to navigate the World-Wide-Web. An additional $20,000 supports a part-time clerical position. The bulk of the remaining funding paid for workshops, conferences and other activities - including $1,000 for a brown bag series, line dancing, a college social hour, a college picnic, and something called "Brake for Chocolate," as well as teaching-oriented activities.64 D Cooking classes. The 1997-2000 Human Resource Development Plan for Golden West College includes a cooking workshop as part of its flex calendar program,65 and Los Angeles Valley College supported a visit by faculty to historical downtown Los Angeles.66 College employees report that in theory the Chancellor's office has the authority to require community colleges to repay funds that were not spent according to professional development fund requirements. In practice, however, "nothing happens." Some colleges frustrated by their inability to limit professional development funding to activities that directly support teaching quality have turned to private foundations to fund teaching-oriented projects. De Anza College, for instance, has received foundation funding for teaching programs. Other colleges, such as Los Medanos, have made teaching quality an institutional priority and have successfully applied development funding to teaching activities. State Center Community College District has reduced the number of flex days available to faculty through its collective bargaining agreements because they were not used in productive ways.67 Faculty report that in the absence of a focused policy on teaching from the Chancellor's Office or elsewhere, community college constituencies have used professional development money to support an array of activities that are often unrelated to teaching. 3. Tenure not used to ensure teaching quality Tenure has long earned the ire of critics, who claim it protects faculty who are lazy, incompetent or who are focused on esoteric topics of little practical use. Defenders of tenure cite its value in a society that honors open inquiry and critical discussion into new and unforeseen territories. Teaching quality, like faculty research, is impacted by tenure decisions. Tenure allows faculty the freedom to select course materials and teaching approaches without fear of retribution from administrators who disagree with their choices. If tenure decisions emphasized teaching skills, the community colleges could reward and retain the most qualified teaching 33 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION faculty and create incentives for probationary faculty to improve their teaching ability. Within the California community colleges, tenure is awarded to a faculty member after the fourth consecutive year as a probationary employee. In essence, an employee who is offered a contract after working four consecutive years is tenured. Local districts, through the collective bargaining process, determine the composition of evaluation committees and the evaluation process for tenure review. Many community colleges have established a rigorous faculty evaluation process that includes viewing faculty teaching sessions, videotaping classrooms, placing newer faculty with established instructors as mentors and forming teaching teams. Other districts, however, struggle to equate tenure decisions with hiring the most qualified teachers. The Academic Senate has established faculty evaluation guidelines to assist community college districts in determining which faculty should receive tenure. Those guidelines identify an "effective" faculty member as an individual possessing the following qUalities:68 a) Academic preparation d) Leadership potential b) Sensitivity to a diverse e) Communication skills student body f) Collegial/community service c) Creativity and innovation g) Teaching effectiveness Teaching is one of several factors cited in the guidelines. While state policy and academic research emphasize teaching when making tenure decisions, evaluation guidelines place teaching effectiveness last of several factors apparently given equal weight. The Legislature and the Board of Governors have established faculty evaluation procedures and minimum hiring requirements, but have refrained from establishing specific requirements for tenure. Local districts determine who evaluates faculty for tenure and the criteria used.69 The Commission discussed tenure procedures with several community college districts. One college reported that administrators delve into teaching issues in tenure evaluations but peer evaluators are less inclined to make teaching a priority. In fact, concern that collegiality drives tenure decisions has been raised throughout higher education.10 More than the criteria used, college administrators argue that evaluation procedures determine the effectiveness of tenure as a threshold for effective teaching. Some districts must provide notice to faculty prior to 34 MAKING TEACHING COUNT an evaluator visiting a classroom. In other districts, the faculty member being evaluated can refuse to be evaluated by particular peers.71 Equally significant, many long-time tenured faculty who participate in peer review sessions never studied pedagogy or how to perform teaching and student assessments. "No one asked them about their teaching when they were first hired,» stated one college president. California State University San Diego education professor Bill Piland argues that tenure decisions within the community colleges do rely on teaching performance, but teaching evaluations overall fail to motivate quality teaching. He charges that because the community colleges do not offer merit pay, faculty salaries rise with collective bargaining agreements that apply equally to the good and not-so-good teachers. 72 Tenure reviews have the potential to motivate and identify the most qualified faculty to teach in the community colleges. Many colleges use the tenure process to retain only the most capable teachers. However, lack of clarity in tenure requirements, inconsistent rigor in faculty evaluations and the absence of best-practice models for teaching prevents the tenure process from systematically identifying the best teachers for the community colleges. Opportunities for Making Teaching Count C ommunity college leaders have three distinct opportunities to make teaching quality a hallmark of the community colleges. 1. At the Time of Hiring Academic Senate for the California Teaching approaches have a significant Community Col/eges impact on student retention and learning.73 The time of hiring is the most significant The Academic Senate has issued the following challenge to hiring committees to raise the opportunity for ensuring that faculty bring teaching standards for new faculty hires. to the classroom the teaching techniques that will prepare students to be lifelong Potential faculty should demonstrate the learners. The Academic Senate for the ability to use their professional and inte1personal skiUs to teach. .. using a California Community Colleges recognizes variety oft eaching methodologies that that potential teachers can benefit from satisfY the requirements of dijferent academic and professional instruction on student learning styles.... While the learning theory, diverse learning styles and Education Code defines minimum teaching approaches. 74 qualifications; the hiring faculty may broaden the qualifications for hire. The Community College League has called Source: Academic Senate. 1991. Hiring Effective Faculty: for laws and regulations that promote An Introduction. faculty hiring standards and processes that 35 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION recognize teaching abilities for a diverse community college student bodyJ5 Making teaching experience and teaching skills a minimum qualification for community college teachers will promote better preparation of potential faculty members. Much of the focus is on the middle of a faculty California needs to speak back member's career - professional development - or at the to the market - get graduate end, denying tenure or removing faculty who are not schools to speak to teaching. productive. Instead, suggests Russell Edgerton with the Pew Charitable Trusts, California needs to speak back to the market - get graduate schools to speak to teaching. 76 Greater emphasis could be placed on hiring candidates who are prepared and creating a market for teaching skills. Minimum qualifications for community college faculty can include teaching experience or teacher education. Over time, established teaching criteria will encourage graduate schools and potential community college faculty to value teaching as much as they value discipline-specific education. 2. As Core Component of College Operations Professional development resources have inconsistently been used to support quality teaching. While some districts and campuses have pioneered or adapted best practices to promote quality teaching through professional development, others lag behind. The Board of Governors is responsible for ensuring that teaching quality is internally valued by the community colleges. Too often, professional development dollars are used to support the individual needs of faculty rather than institutional priorities. The Board can ensure that professional development 77 resources are being used to support improved teaching quality. The Board can explore ways to focus faculty on teacher development, while reigning in questionable uses of limited funding. The Board could shift current funding to support a competitive grant program that challenges faculty to establish teaching and learning centers that pioneer and disseminate best known approaches to teaching and learning excellence. Research suggests that teaching and learning centers should be faculty centered and create the long-term relationships among faculty, including the CSU and UC faculty, that are essential to working out common problemsJ8 Particular attention should be paid to the needs of part time faculty, which often do not benefit from professional development opportunities. 36 MAKING TEACHING COUNT 3. As Core Component of Tenure Awards and Evaluation Tenure, as a mechanism to support academic freedom, could also be configured to support high-quality teaching. Current tenure evaluation guidelines include teaching effectiveness as one of several evaluative criteria. The Board could explore options to place teaching effectiveness at the core of tenure reviews. The Board could also explore other options to make quality teaching the hallmark of the community colleges. Harvard University Professor Tom Kane cautions that to improve community college outcomes, the colleges must address the quality of their inputs. Some can be controlled, some cannot: We know that the quality of student outcomes is determined by the quality of the students and the quality of the teaching. The community colleges cannot control the quality of the students who attend, but they can try to control whether good teachers get promoted. 79 The Purpose of Tenure Review Tenure is a motivating force in academia. Systems of tenure that prioritize teaching can The State Center Community College encourage faculty to engage in thoughtful District collective bargaining agreement discussions with their peers about their teaching outlines the purpose of tenure review: practices and raise the value of teaching in the The tenure review process should colleges. insure that students have access to the m.ost knowledgeable, There are no formal incentives for colleges or talented, creative~.and student faculty to improve the quality of teaching and oriented fatJUlty available. learning in their classrooms. As stated earlier, Detailed evaluation criteria at State Center salaries rise with collective bargaining, not include classroom teaching skills, awareness quality. Still, faculty evaluation processes can of variety of learning styles and willingness improve teaching.8o Opportunities include: and availability to assist students. Other criteria are also included, such as maintaining appropriate classroom records. D Incentive for Additional Education. California's public and private universities Source: Agreement for Fiscal Years 1997~98. 1998-99; offer multiple education programs designed 1999·2000 between State Center Community College District and State Center Federation of Teachers local for faculty. The University of Southern 1533, CFT/AFT, AFl-'CIO. California, California State University San Diego and other universities offer courses targeting community college teachers. Yet faculty have little incentive to invest in continuing education that would improve their ability to teach. Incentives might take the form of one-time or on-going bonus pay, relief from other responsibilities to allow time to pursue curriculum development or other teaching oriented activities, or other incentives that would encourage faculty to pursue teacher education. 37 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Similarly, a competitive subsidy program could be developed to pay for advanced study of teaching and learning. o Reward with Recognition. Higher education offers few awards of distinction for teaching excellence. Awards such as the Professors of the Year award sponsored by the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching and the Council for Advancement and Support of Education highlight the role of teaching in higher education.8 The pUblicity and distinction such awards bring to ! faculty and their institutions make clear the centrality of teaching to the higher education mission. Similarly, California could identify and recognize faculty who bring innovation and excellence to their classrooms, which would also publicize exemplary teaching practices and the importance of quality teaching to the future of California. o Designate with Distinction. An additional incentive for faculty and institutions to promote the centrality of teaching is to designate faculty with validated teaching skills as "Mentoring Teachers." Accountability measures for teaching quality might reflect the number of Mentoring Teachers at each college. Further, local districts could be encouraged to publicize the quality of their faculty by advertising the proportion of their faculty who hold the distinguished Mentoring Teacher status. The Legislature and the Governor have established that the Board of Governors is Full-time and Part-time Faculty ultimately responsible for the quality of teaching in the California community colleges.82 However, Significant numbers of community college the Board is not held accountable for teaching faculty teach on a part-time basis. Research quality or student learning. The Education Code suggests that where teaching is not prioritized and faculty do not receive requires the Board of Governors to prepare a institutional support to improve their comprehensive educational and fiscal teaching, both full-time and part-time faculty accountability report.83 In response, the are affected. Chancellor's Office compiles and publishes a report titled, "The Effectiveness of California All faculty benefit when the community Community Colleges on Selected Performance colleges prioritize and facilitate improved teaching quality. But researchers warn that Measures." The Effectiveness report provides as the community college begin to create information on student access, success, institutional resources to improve teaching satisfaction, staff composition and the fiscal quality part-time faculty may have less conditions of the colleges. No measures of access to those resources. teaching quality or efforts to address teaching quality are included in the accountability report. Every initiative to improve teaching quality in the community colleges needs to address the needs of full-time and part-time faculty It is unlikely the Board of Governors or local members. boards can or should directly evaluate teacher quality or student learning. However, the 38 MAKING TEACHING COUNT challenge is theirs to create a system that promotes their most essential function - ensuring that quality teaching and student learning is taking place within the colleges. Independent faculty evaluations, student exit exams, and faculty credentialing or certifications could be considered to establish accountability for results. The Board of Governors and local boards also could be subject to periodic and independent evaluations of their efforts to improve the quality of teaching and learning. Their charge is making sure that learning takes place in the colleges. Evaluations of their efforts to fulfill their responsibilities could be taken care of through the budget process, with performance audits or independent evaluations conducted by the National Center for Research in Vocational Education, the Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis at USC or similar higher education organizations. Summary T he Legislature and the Governor have challenged the Board of Governors, the Chancellor's Office and local boards to make improvement of teaching quality a core component of their work. The Chancellor's Office reports that the response to that challenge is through the various professional development funds, the annual Mega Conference and internship programs.84 While the Board of Governors recognized in backgrounds, no effort has been made to include teaching interest, background or qualifications in the minimum hiring qualifications. Similarly, the Board does not actively promote the use of professional development funds to support teaching. Finally, the Board has not used its influence to promote the use of the tenure system to retain only the most qualified instructors and motivate tenure-eligible faculty to aggressively develop teaching skills. Nothing is more critical to preparing Californians for the New Economy than emphasizing quality teaching in our community colleges. Recommendation 1: Policy-makers, college leaders and faculty should make quality teaching and learning the hallmark of the California community colleges. A policy focused on quality teaching should: D Establish hiring qualifications that include teaching excellence. The Board of Governors should set minimum qualifications for full-time and part-time faculty hiring that require evidence of teaching skills as well as discipline-specific expertise. The Board should consider requiring education in pedagogy as a prerequisite to employment, or at least as a condition of continued employment. 39 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION o Develop teaching and learning centers. The Legislature should establish and the Board of Governors should administer a competitive grant program to encourage community college faculty members to create learning communities, teaching centers, or other programs that promote teaching and learning excellence. Teaching and learning centers need to be responsive to the needs of full-time and part-time faculty. o Transform tenure to motivate teaching excellence. No instructional faculty member should be awarded tenure without demonstrating teaching excellence. College leaders should transform the tenure process and other personnel decisions to motivate quality teaching. o Create incentives for institutions and faculty to improve teaching and learning. The Board of Governors should establish incentives that are appropriate for full-time and part-time faculty, induding: ./ Basing employment and tenure decisions primarily on teaching quality . ./ Subsidizing tuition for faculty participating in teacher education programs . ./ Rewarding faculty with recognized education in pedagogy . ./ Recognizing teaching excellence with annual awards . ./ Designating select faculty members as "Mentoring Teachers" based on validated teaching excellence. o Hold the Board of Governors and local boards of trustees accountable for teaching and learning quality. The Legislature and Governor should fund periodic independent evaluations of efforts by local boards and the Board of Governors to improve the quality of teaching and learning in the community colleges. Evaluations should review the extent that teaching styles respond to the diverse learning needs of California's diverse students and should apply to the work of full time and part-time faculty. 40 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL Ensuring Access and Benefit for All Finding 2: The promise of universal access to community college is unfulfilled. While State policy says that all who can benefit should have access, participation is limited by how resources are allocated, how, where and when courses are offered, and other administrative practices. Danny B. is 32 years old. He has struggled with education for much of his life. He cites a learning disability and the onset of his mother's cancer as contributing to his flunking out of college. After working for several years, including developing a small business which he sold for $5,000, he returned to school to earn a bachelor's degree in psychology from a private university. With over $15,000 in school loans, he wants to become a chiropractor. But before he can begin chiropractic school, he needs to take courses in chemistry, organic chemistry and physics. At $11 per credit, the six courses he needs would cost him $198 at a community college - a bargain for Danny. But he found the class schedule to be a barrier: "The community colleges usually offer morning classes, which is when I work. Plus, spending four months to take one class didn't work for me." Because the courses are sequential, it would take Danny three years to finish the prerequisites. Instead, Danny enrolled in a private program that offered the classes in four-week formats with classes all day Saturday and Sunday. The school charges $200 per credit or $3,600 for six classes. He has borrowed the money. "It's worth the money for me," Danny said. "I get to do three years worth of community college work in just 7 months. Why wait three years, you know? If I had gone to the community college I would have spent more time getting ready for my chiropractic classes than I will spend in those classes. That doesn't make any sense." W hile the community colleges are touted as providing educational opportunities for all, they are operated in ways that limit access - and as a result, diminish the benefits to Californians. The debate over access is often limited to the link between college fees and enrollment. Recent efforts to expand access have focused on reducing tuition from $12 to $11 per credit. Yet the barriers to access are numerous, going well beyond affordability: Funding caps limit the number of students admitted. Course schedules limit which classes are offered and how frequently. Semester-based scheduling discourages people already in the workforce from enrolling. Limited counseling and outreach efforts inadequately serve potential students. Hiring and curriculum rules hinder efforts to develop new classes. Community colleges do not gather data in ways that allow for comprehensive assessments of their performance on these indicators. But the available data and common experience show that overall the colleges offer slightly more physical education classes than English 41 --------------.-----~ LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION classes - and students are frequently turned away from the core academic courses. Almost 20 percent of the students who start classes do not finish them.8s And 39 percent of the students who The economy is primarily take a class one semester do not re-enroll the next.86 producing jobs that require College supporters maintain this is a sign of satisfaction - some college education - that the system is flexible enough to meet student needs. not necessarily a college Alternatively, it could mean the structure of courses and degree, but at least one or the quality of services discourages students from two years of college. completing classes and staying in degree programs. And without a doubt, dropouts consume limited resources - both those of the colleges and those of the students - and prevent others who could benefit from getting the classes they want. UCLA Professor Arthur Cohen testified before the Commission that low fees do encourage access, but also promote inefficient use - which restricts the access of others: The miniscule tuition in California enhances access, but it also allows students to wander in and out of the community colleges to leave without completing any courses and to return with practically no fiscal penalty. A student may take a course at low cost merely for personal interest: signing up for a college-credit physical education class makes the college's swimming pool and weight room available for less than the cost of a private health club. California has a higher proportion of students in physical education than any other state. Significance of Educational Access in California Broad access to quality higher education supports the long-term prosperity of California in the New Economy. Consider the following: Average Annual Earnings, • In the 1990s, unskilled positions represent only 20 by Highest Degree Earned percent of jobs nationally.87 $70,000 ---~ $33,229 • Low-skill workers tend to hold only part-time or contingent jobs with low pay and inadequate benefits. $30,000 I 88 $50,000 I • In 2015, when many of today's children will graduate, a $40,478 $40 ,000 ,--~ high school education alone will provide 40 percent less in real earnings than it did 30 years ago. $30,000 , $26,235 89 :::~:oO-O~ • The economy is primarily producing jobs that require some college education - not necessarily a college degree, but at least one or two years of college.9o Less High Some BA or Advanced • Workers with greater educational levels are less likely than school college B8 degree high to experience unemployment, and when they do, they school Source: U.S. Depts. of Commerce, Education, & Labor, recover faster. 91 e! ai., 21" Century Skills for 21" Century Jobs, 1999. 42 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL • An educated workforce contributes to economic and social stability.92 • On average, a high school graduate earns $22,895 annually compared to a four-year degree holder, who earns $40,478.93 And as California's economy has become more competitive, more secondary students are poised for post-secondary education. As the table below shows, more high school students are taking college preparatory tests such as the SAT and AP exams. More High School Students Are Preparing For Col/ege 1990 1996 H.5. Dropout Rate 5.2% .ij. 3.9% H.S. Grads Taking SAT 46.5% 11" 51.2% H.5. Seniors Takin&AP Exams 10.0% 1f 13.2% H.S. Students Taking College Prep 32.6% 11" 37.9% Source: CPEC data, as reported in State Controller, Controller's Quarterly, Aug. 1998. Yet proportionally, fewer high school graduates are eligible for, or enroll in college. Fewer High School Graduates Attend California's Public Col/eges and Universities 1990 1996 UC CSU CCC All UC CSU CCC All High school grads going to college 56.0% 53.1% CA public high school grads 12.3% 34.6% 11.1% 29.6% meeting all eligibility requirements CA first-time college students as % 7.3% 10.4% 36.2% 53.9% 7.8% 9.9% 35.4% 53.0% ofCA high school grads Source: CPEC data, as reported in State Controller, Controller's Quarterly, Aug. 1998 The community colleges can efficiently increase access to higher education and educational attainment. 94 They are often the only educational venue available for the state's diverse ethnic communities.9S The community colleges also serve more women than men. On average, women have less money for higher education than men, making them more dependent on low-cost institutions such as the community colleges.96 Access Currently Defined A ccess to community college is often measured based on the rate of participation among California's adults and the diversity of the community college student body. Popular perception is that the amount that students pay in fees determines access. High fees mean low access. Low fees mean high access. 43 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In 1975, the statewide fall participation rate peaked at 88 enrollments per 1,000 adults. The 1999 fall participation rate was 63 per 1,000 adu1ts.97 In contrast, the full-year participation rate for the colleges is 99 per 1,000 adults. 98 In effect, one in 10 adults in California currently participates in a community college program in a given year. Community college leaders assert that historic changes in fees, including those as small as $1 per credit or $3 for a typical class, make the difference between thousands of students enrolling or not.99 More significant to access than fees, others argue, is the rigidity of the community college schedules, the relevance of the coursework, the complexity of registration procedures and poor outreach in many communities. Barriers to Access A ccess to the community colleges is constrained by formal state policy, such as funding caps that act as enrollment caps, as well as by operating procedures such as a 17Y2-week semester calendar. Faculty hiring and curriculum rules, weak counseling and financial aid opportunities, inefficiencies in student programs and poorly defined missions further limit access. Most significantly, access to higher education is limited by an unwillingness of college leaders to recognize that improving access will require fundamental changes in the way the colleges and the Chancellor's Office operate. The Commission has identified five specific barriers that prevent or limit student access to the community colleges. Funding is Provided for a 1. Enrollment Caps Limited Number of Community College Students Prior to the 1970s, the community colleges operated 1,200,000 ,.....-___________- , without growth limits. Around 1975 the Legislature established funding caps to manage community 1,000,000 college budgets. Although districts can enroll Non-Credit 800,000 students beyond their funding cap, the caps act to Credit limit enrollment. For example, in 1998-99, the State 600,000 funded 960,081 full-time equivalent students (FTES). The colleges enrolled an additional 3,621 400,000 FTES without funding support, or just 0.3%.100 200,000 Under the present funding approach, the Governor proposes a funding level for the community colleges 1995/96 1996/97 1997/98 1998/99 through the annual budget process. When the Source: Chancellor's Office. 1999-2000 Statewide Budget Information Workshop. Page 52. budget is finalized in June of each year, it includes 44 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL an appropriation that is translated into the number of full-time equivalent students the college can serve. The 1999-2000 budget allocated funding for 992,908 full-time equivalent students, a 3.5% increase over the previous year.lOl Finding Lost Students The Chancellor's Office is charged with translating Research at Glendale Community College the statewide allocation into funding for each found that students more frequently district. District funding is allocated according to a identified scheduling conflicts and limited formula that takes into consideration the number course offerings, than the cost of tuition of full-time equivalent students (FTES) currently as barriers to access. being served, or the college's base allocation, and Each year Glendale Community College the need for additional services in the district, admits approximately 6,700 students but referred to as a growth allocation. The base only 60 percent enroll. The college allocation is determined by FTES enrollments. It surveyed students who were accepted but can increase by no more than 3 percent every year tailed to register. and is reduced when enrollment levels drop for Nearly two-thirds of the students multiple years. Growth allocations are determined surveyed reported that they had not based on popUlation growth rates within each spoken with a counselor prior to district but are limited by the finite funding enrolling. Many were unable to get an . allocated for the state as a whole. Funding is appointment, others avoided such meetings. discussed in more detail in Finding 3. In all, two-thirds of the reasons cited for Enrollment caps allow the State to establish a not enrolling were related to college finite budget for the community colleges. They also procedural problems, scheduling conflicts restrict the ability to the colleges to promote or .l ack of access to services, such as ch ildcare. Only 11.2 percent of students access, particularly in high growth areas of the cited financial barriers, and the majority state. The Community College League and of those students cited resistance to individual college presidents have challenged the paying expensive non-'resident tuition. appropriateness of funding caps in a state that Source: Karpp, Edward. nd. 'Draft: Finding lost prioritizes open access.102 Limiting the number of Students: Improving the Enrollment Rate of College students who can be served by each school is an Applicants." Unpublished paper. obvious barrier to community college access. 2. Academic Calendars and Course Structures The nature of the academic calendar and the structure of community college courses further limit access. The majority of community college classes are offered during the day over a 17Y2-week semester. As Danny B. stated, many potential students who work cannot attend classes during the day and are poorly served by a traditional semester. Most colleges offer some night courses, some colleges are on a quarter system and some offer courses are less than 17Y2 weeks. But the majority of classes are offered in a semester format that is 17Y2 weeks long. The length of a community college semester was determined by calculating the number of days in the traditional K-12 academic year - and dividing by two. Course calendars are not structured around the 45 ~--------------------~- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION most appropriate learning formats, the schedules of potential students or the number of course days required to cover course materials. Quite the reverse, learning formats, student schedules and course curricula are adjusted to fit the established academic semester. Private and proprietary colleges and universities have pioneered the use of more flexible calendars. And some community colleges have developed "short courses." National University, for instance, offers classes with multiple start dates to accommodate more diverse student schedules. Classes are offered at various times of the day, on various days of the week.103 Colorado College, a private liberal arts college in Colorado Springs, follows a "block plan" in which the academic year is divided into three-and-a-half week segments, or blocks. The block plan allows courses to be offered more frequently and students make progress toward their degree faster. 104 National University One-Course-Per-Month Learning Format National University recognizes and focuses on the special needs of adult learners. The unique, One-Course-Per-Month Format accommodates busy schedules, with classes held primarily in the evenings and on Saturdays. Select programs are available during the daytime as well. This concentrated, more-focused approach helps adult learners by promoting greater interest, motivation and better overall learning results. Our one-course-per-month format enables you to complete as many as 60 quarter units (72 courses) per year instead of the traditional 45 (nine courses). Key to the University's success with adult learners is our development of programs which adapt to the changing circumstances of adult lives. Source: National University brochure. The Colorado College Block Plan Colorado College began a unique program in 1970 by adopting the Block Plan. The plan divides the academic year into eight three-and-a-half week segments or blocks. Some courses may last for one block; others for two or three blocks, depending on the nature of the material. The schedule has many advantages. Students can give full attention to one course. Classes are kept small. Formal lectures are rare with seminar discussions and active laboratories being the norm. The concentrated format and small classes are carefully designed with one vital educational principal in mind: at Colorado College the student is an active participant instead of a passive recipient in learning. Courses under the Block Plan are designed to cover as much material as a course offered in a conventional semester or quarter. Source: Colorado College webpage. 46 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL 3. Student Support and Financial Aid Services Limited student support and financial aid services also hamper community college access. The Commission received anecdotal reports and research conducted at Glendale College confirms that students often enroll without guidance counseling to evaluate course selection, explain registration guidelines or other campus policies. In some cases, students complete classes that do not provide credit toward their degree program. The need to repeat coursework adds to the public and student cost and time necessary to earn a degree or transfer. lOS Poorly implemented financial aid policies also greatly restrict the ability of low-income students to access community colleges. While college officials frequently argue that the cost of tuition is the greatest barrier to community college education, many eligible students are not made aware that they are eligible for financial aid or tuition waivers. 106 Data analyzed by the Chancellor's Office found that some 96,000 welfare recipients who enrolled in community college programs did not receive federal Pell Grants, often over $1,000, for which they were eligible. Similarly, some 34,000 students eligible for fee waivers did not benefit from the waiver program. 107 4. Hiring and Curriculum Rules Hiring rules and curriculum certification needs Hiring More Facu/tyto Serve also limit access to community college services. More Students Finding 1 explained how hiring practices do not guarantee quality teaching. At the same time, Some access barriers could be removed colleges experience difficulties attracting with better attention by adm inistrators. instructors with appropriate technical skills. The inability of the colleges to quickly respond to When asked why Long Beach City College changing educational needs with the most has not hired additional faculty to meet the qualified teachers means students do not have demand for its precision machining access to the courses they need for an evolving program, a college administrator explained marketplace of jobs. that the lone faculty member neglected to fill out the appropriate paperwork to approve hiring an additional instructor. Colleges may also be slow to gear up new programs or courses that respond to student and When asked why expahsion of a program community needs because new curriculum must thatfeads to living wage jobs and is in high be approved through the cumbersome shared demand is dependent on the actions of a governance process. Similarly, changes in single faculty member, the administrator responded, #That's a good question." attendance patterns may prompt programs to be cut and limited resources redirected. 47 ----------------------, -------------- - LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Weak Transfer Opportunities: An Access Barrier to a Four-Year Degree California's three higher education segments lack a fiscal incentive to support transfer activities. Some have argued that each segment faces a disincentive. When transfer students depart a community college they represent a revenue loss. Similarly, transfer students are less valuable to UC and CSU because they are more likely to take resource intensive, upper division courses compared to first-year and second-year students. Despite legislation and attempts by the Board of Governors to promote transfer, many colleges do not make transfer a priority. In 1995, the last time it conducted a review of local transfer plans, the Chancellor's office found that some colleges had transfer programs in place and some did not. Ninety-nine of the 106 community colleges operating at the time responded to a Chancellor's Office survey on transfer plans. Survey results include: • 85 colleges recognized transfer as their primary mission. • 65 colleges had a written transfer plan in place. • 53 colleges reported providing transfer-specific academic advising. • 25 reported their ability to monitor the progress of transfer students. Overall, 60 colleges (60 percent of those responding) met at least 11 of the 13 areas outlined in the minimum standards for transfer programs adopted by the Board of Governors. In its transfer report, the Board made no statement on its attempts to encourage more colleges to comply with transfer standards. Despite widespread criticism of the handling of the transfer function, many colleges have demonstrated success. On average, however, some 30 percent of transfer students originate in just 12 percent of the 106 Community Colleges. The reasons for poor transfer rates are tied to the priorities of the community colleges and the priorities of CSU and UC campuses. One community college representative asserted that his college does not transfer significant numbers of students to the University of California or to California State University because few students in his community want baccalaureate degrees. Another community college board member testified that his board has not made transfer a priority, despite the priorities established by the Legislature and the Board of Governors. The Commission also heard testimony from a college administrator who reported that rather than emphasizing workforce education and job preparation or transfer, the community college supports programs for older reSidents looking for physical education and social venues. Similarly, a UC campus admissions official reported that his efforts to promote community college transfers to his campus have limited effect. Many college deans and faculty chairpersons perceive a community college education to be of low quality. They work against the efforts of central admissions staff to prioritize community college transfer. Source: Chancellor's Office. 1995. Transfer Centers: Implementing Minimum Program Standards. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 48 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL For example, the Commission visited two precision machining programs, one at Long Beach City College and the other at Cerritos College. The two colleges are located about six miles from each other. Long Beach has one instructor and can graduate 15 to 25 students each year. Cerritos has several instructors and a more developed program. But it, too, is unable to meet local demand for machinists. Each college maintains expensive equipment and facilities, with an insufficient number of faculty members to address demand for classes and skilled graduates. There is no clear mechanism that would allow Long Beach and Cerritos to consolidate their programs and move resources and faculty from one district to the other to better serve the population in need. 5. Inefficiencies Restrict Access The Chancellor recently reported that the community colleges have improved access as evidenced by projected enrollments that will reach 1.9 million students in the fall of 2005.108 Yet the community colleges do not know whom they serve, if those are the most appropriate students to serve or how well they are being In the typical mathematics served. course, a majority of enrolled students fail to The Chancellor's Office pointed out in a draft budget complete the course. And proposal, that in the typical mathematics course, a majority an even higher proportion of enrolled students fail to complete the course. And an of female and non-white even higher proportion of female and non-white students fail to complete most math courses.109 A course completion students fail to complete most math courses. rate of less than 50 percent is a cause for concern. An even lower completion rate for women and non-white students suggests students do not have access to coursework appropriate for their learning styles or needs. California is not alone. The National Commission on Teaching and America's Future found that educational institutions are often narrowly conceived and fail to make their programs accessible to all learners.l1O On some unconscious level schools tolerate student failure because they mistake it for a commitment to higher standards. Designed to support a very limited kind of learning and a very particular kind of leamer, schools only rarely hold themselves responsible for the success of every student. And most are structured in ways that make it impossible for them to do so. The community colleges track who they serve in only limited ways. Age, race / ethnicity and gender are used for statewide reporting purposes. Colleges also routinely collect information on employment status 49 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION (displaced homemaker, laid off, etc.). But little of this information finds its way into policy discussions of access, participation and efficiency. The colleges also do not consistently use this information to The State of California evaluate outreach and determine if they are meeting the provides the California most appropriate needs of their communities. community colleges with over $211 million per What is known is that precious and limited community semester to fund students college resources are spent for services that students never who fail to complete their receive, either because they drop out of courses or because coursework. they fail to complete their program of study. Overall, 19 percent of the students who take classes for credit do not finish them.l1l And 39 percent of the students who take a class one semester do not persist to take a course the following semester. Persistence rates are higher for full-time students (96 percent), who take the majority of the courses, but lower for part-time students (46 percent), who represent the bulk of Will Eledronic Distance community college students. 112 Education Increase Access? The high drop rate should be cause for alarm. One Electronic distance learning fifth of the way through the academic term, or 17.5 opportunities offer the potential to expand the number of students served days into the 87.5 day semester, the colleges count and improve outreach to underserved enrollments and report that figure to the State for communities. purposes of calculating payments (apportionments). On average, the state provides the colleges $3,400- The promise that technology can bring to distance learning is uncertain. $3,600 for each full-time equivalent student.lI3 Colleges are allocated funding even for students who Technology costs can be very high. fail to complete a course. Community college faculty report that their greatest frustration is learning to work with new technology. And The colleges explain that calculating enrollments for educators are unsure of how technology purposes of state funding one-fifth of the way into use and the loss of classroom the semester is necessary because they bear fixed interaction affects the quality of student costs. What the colleges are saying is that they learning. should be paid whether students are enrolled in or Posting a course syllabus on the Internet attend the last 80 percent of a class or not. does not create a virtual university. The effects of electronic distance education There is no incentive for the colleges to ensure that on community college access remain students benefit from the course. The colleges are unclear. funded despite the number of students who Source: Institute for Higher Education. 1999. complete a course or how well they are served. *The Expanding Universe of Distance learning.* Distance Learning in Higher Education. The State funds the colleges at about $350 per course enrollment. And 19 percent of the 3,246,583 fall credit courses offered are dropped, or 603,425 course enrollments. The cost to the State to fund lost enrollment is approximately $211 million per semester. This figure fails to capture some lost state 50 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL allocation. For instance, faculty may have awarded a student a grade of "F" when the student failed to attend. Further, each district has the ability to set its own withdraw dates. Some campuses allow students to withdraw so far into the semester that the college is funded for the student's course attendance without the withdraw being reflected in the data reported by the Chancellor's Office. The $211 million figure is for a single semester, and is conservative. Capturing the lost $211 million to serve additional students could improve community college access by allowing the colleges to reallocate these resources to provide more classes in ways that more students can enroll. Career Development and Workforce Preparation The community col/eges provide career development and workforce preparation services. But so do many other entities: K-12 adult schools, regional occupation centers and programs, UCand CSU extension services, and hundreds of public-private partnerships, and private organizations. Some programs, such as those offered through the extension services, are fee-based. Others receive state and federal funding. More than $1 billion is spent on these programs each year. Adult education, which refers to a particular set of services, received over $663 million in state and federal funding in 1996- 97. Over 370 school districts and 94 community colleges operated adult education programs throughout the state. California also supports 70 regional occupational centers/programs, which .received $320 million in 1999-00. Most UC and CSU campuses provide classes through university extension services. And thousands of community-based job preparation and career development organizations are funded to provide services under a wide variety of local, state and federal programs. This web of services is so complex that it raises concerns whether residents are receiving maximum benefltior the investment. Economist Steve levy testified that services are not targeted to the individuals most able to benefit from assistance and recommended that California rethink the goals of workforce and career development programs. The efficiency, effectiveness and accountability of these programs is beyond the scope of this report. However, the Commission recognizes that college leaders have the responsibility to determine the most appropriate role for their colleges given the needs of their communities. Similarly, the Board of Governors should take a leadership rote to ensure that workforce and job preparation needs are addressed throughout the state and that publicly supported education programs provide the best value for the public investment. Sources: Joint Board Task Force on Noncredit and Adult Education. 1998. Final Report: Challenges Opportunities Changes. State Department ofEducation, Directory of ROCPS, (www.cde.cagovlcdwp!rocp!directory.html). 51 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Basic Skills Courses. Participation in basic skills courses is a useful indicator of access for the community colleges. Basic skills courses are math and English courses that are below the level required to receive college credit. Basic skills courses promote higher education access when those students progress into college credit courses. From 1995 to 1998, over 444,000 students participated in basic skills courses offered by the community colleges. 114 The percentage of students who progressed from one basic Seventy-five to 80 percent skills level to a higher level in math or English is low. Of of the students who 270,872 students who participated in a basic skills English approached the course, only 70,454, or just 26 percent, later registered in a community colleges to higher level course. Similarly, of 173,453 students enrolled receive basic education in in a basic skills math course, only 38,112, or just 22 math and English did not percent later enrolled in a higher course. progress beyond a single course. Seventy-five to 80 percent of the students who approached the community colleges to receive basic education in math and English did not progress beyond a single course. The retention rate includes students who progressed to collegiate level math and English as well as those who did progress but failed to reach college skill levels.lls Course Offerings. Access is further limited by the courses the colleges choose to offer. While the State requires the colleges to pursue various missions, each district determines which, when and how courses are offered. And course offerings have not met demand in general education disciplines such as math and English. The Chancellor's Office has reported that three of every four colleges have waiting lists for students interested in attending English or other core academic classes. 116 The State funds the colleges based on faculty-student contact hours. Faculty-student contact is funded the same for a physical education course as it is for a nursing course. Yet the colleges pay more to offer a nursing course than a physical education course. The disparate costs associated with offering different classes leads to enrollment management decisions that may not reflect community priorities. Administrators may limit course offerings in expensive disciplines and increase offerings in less expensive courses. The Chancellor's Office reports that physical education classes are the third most frequently offered class.ll7 In 1997 that State provide the community colleges approximately $214 million in apportionments for physical education classes.llB It is unclear if physical education offerings are the right priorities for the community colleges. 52 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL In spite of the tendency of the community colleges to specialize and respond to regional economic and social dynamics, they are required to support a wide array of missions that can conflict. For instance, should the college use limited resources on a sequence of English literature courses required for students preparing to transfer into a competitive UC program or invest in a remedial English program? The community colleges serve such a diverse range of students - from first-generation college students to the occasional Rhodes Scholar - and they offer such an array of programs, from providing basic skills courses to advanced engineering programs, that they have become specialized by default. Access is diminished, however, when that specialization is not made explicit and students turn to colleges for services they are poorly prepared to provide. Course Enrollments in Selected Disciplines, Fall 1998 8% .-__________________________________________________________________________, 7% 1------------------- - ------- 6% --_____________ - --.-~ 5% r---------..------.----------- ---------- - 4% f----- -------- 1---------------- 3% +--______ _ ------ .- 2% f-- - -. f-- f-- f-- 1% r-- ,- f-- --- Bio. Sciences Computer/Info Economics English Irdustrial Math Phys. Ed. Phys. Sciences Psychology Soc.lAnth"o Science Tech. Course enrollments in seled disciplines as a percentage of total course enrollments statewide. Source: Chancellor's Office, data requested by Commission, 2000. Improving Access R educing barriers to access will require doing a better job of identifying and pursuing potential students, encouraging specialization, making specialization decisions with the benefit from broad stakeholder input, establishing clear goals, publicizing results and ensuring that specialization does not limit access. The Commission has identified five strategies to address the barriers that reduce access to the community colleges. 53 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 1. Identify and Pursue Potential Students As stated earlier, current access discussions emphasize the effect of fee increases on student attendance and the number of students who enroll. Absent from those discussions is concern for whether the colleges are making good use of tax dollars by providing quality, effective services to the appropriate students. By design, the community colleges have multiple missions. Each college has control over how it emphasizes particular missions. As a result, the colleges have developed specialties - programs that they are known for in their region or statewide. Making specialization decisions often starts with identifying the potential students the college intends to serve. Metropolitan College From one semester to the next nearly 500,000 students fail to re-enroll. Yet for each semester, One example of activety pursuing and non-returning students are almost fully replaced serving students can be seen in a by other students - new-students as well as collaboration between three public students returning after an absence. colleges in Kentucky. "Metropolitan College" is a program designed to meet the Evidence suggests that those colleges that are needs of 4,000 night workers in a local successful have identified their student base and United Parcel Service distribution center. packaged services to meet their needs. The The state of Kentucky, U.P.S. and the colleges worked together to develop the marketing model from the private sector does just college, which offers classes around the that. Successful private and proprietary colleges work schedules of employees. The and universities identify their student base and company pays half the cost of tuition, the develop attractive programs structured to meet state the rest. Free tuition helps employees students' needs. Data help determine factors get an education and supports the company's retention efforts for its midnight that contribute to student retention and success. to 4 a.m. shift. In fact, some argue, competition from private proprietary schools will force community colleges Source: Gose, Ben. 1999. "Working Nights for $8.50 an Hour and a Free College Education.' Chronicle of to become more student-centered. 119 Higher Education. July 23, 1999. Pursing those who could benefit means knowing which community members should be served what services they need to succeed. Accessing a community college is just the beginning, particularly for those who have no other educational option. As in the Metropolitan College example, courses and other services can be offered at times and in ways that encourage enrollment, course completion and student success. 2. Encourage Community College Specialization Where the colleges have specialized, as in the provision of transfer services or with regard to particular vocational fields, they often provide high-quality services. Cerritos College, for example, has collaborated 54 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL with a local employer, the Gulfstream Corporation, to develop a high quality woodworking program that provides the skills students need and provides local industry with a qualified workforce. The college's precision machining program accomplishes similar goals. The best available practices suggest that specialization can enable colleges to develop world-class education programs that meet the needs of students and regional economies. Specialization has not meant that colleges abandon all other missions. It allows them to identify what they do well and shed those programs that have few students and are not well operated. 3. Specialization Benefits from Explicit Local Decision-Making The ability of the Chancellor's Office and the Legislature to direct the actions of local colleges has been limited. In response, the California Citizens Commission for Higher Education called for greater state control and replacing locally elected boards with appointed councils. 120 Increasing state control of the colleges is one option. Another is to encourage the colleges to specialize in ways that meet community needs. Doing so means making decisions explicitly and in conjunction with multiple local stakeholders. Research demonstrates that strong links between community colleges and local labor markets support college and student success. Yet there are few systematic and formal efforts to explore and develop strong classroom-community relations. While vocational programs show clear benefit, there is less emphasis on developing community links for academic programs. Evidence suggests that strong community support is important for non-vocational programs as well. 121 For example, the Community College of Denver (CCD) has attracted community college leaders from around the country interested in its success with remedial education. In 1998, 40 percent of students in remedial education at CCD graduated or transferred after three years. Community college leaders in Denver attribute their success to establishing strong links with community and business leaders and supporting a campus culture where remedial education is an opportunity rather than a burden.122 4. Establish Goals and Publicize Results The Legislature directed the Board of Governors to establish accountability by measuring and reporting on access and outcomes for community college students.123 55 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION In enacting this legislation, the Legislature stated: [The] accountability system [should] assist all participants in the community college system, including students, faculty, staff, administrators, local governing boards, the chancellor, the state board of governors, the public and other interested constituencies, in identifying the educational an.d fiscal strengths and weaknesses of colleges in order to improve educational quality in community colleges. The current accountability reporting system is the Chancellor's Effectiveness report. One limitation of the reporting system is that it does not reflect the strengths and weaknesses of colleges that have developed programs emphasizing particular missions. The Effectiveness report provides useful information for statewide analysis but fails to capture the nuances of local community college activities and efforts. The Effectiveness report is of little use to students or parents trying to decide which community college is best at promoting transfer to a CSU graphic design program or opening the door to a $30,000 a year precision machining position. 5. Ensure that Specialization Does Not Limit Access While individual colleges and districts are often adept at forecasting and responding to community needs, policy-makers seldom discuss access beyond determining how many students will show up and how to manage them. The LAO has advised the Legislature Which Schools are that California can manage enrollments through fee Transfer Schools 1 increases, eligibility standards and improved coordination of transfer. 124 The Chancellor's Office in particular should play a leadership role in UCLA Professor Arthur Cohen for many years has collected data on determining where students are and how the transfer rates for community colleges community colleges can serve them as a system. around the country. Although the information he analyzes is public The map on page 12 of this report represents the information, the community colleges distribution of the community colleges across the Los share their information with him Angeles area. The concentration of colleges in some under an agreement that prevents him from revealing the transfer rates of areas suggests that many can further specialize - in particular colleges. vocational fields or as transfer centers - without reducing access to the comprehensive array of The rationalel College presidents community college services. More isolated colleges, don't want to be called by the local however, will likely be called upon by their newspaper to explain low transfer communities to provide effective, efficient and rates when compared with neighboring colleges. comprehensive services. The Board of Governors, as the statewide oversight entity of the community colleges, can playa significant role in ensuring that ongoing efforts to specialize and other issues, such as inefficiencies, do not limit access to community college services. 56 ENSURING ACCESS AND BENEFIT FOR ALL Summary B arriers to community college access are more than the cost of attending a community college. Enrollment caps, the academic calendar and course schedules, weak transfer opportunities, weak student support and financial aid services, hiring and curriculum development rules, inefficiencies, course offerings and less than explicit community college specialization all limit student access to the community colleges and the benefits students and the public receive. When the community colleges discuss student access, they fail to include in those discussions the quality of the services students receive, the effect those services had on a student's life and the efficiency with which the services were offered. The community colleges measure access through course enrollments, not indicators of student benefit. Access without benefit is of little value. Recommendation 2: To make universal access a reality, each community college should determine which community members they should serve, what services they should provide and how those services will be provided. o The Board of Governors should require each local board to annuaJly, publicly identify community needs and establish goals to meet them. Each local board should assess - publicly, deliberately and within the context of state-established missions - how its colleges can best serve its communities. Each local board should publicly and clearly establish which services it will provide, such as transfer, workforce development and adult education. o The Board of Governors should require each local board to determine which community members it will serve and how it wi/I serve them. Each local board should identify its students and tailor services - including outreach, matriculation, scheduling, curriculum, and teaching - to ensure successful outcomes for those students. o The Board of Governors should develop a plan for improving matriculation services. The Board of Governors should present a plan with annual updates to the Governor and Legislature for improving and funding matriculation services. The plan should identify ways for the State to improve availability and quality of services. The plan should pay particular attention to students who repeatedly drop classes or who are taking classes unrelated to their entrance goals and require them to attend academic counseling sessions to focus their efforts. The Chancellor's Office should develop a guide for individual colleges to aid in assessing when intervention is necessary. 57 --------------- ,---- ~~~~-~--- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION o The Board of Governors should encourage regional cooperation, discourage inefficient duplication and ensure statewide access goals are met. The Board of Governors should periodically assess the regional availability of all mission-oriented services - such as undergraduate transfer and workforce development programs - and develop plans to close gaps and improve program effectiveness. o The Governor and the Legislature should fund an evaluation process to determine which students our community colleges are serving and which they are not. The State should determine who has true access to the community colleges and who is left out and understand the opportunity costs of current access policies. 58 ALIGNING FUNDING WITH PURPOSE Aligning Funding With Purpose Finding 3: Community colleges are not funded in a way that encourages universal access, teaching excellence or student success. Regina and Tom married in their early twenties and have three school-age boys. For several years Regina stayed home with their children while Tom worked. Her oldest is now eight and she has returned to work on a part-time basis. She has also returned to school - at a community college. "I am going back to school because I don't want to stay in entry-level jobs," she said. "I want to be able to access those jobs that require a two-year or a four-year degree. If I am going to spend my time working, I want to enjoy my job and earn decent money." Regina has been taking general education courses for five years. She takes most of her classes in the evenings or on weekends. It's hard to spend so much time away from her family. There are days when she is up and out before her youngest is off to school and not home again until he is down for bed. Regina's experience highlights the promise and perils of the California community colleges. In early 1999, Regina was taking a four-credit math class required in her program. The class began in January and would end in May. After making successful progress, Regina faced a family emergency in April. Even though she only had six more class meetings, she withdrew from the course. "I withdrew because I thought that was my only option. I didn't know that I could take an incomplete and finish the course at a later time. I do not have much contact with counselors or any other college representative other than the instructors. I was not familiar with the system. I withdrew to maintain my good standing with the college." R egina's math class only cost her $50. It cost the taxpayers $350. If she re-enrolls in that class it will cost her another $50 and taxpayers another $350. If the college had provided Regina with the option of taking an incomplete and finishing the materials on her own or with assistance from a math support center or the instructor, it would have saved her and the state time and money. A simple registration procedure in use throughout higher education could have allowed her to deal with her family emergency without costing her or the State the time and money it will take to repeat the course. But this scenario is indicative of larger issues. The community colleges are funded based on the number of students who enroll. There is little financial incentive for students to make good progress or invest the time and effort necessary to make good course selection decisions. Low tuition encourages students to pick and choose courses knowing they can be dropped with little financial impact. 59 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Similarly, the colleges recognize that their funding is driven by the number of students enrolled in each class, not the number who learn, who complete their courses or who realize their goals for transfer or graduation. There is little incentive for the community colleges or their students to identify their goals, develop a program to realize them and dedicate themselves to getting through that program. Enrollment-based funding motivates the colleges to fill their classrooms early in the semester with less attention to enrollment at graduation. The quality, efficiency and effectiveness of the community colleges have concerned college leaders, policy-makers and consumers for many years. A number of proposals have been offered to address those concerns. One statement seems consistent - the community colleges will not change without change in how community colleges are funded. Local colleges need revenue consistency to aid in long-term planning and the State needs improved incentives for efficiency and effectiveness. The Present Finance Structure C ommunity college funding draws primarily on state funds, property taxes and other local sources, student fees and federal funds. In 1998-99, the total community college budget was just over $4 billion. The budget is established based on the number of students the colleges are expected to serve. The 1999-2000 budget Sources of Revenue included funding for 992,908 full-time 1999-2000 equivalent students, a 3.5 percent increase from the prior year. 125 Funding is allocated to the colleges under a Student Fees 3% finance structure referred to as program -based Federal Funds 3% funding. The formula includes the number of full-time equivalent students (FTES) , credit student headcount, square footage of owned or leased space, plus a percentage for administrative overhead. Program-based Source: Governor's Budget, /999-2000. May Revision. funding allows the Board of Governors to determine the distribution of funds to the community colleges. It does not dictate how the colleges should spend their funds. The funding formulas allow for annual adjustment based on adult population and workload growth and inflation. The colleges also receive categorical funding for specific programs. Much of the concern for community college finance has been directed to overall funding levels. For instance, the California Citizen's Commission 60 ALIGNING FUNDING WITH PURPOSE encouraged policy-makers to level the wide swings of higher education funding.126 The overall level of available funding is driven by a number of factors, including the effects of Propositions 13 and 98. Community college representatives frequently criticize the disparity in per-student funding between the community colleges, UC and CSU. Funding by FuJI-Time Equivalent Student UniverSity ofC alifornia $7,000 California State University $5,760 California community colleges $3.,400 Under program-based funding, the primary driver of revenue is the number of students served. For funding purposes, the student services component is based on the actual number of students served. The instructional-based component is funded based on FTES. Generally, FTES is calculated based on a student census taken 20 percent into the semester or quarter. On most campuses, under a semester calendar, the census occurs on the Monday of the fourth week. Classes which operate on less than a semester or quarter basis have their FTES calculated differently, but ultimately produce a measure of the number of full-time equivalent students being served based on the number of faculty-student contact hours. For example, one course with 40 students that meets three hours per week would have a census week calculation of 120 hours of faculty student contact. The colleges operate on a 17.5 week semester, meaning (120 x 17.5) 2,100 hours of enrollment for the semester. One full-time equivalent student is the equivalent of 525 contact hours, therefore (2100 525) the class constitutes 4 FTES. With a per FTES allocation of -!- $3,400, the class would generate $13,600. The colleges employ similar formulas to calculate funding allocations for distance learning, independent study/work credit, or other course formats. 127 During the census week, faculty are asked to clear course rolls of students who have not shown up. Anecdotal reports suggest that rolls are not uniformly cleared and often include students who do not actively participate in the course. Additional funding for the colleges is identified in the budget for categorical programs, such as the Foster Care Education Program, Faculty and Staff Development Fund, Partnership for Excellence and other programs. 61 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Partnership for Excellence (PFE) The Partnership for Excellence is an agreement between the State and the community colleges to expand and improve community college services. SB 1564 (Schiff) established a program in 1998 to provide additional funding to increase performance of the community colleges in the following areas: 1) student transfers, 2) degrees and certificates awarded, 3) successful course completion, 4) work force development and 5) basic skills improvement. 128 The community colleges have adopted the following goals for the program: o Transfer. Increase in the number of students who transfer from community colleges to baccalaureate institutions from 69,574 to 92,500. o Degrees and certificates. Increase the number of degrees and certificates awarded from 80,799 to 110,500. o Successful course completion. Increase the overall rate of successful course completions from 68.1 percent to 70.6. o Workforce development. Increase the number of successfully completed apprenticeship courses and advanced level and introductory vocational courses. Increase in the number of California businesses and employees benefiting from training through contract education and the number of individuals receiving fee-based employment training. o Basic skill improvement. Increase the number of students completing coursework at least one level above their prior basic skills enrollment from 108,566 to 150,754. The 1998-99 Budget Act allocated $100 million for the Partnership for Excellence program. 129 The 1999-2000 Budget Act provided $145 million for the program. Under the original terms of the program, the State would increase its commitment by an additional $100 million each year. From 1998-99 to 2005-06, the annual augmentation would grow to $700 million over the base 1997-98 budget, for a total of $2.8 billion over seven years.l3O What is unclear, from the perspective of local college leaders and faculty, is the commitment of the colleges toward the goals should the State not provide $100 million annual augmentations. In the second year of the program, the State provided $145 million, suggesting it would not keep its commitment through 2005··06. The expectation is that reduced funding will reduce the colleges' commitment to meeting outcome targets. 62 ALIGNING FUNDING WITH PURPOSE The first three years of the program, funding is to be distributed to the colleges on an FTE basis without regard to progress toward goals. In years beyond the third year, the Board of Governors intends to allocate the additional resources in ways that reward success and create incentives for sustained improvement. Uses of PFE Funding While the Board of Governors and the Chancellor's Office have placed few or no limitations on how PFE support can be spent, legislative and budget language suggest that PFE-funded activities should have a strong nexus with target outcomes. Several faculty organizations told the Commission that PFE funding is not being used to change community college behavior or improve services to students. Rather, it is being used to increase reserves, perform routine maintenance and increase salaries. A parallel concern is the way in which the community colleges will measure progress towards PFE goals. Progress is calculated on a statewide basis. Individual college progress will not be differentiated. The colleges specifically resisted efforts to track the progress of each college. Early reports of PFE-related spending show that the majority of colleges have hired additional faculty and staff.13I Given that PFE funding will sunset in 2005-06, some administrators worry they will have to identify a new funding source to fund contracts initially supported with PFE revenue. Under the PFE program, the Department of Finance, the Legislative Analyst's Office and the California Postsecondary Education Commission will analyze and evaluate progress and make recommendations to the Governor and Legislature for continued budget support. The Chancellor's Office has cautioned district officials that continued funding is contingent on colleges making demonstrable progress toward outcomes. Potentially, the colleges are being set up for controversy. The State is investing hundreds of millions of dollars with high expectations that performance will be improved. But the dollars are not directly tied to performance and individual colleges are not being held accountable for how they are spending the money. Seven years and $2.8 billion from now, the colleges may well be embroiled in controversy - debating funding formulas and governance structures, and distracted from their assignment of making Californians lifelong learners. 63 -------------- ---- ----------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Limitations of the funding Structure A fundamental criticism of community college funding is that it rewards large enrollments at a single point in time and provides no incentive for course completion, persistence toward goals or innovation. Funding is allocated based on the number of occupied seats on the fourth Monday of the semester. Funding can be a powerful motivator for the colleges and individual students to make the best use of their time and resources. As in Regina's case, neither the student nor the college had a financial incentive to complete the course. UCLA education professor Arthur Cohen testified that low fees are one contributor to high student turnover. Fees do not create an incentive to complete classes. Community college funding provides college faculty and administrators no incentive to work with students to explore more efficient ways of addressing family emergencies or other realities that affect their ability to complete their courses. Fiscal incentives can be used to encourage and reward colleges to innovate and identify successful ways of improving student benefit. Greater efficiency and improved services can improve access tremendously without additional budget augmentations. The California Citizens Commission on Higher Education recommends that the colleges receive financial incentives for the number of courses completed. 132 The number of completed courses and credit awarded could drive a portion of FTE allocation. The Community College League opposes any such incentives, stating that the colleges have little control over the causes of low course completion. In cases such as Regina's, however, the colleges do have control. 133 The Citizens Commission also recommended that colleges receive funding for the number of students who receive their degree. Such an approach would encourage colleges to help students make timely progress and make appropriate course selection decisions. Proposals such as these suggest that college funding can motivate innovation and encourage the community colleges to grow and strengthen their programs and success rates. Incentives begin with identifying appropriate college goals, measurement mechanisms and linking funding with outcomes. 64 ALIGNING FUNDING WITH PURPOSE Creating Incentives for Outcomes A cross the country, political and education leaders recognize that higher education is resistant to change. The 1990s dip in public enrollment encouraged private universities to rethink their operations and do more to attract and retain students. Historically, many colleges and universities were content with growing enrollments and did little to actively ensure they provided value for the cost of tuition. Value was assumed. National economic uncertainty paired with increasing tuition caused all but the most premiere institutions to re-examine their operations in light of the satisfaction of their students and parents as customers. Many universities recognized that their largest costs were opportunities lost when students failed to return from one year to the next or failed to complete degrees. At Syracuse University, at $25,000 in annual tuition and fees, a student who failed to complete the last three years of a four year degree represented a loss of $75,000. With this new perspective on their ledgers, Syracuse and other colleges and universities began to take retention much more seriously. The burden of responsibility for successful educational outcomes began to shift from the student to a shared student-university burden. For the State of California, the lost opportunities are much greater: lost wages, lost tax revenue and lost employees and entrepreneurs. California's funding structure for the community colleges could shift a portion of the responsibility for student success from the student to the colleges. Presently, the high replacement rate for community college students who fail to persist from one semester to the next, combined with enrollment caps, act as disincentives for colleges to aggressively pursue course completion or student retention. Under enrollment caps, if every student persisted to complete a degree, certificate or transfer, the colleges could only accept new students at the rate at which they graduated existing students. Regina has spent five years working on her associate's degree. With little incentive to make faster progress, she occupies a seat that is unavailable to a new student. Creating Value-based Funding Formulas Several states have moved toward incentive funding that shares the burden of educational success between students and colleges. 134 Virginia's Higher Education Council has adopted a "Virginia Plan." The plan links spending discretion with accountability for student outcomes. Colleges will undergo improved program evaluation tied to mission specific goals. 135 65 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Clarifying Expectations and California has made a step in a similar direction Responsibilities with Funding with the Partnership for Excellence program. The step forward could be larger, however. The Partnership for Excellence has provided $245 Historically, education funding has been only loosely linked with expectations. million in its first two years of implementation Recently, legislators have begun to require in an attempt to influence a program that connections between funding and outcomes. receives $4 billion annually. In other words, the State is attempting to leverage outcomes with As long as I can remember, legislators /I just 2.5 percent of additional funding that is financed higher education by poking money through a hole in the fence", says Alexander only loosely associated with outcomes. A M. Sanders, who spent 15 years as a state greater portion of community college funding lawmaker before becoming president of the could also be dedicated to student outcomes in College of Charleston in 1992. "Lately," he the spirit of PFE. says, °they have started looking over the fence to see what was on the other side." Funding formulas also could be altered to Source: Peter Schmidt, #A State Transforms promote better access and improved quality. Colleges with 'Performance Funding. '" Chronicle The annual budget act specifies a number of of Higher Education. July 2, 1999. students who will be served, but when 20 percent of courses are dropped and almost half of all students do not persist from one semester to the next, significant opportunities are lost. Altering funding formulas to drive allocation at least partially based on course completion, persistence and program completion would reduce opportunity costs, improve the number of students served and the quality of that service. Creating Incentives for Institutional Innovation Creating incentives through the funding base would motivate the colleges to think more clearly about who they serve, what services they provide and how well students are served. Innovation with base funding, however, is risky. Administrators may be hesitant to jeopardize funding through innovation. Existing categorical funds, such as the Fund for Faculty and Staff Development and the Fund for Instructional Improvement could be redefined to encourage innovation that leads to improved teaching. Other categorical funds could be redefined to promote improved research into barriers to access. Research done at Glendale College argues that course scheduling is the greatest barrier to community college access. Regina's experience is that course offerings have prevented her from finishing her degree. The final course she needs to finish her associate's degree is only offered in a neighboring town or on Saturdays, neither of which is attractive to her. She will have to wait until next semester to see if the class schedule fits her schedule. Meanwhile, she is a non-persister and she is not eligible for a better paying, more interesting job. 66 ALIGNING FUNDING WITH PURPOSE Creating Incentives for Students Similarly, California can create fiscal incentives that would motivate students to more actively pursue their education and to challenge the colleges to provide quality services in efficient and effective ways. The example of Regina's withdrawing from her math class suggests that the course fee is not sufficient incentive for her to seek out options to avoid having to repeat the class. Because she was not aware of the rules, she was not able to use them to benefit her situation. The Commission heard multiple stories of students enrolling and dropping repeatedly, either because of indecision, poor counseling or for other reasons. The Commission also heard that many students were required to repeat coursework after transferring to CSU or UC. Although the Chancellor's Office has the capacity to determine the percentage of students who repeat courses, at the community colleges or once they have transferred to UC or CSU, that analysis is not done currently. Motivating students to make good and efficient progress toward their goals has two advantages. First, it encourages them to take responsibility for their share of the educational burden. Second, and perhaps more significantly, it motivates them to challenge the colleges to improve and expand. Regina will wait another year to complete her degree because her local college district does not package the class in a way that works for her. She has no plans to complain or teach her college how she can best be served. With appropriate incentive, Regina and potentially millions of other students would become active participants in the process of improving the colleges. Gradual and moderate fee increases could reduce the willingness with which students drop or withdraw after fee refund dates. Tuition and fee rebates would encourage students to make appropriate progress towards degrees. Educational scholarships and workforce grants could encourage students to become transfer ready and to earn degrees and certificates. Providing financial incentives to students is not new. Miller Brewing Company in Irwindale, California provided tools and scholarship awards to students who successfully completed technical training. Miller's incentives were structured to encourage completion and employment in the technical fields in which they were trained. 136 Providing incentives without strong attention to the behavior they motivate is also risky. California has an obligation to community college students and taxpayers to ensure that incentives have the desired effect. The Board of Governors could continually challenge the appropriateness 67 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION of incentives and review other options for motivating improved student access and the provision of efficient and effective services. Recommendation 3: The Governor and the Legislature should require the Board of Governors to develop a funding system that encourages universal access, teaching excellence and student success. Specifically the Board of Governors should: CI Revise the community college funding mechanism. Community college funding formulas should include variables that encourage colleges to expand educational opportunities and improve outcomes. Base funding should create incentives for each college to: ./ Recruit and serve educationally disadvantaged members of its communities; ./ Promote course and degree completion; ./ Transfer students to four-year colleges and universities; ./ Move students into high-wage employment. CI Create incentives for the colleges to improve their services. In addition to stable base funding linked to outcomes, the colleges need incentives that promote service improvement. Wherever feasible, the Board of Governors should build incentives into existing categorical funding and grant programs to leverage improvement in student outcomes. CI Establish compacts to fill unmet needs. When the Board of Governors determines that state-established missions are not adequately addressed in a given community or region, it should enter into funding compacts with community colleges in that region to provide targeted services. CI Establish incentives for students to complete a program of study. Among the options the Board of Governors should consider: ./ Gradual and moderate increases in student fees for students who repeatedly drop and re-enroll in courses. Targeted fee increases should create a disincentive to repeatedly drop courses . ./ Educational scholarships and workforce grants for students who obtain associate's degrees, who transfer with advanced standing to baccalaureate degree-granting institutions, or who obtain a certificate within a set timeframe . ./ Fee rebates for students who obtain degrees or certificates within set timeframes. CI Evaluate and refine incentives. Incentives for colleges and students should be designed to promote outcomes while ensuring that no student is prevented from attending a community college because of financial need ur other barriers. 68 REINVIGORA TlNG GOVERNANCE Reinvigorating Governance Finding 4: The Board of Governors is not sufficiently ensuring that statewide goals are being met. Local boards are not universally ensuring community needs are being met. Policy-makers, community leaders, students and voters lack the information necessary to hold both local and State board members accountable. Billy E. has had great teachers and some not so great - including the teacher who calls him Betty. While he hopes to transfer to UCLA, he does not know if he will be able to. Danny B. swore off the community colleges because they could not provide him with the classes he needs in the format he needs them. As a result, he has borrowed $3,400 to pay private college tuition for classes the community colleges could offer in more accessible formats. Regina is sitting through last year's math class allover again. She had to repay the cost of tuition. The class will cost her 34 more evenings away from her children and husband. And the seat she is filling is not available to someone else. All three are grateful that the colleges are available to them. They recognize the value the colleges bring at such low cost. They also are disappointed. Each of them is paying, as students and as taxpayers, for a service that could be improved. And they are not sure where to turn. "Surely the guy in charge - who's that, the college president?" was Billy's response. Regina remembers a counselor being helpful when she first enrolled - five years ago. "I don't know if I would go to a counselor, the admissions office or a dean. It's not real clear who is in charge - the dean would be logical but a counselor would be more supportive ... You're pretty much on your own in the community colleges," she said. W hether it is a problem with a class schedule or teaching quality, the answer to who is in charge is often confusing - and not just to students. The Board of Governors establishes minimum standards for hiring, but the local colleges make selection decisions. A dean might be able to resolve long-term schedule issues, but a counselor could have helped Regina avoid retaking the class she was unable to finish the first time. The larger issue about how the colleges can best serve the diversity of students involves campus, district and state officials - each shares responsibility and authority, and none of them are held accountable for missed opportunities. 69 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The Present Governance Structure A fter a decade of practice, the community college governance structure formed in 1988 by AB 1725 (Vasconcellos) receives mixed reviews. For some - particularly formerly disenfranchised stakeholders - AB 1725 gave them a voice in decision-making. For college administrators and the Chancellor's Office, it has created a process that is meaningful but difficult to manage. The structure is so confusing that analysts debate its very nature - it is at times a state system, a collection of independent local systems, a federation and a dual-board system. Previous findings on teaching quality and community college access suggest that regardless of what the structure is called, it has failed to encourage efficiency and provide for accountability based on outcomes. From a practical standpoint, each community college has two boards. Locally elected boards administer local institutions that provide educational programs responsive to community priorities. In 1967 the Legislature created the Community College Board of Governors to bring coherence to the 107 colleges statewide. The tension between the local nature of the colleges and the statewide interests at stake in the performance of the colleges challenges the ability of both boards to govern effectively. California's Appointed State Board of Governors The Governor appoints the 16-member Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. The Board has broad authority and responsibility for establishing community college standards, fiscal oversight, accountability and program review. "To the maximum degree permissible," reads the law, the Board of Governors is to maintain local authority and control in the administration of the colleges. 137 The Board has significant tools at its disposal to perform its duties. It establishes the conditions under which local colleges can receive state aid and has the authority to review and evaluate district operations. The Board is charged with formulating a proposed system budget, determining how funding is allocated among the districts and establishing district budgeting and accounting standards. The Board can direct the Chancellor to intervene and assume control of a district during times of fiscal crisis. In general terms, the Board of Governors is charged with seeking adequate fiscal resources for the community colleges, providing leadership and ensuring that public resources are used appropriately. 70 REINV/CORA TlNC GOVERNANCE Chancellor's Office The Community College Chancellor is the chief executive officer of the community colleges. Appointed by the Board of Governors and armed with all of the authorities and responsibilities granted by the Board, the Chancellor is the primary administrator of the colleges as a system. The Chancellor's Office facilitates and oversees statutorily created programs. With a $19.5 million budget and 226 employees, the Chancellor's Office supports the Board of Governors, administers categorical grant programs, certifies new programs, provides student support, facilitates campus services, and apportions funding to districts. The Chancellor's Office also issues the annual Effectiveness report, an accountability mechanism required by the Legislature. The Chancellor's Office maintains a management information system, to analyze data reported by the individual districts and colleges, and produce the Effectiveness report. While the Chancellor's Office is able to present statewide data, the data are actually reported to the Chancellor by the colleges themselves. locally Elected District Boards Each community college has a locally elected board of trustees. The boards administer the colleges. They implement state policy and they are the entity most accountable to local citizens for the quality of community college services. Local boards provide leadership, oversight and direction to the colleges. They control the hiring and firing of administrators, negotiate with employees for compensation agreements and set district priorities. Historically, locally elected community college boards both determined the priorities of the community colleges and levied taxes to support them. The passage of Proposition 13 began the shift of funding authority from local boards to the State. A greater number of directives from the Legislature and increased use of categorical funding to accomplish legislatively determined priorities accompanied this shift in fiscal control. For example, the Legislature requires colleges to have transfer centers and provides funding dedicated to economic development activities. Increased legislative involvement in the operations of the community colleges contributes to the conflicts inherent in a governance system that includes locally elected district board members and a state board appointed by the Governor. The result is what the current Chancellor has referred to as a Gordian knot of governance. 138 71 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Challenges Facing Community College Governance T he California Citizens Commission on Higher Education identified a number of contradictions in the present governance structure that diminish its effectiveness. It described these contradictions as competing interests, or "forces": 139 Forces on One Side Forces on the Other Side The need to be an equal partner in statewide higher A governance structure which is not collegiate but education. similar to secondary schools with geographical ! districts and elected boards of trustees. A rigid state-determined finance system with limited. Trustees can sign contracts and make commitments ability to raise monies locally. without the realistic ability to fund them or the means t'O raise money. State-established student fees. Trustees are charged with creating programs and j educational services that are tailored to their constituents but have no ability to determine charges forthem. State requirements that students may attend any' Trustees are elected only by voters within their college, not just those within their geographic' districts and are responsible only for colleges within district. . district boundaries. Many students, especially in urban areas, live "out of district" and cannot vote for ; the trustees who govern their college. The State's Education Code imposes a mass of Colleges need to be flexible, diverse, responsive, provisions with expensive activities, complicated unbureaucratic and productive. restrictions and inappropriate controls on local institutions. The statewide Chancellor has statutory responsibility: District administrators are selected by local trustees to represent the colleges statewide and general and have allegiance and accountability only to the responsibility for their financial viability but is often; district. Many representatives and groups compete only one voice among many official voices and has .. for statewide prominence as the leader and voice for little authority to act before a crisis. the colleges. 72 REINV/CORA TlNG GOVERNANCE The Citizens Commission suggested replacing community college districts boards with college-level Governance Councils, which generated heady and emotional debate. The California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) also has examined community college governance and signaled a need to strengthen the role of the Chancellor and the Board of Governors. CPEC stated that the Legislature has increasingly turned to the Board and the Chancellor's Office to address concerns with the colleges, but questions whether the Chancellor and the Board have the appropriate tools at their disposal. 140 CPEC also confirmed that the Legislature's interest in the colleges has encouraged various constituents to lobby the Legislature to address specific community college issues. This is a concern that others have shared, describing the Legislature as a "super board" to the colleges. The challenges confronting the community college governance system are mUltiple. Three problems significantly impair the governance structure: o The Board of Governors is ineffective. The governance activities of the Board are ineffective because they rely on the cooperation of local boards and must contend with multiple constituencies that frequently turn to the Legislature for relief. The Board has limited leverage over local boards and no leverage with the Legislature. o The structure of the Chancellor's Office is not aligned with its responsibilities. The Chancellor's Office has responsibilities as the head of a statewide system, such as governmental affairs, external relations and fiscal policy. It also has responsibilities at the community level, such as promoting curriculum-related decisions, transfer, and supporting economic development. But the organization of the office does not distinguish the difference, and as a result its performance is limited. o Information is not used to inform decision-making. Local boards and the Chancellor's Office collect and maintain information that could be used by multiple parties to inform decision-making. However, that information is not readily available. Local boards, the Board of Governors, the Chancellor, community college administrators, faculty, students, taxpayers, business owners and voters could all benefit from clearer and more readily available information on community activities. 73 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Board of Governors is Ineffective It is a common refrain, but a clear example. The Legislature has established that transfer is a priority mission of the community colleges. Yet the Chancellor's Office reports that it has no leverage to intercede when a local board member states that transfer is not a priority mission for his district. 141 The Legislature and Governor have established that quality teaching should be a hallmark of the community colleges. The Board of Governors has established minimum qualifications for faculty hiring and provides $150 million each year to support professional development activities, but the colleges have not consistently made teaching quality their priority. The Legislature allocated $34 million to the Board of Governors to distribute to colleges for economic development. The Department of Finance and the Legislative Analyst's Office were sufficiently critical of the Board's analysis of how those grants were used that the analysis is being redone. As testimony before the Little Hoover Commission made The Challenge of Effective clear, the present governance structure does not Governance prevent disaster. Many witnesses testified that there is little the Board can do if a community college is not In 1987 the Commission for the Review of the Master Plan performing adequately. highlighted the challenges facing the Board of Governors - maintaining Analysis of the Board's situation points to two issues. legislative support and exercising its First, local districts - not the state board - hold authority: administrative authority over the colleges. Second, The community coUeges have a community college interest groups have direct access to weak central governing body the Legislature, which has been willing to weigh in on that has not enjoyed the community college governance issues. The Board of confidence o/the Governor and the Legislature and that has, at Governors must function under the threat that best, unclear lines of authority unsatisfied or disgruntled stakeholders will "go over its with respect to the colleges. head" to the Legislature for relief. Source: Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education, July 1987. The Citizens Commission recommended strengthening the state board by replacing local boards with governance councils. The recommendation is intended to remove a layer of governance - addressing the first problem. Legislative intervention, however, may still hinder the leadership abilities of the board. Governance reform must also address the tendency of stakeholders to seek out the Legislature as a mediator and champion in community college disputes. 74 REINV/CORA TlNC GOVERNANCE Another approach is to strengthen the Board of Governors to shoulder its leadership responsibilities and exercise the authorities it currently holds over local districts. In turn, reform must also hold local boards accountable for recognizing community needs and delivering educational services. Structure is Not Aligned with Responsibilities Related to the ability of the Board of Governors to exercise its authority, is the ability of the Chancellor's Office to lead and serve the colleges. The Chancellor's Office is the head of a statewide, community college system. Located in Sacramento, the office represents the colleges before the Legislature and federal authorities. It implements statewide fiscal policies and reviews legal policy for the colleges. A central office allows the Chancellor to lead the colleges on issues that affect them all as a system. At the same time, the Chancellor's Office provides services directly to colleges that respond to the unique needs of divergent communities. The Chancellor's Office provides leadership in the design and review of curriculum and instructional support activities, it provides technical assistance with economic development activities, and it works to enhance student access, retention, equity and successful goal fulfillment. 142 These services respond to the distinct needs of California's multiple and diverse communities. The statewide function of the Chancellor's Office appears well served by a central, statewide office in Sacramento. However, critics question the ability of the Chancellor's staff to serve community colleges from Sacramento, far away from the needs and realities the colleges face every day and inaccessible to many community college students and potential employers. For example, during the Commission's visit to a community college, one high-level administrator expressed frustration with grant awards coming out of the Chancellor's Office. He stated that grants seem to be distributed based on the persuasiveness of the grant writer rather than the level of need and the appropriateness of the proposal. Based on its own review of economic development grants distributed by the Chancellor's Office, the Commission questioned how competing priorities are evaluated. For instance, the Chancellor's Office awarded $55,000 to Santa Monica College to fund a public relations campaign for a local mall.143 The mall is owned by a nationally recognized, publicly traded holding company with over $5 billion in assets. 144 The administrator responsible for the grant explained that the public funds 75 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION were used to support a public relations program endorsing a mall-wide "frequent shopper" program. The program would bring more customers to the mall and therefore promotes employment opportunities for those on public assistance - a goal of the economic development program. It was important that the community college bring this service to the mall, argued the administrator, because the mall was not capable of performing the function itself and the mall is a key employer in the area. The Commission asked the Chancellor's Office how it evaluates the extent to which a $55,000 allocation to support a mall frequent-shopper program is a more important use of economic development funds than supporting all other uses of a limited resource. The staff person responsible for this grant explained that she is not familiar with Santa Monica. Grant award decisions, she explained, are made using a point system based on the comments of grant application readers from around the state, many of whom may be unfamiliar with the needs of colleges outside their immediate area. The Commission asked the Chancellor's Office if this $55,000 would be better spent supporting an organization such as the Gateway Cities Partnership, an organization of community colleges, employers and local governments promoting instructional programs that opens doors to jobs offering The Gateway Cities Partnership $55,000 - $75,000 annual salaries. Staff replied that the grant program can only The Gateway Cities Partnership includes respond to applicants, and cannot necessarily Cerritos College, Long Beach City College as determine which areas have the greatest well as other community colleges and local governments. The Partnership is working to needs. address the shortage of qualified machinists in the region. In other words, the Chancellor's Office does not have a mechanism for working with the The service area of the Partnership boasts the colleges and organizations that would allow second largest concentration of machinists in staff to understand local economies and the country, second only to Detroit. For experienced machiniSts, these jobs offer community issues and facilitate the best use $55,000 -$75,000 annual salaries. of resources across competing districts. The Chancellor's Office is poorly equipped to track Entry level positions require approximately regional needs. Therefore, it has limited ability two years of occupational instruction. The to work with the colleges to facilitate success average age of machinists in the region is 50 through informed, strategic decision-making and it is expected that 15,000 machinists will retire over the next 10 years. just to meet that best pairs grant funding with statewide replacement needs, 1 ,500 new machinists will and community college priorities. need to be hired each year for the next 10 years. Area community colleges currently With a small travel budget and 107 separate graduate fewer than 200 machinists each year. community colleges, the Chancellor's Office Source: Gateway Cities Partnership. asserts that it has a limited ability to track local needs. To the extent that the 76 RflNVICORA TlNG GOVERNANCE Chancellor's Office is uninformed of the realities the colleges and their communities face, their ability to facilitate strategic responses to local needs is also limited. Restructuring the Chancellor's Office to bring staff closer to the communities they intend to serve could alleviate the gap between community-based functions of the Chancellor's Office and communities. Insufficient Information Makes Decision-Making Difficult The Board of Governors, local boards, college administrators, taxpayers, voters, businesses and most importantly students, all need valid and reliable information to make good decisions about how they should invest their time, resources and expertise in the community colleges. The effectiveness of the governance structure is limited because each party does not have the information it needs to fulfill its responsibilities. Quality information is essential for oversight and administration, voting and funding decisions, whether to support local bond initiatives, where to seek out qualified employees or where to attend college. While some argue that existing information and the multiple layers of oversight and review are adequate, they have not resulted in high quality, efficient services or informed decisions. 145 The opportunity costs for the community colleges and for community college students are tremendous when information is not used to improve results. Recognizing that nearly one-fifth of all classes are dropped prior to completion and nearly one-half of all students fail to persist from one semester to the next, these opportunity costs are more than California or its residents can afford. Seeking to improve accountability, the Legislature directed the Board of Governors to establish an accountability mechanism and to annually report indicators of success.l46 In response, the Chancellor's Office routinely reports data in a report titled, The Effectiveness of California Community Colleges on Selected Performance Measures. However, the information is reported for the state as a whole, rather than for individual colleges. And the Effectiveness report is of little value if the Chancellor does not use the information to improve services. For example, persistence and retention rates for part-time students, the majority of community college students, have not changed appreciably with the adoption of accountability measures. Retention rates reflect the number of students who complete their courses. Persistence rates measure the number of students who return from one semester to the next, reflecting continued pursuit of studies toward an educational goal or occupational objective. 77 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The Effectiveness report offers little analysis as to why particular measures are low or high. Nor does it suggest options for responding. The Effectiveness report is not effective as an accountability and analysis tool that can inform decision-making. There is little evidence that it has generated improvements in student outcomes. Student Persistence & Retention Show No Improvement 100% 80% 60% _~ 40% Failto persi"Stfrom-one ---- ~--------....... o;...;,;,;.;;......;..;;~=-..;..-;;.;;;-......­ semester to another 20% Fa i I to complete a course 0% 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Source: Chancellor's Office, Effec1iveness report, January 1999. One problem, the advisory committee told the Commission, is that the State has multiple performance measures that lack coordination and clarity. Transfer rates, participation rates, student success rates and improvements in earnings are all used to track community college efforts yet it is unclear what they demonstrate. The usefulness of that information is further limited because it is not readily available in formats that facilitate decision-making. While the colleges report and maintain information on their services and activities, students, parents and voters are hard pressed to find it and interpret it. The clarity and efficacy of accountability reports is further constrained by the Chancellor's dependence on the colleges for data. A 1999 study reported that community college financial information fails to present a clear and reliable picture of the fiscal integrity of the colleges.147 A lack of consistency in reporting standards prevents taxpayers, students and others from comparing the value of their investment from one college to the next. Improving access to clear, reliable and valid information on the community colleges could improve decision-making, strengthen services and reduce opportunity costs. 78 HEINV/GORA TlNG GOVERNANCE Improving Community College Governance C ommunity college governance could be reinvigorated by strengthening the role of the State board, aligning the structure of the Chancellor's Office with its statewide and community-based functions, making information readily available to inform decision making and holding local boards more accountable for addressing community needs. Opportunities for improving governance include: 1:1 Strengthening the Board of Governors 1:1 Aligning structure with responsibilities 1:1 Improving the use of information in decision-making by: v' Creating an Office of Accountability v' Informing stakeholders on community college performance Strengthening the Board of Governors The Board of Governors has significant tools at its disposal to influence the operation of the community colleges. The Board adopts minimum conditions that entitle a community college to state funding. The Board has the authority to evaluate and report on the activities of individual colleges. The Board establishes a community college budget and apportions state funding. Finally, the Board is the central point of contact between the colleges and the Governor and Legislature and routinely sponsors legislation and budget changes. But the Board seldom uses these tools to improve the performance of the colleges. While some argue that the Legislature "mettles" into the affairs of the community colleges and hamstrings the Board of Governors, it is just as likely that legislative involvement originates from dissatisfaction with the performance of the colleges. Legislative involvement may be a consequence of the poorly functioning governance structure rather than a cause. Regardless, the Legislature has established itself as a participant in community college governance and it is unlikely to yield control without assurances that its concerns will be addressed. How then, can the Board of Governors be prodded to exercise its authorities and its leadership? How can the Legislature have greater confidence in the Board and avoid taking on a community college governance role itself? One approach is to alter the structure of the Board of Governors to include legislative representation as well as gubernatorial appointments. Including legislative representation on the Board would increase the Board's authority while providing the Legislature with a strong voice independent of legislative action. The governing boards of the University 79 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION of California and the California State University each have legislative representatives as ex officio members. Their involvement raises the level of attention, accountability and authority with which those boards act. Legislative representation on the Board of Governors could include ex officio members or legislative appointees. Changes to the structure of the Board might also examine other ways to strengthen its leadership. Any effort to strengthen the Board should look at the appropriateness of term lengths and whether the present structure provides adequate time for the Board to make informed decisions and to govern effectively. Aligning Structure with Responsibilities As stated above, the Chancellor's Office has statewide responsibilities, such as setting fiscal policy. Those responsibilities appear adequately served by a central, statewide office in Sacramento. The Chancellor's Office also has functions that respond to community needs, such as facilitating access and equity. The ability of the Chancellor's staff to support community college needs is hampered because staff are located in Sacramento, far from communities they serve. Aligning the structure of the Chancellor's Office with The Chancellor's Office its functions would improve the quality of its work. Statewide Responsibilities Divisions that function as the head of The social, economic and educational climates in a statewide higher education system: California vary from one region to another.148 The concerns of a community college working with the • Fiscal Policy biotechnology sector in San Diego differ significantly • Legal Affairs and Contracts • Governmental Affairs and External from those working with agribusiness in the Central Relations Valley and the diverse needs of northern communities • Pol icy Analysis and Management surrounding Weed's College of the Siskiyous. Information Systems • Human Resources* The challenge of the community colleges is to work within their communities to respond to the *Includes some statewide functions and some commun ity-based functions. educational, occupational and economic development needs of residents, businesses and communities. Steve Levy, of the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy, testified that the potential of the community colleges as the largest postsecondary education institution in the state is enormous and essential, but "insuring performance is the key" to the usefulness of the colleges. 149 The ability of the Chancellor's office to facilitate and support successful community college initiatives depends on the ability of staff to understand the complexities of competing priorities and competing 80 REINV/CORA TlNG GOVERNANCE needs. Research supports the need for improved coordination and communication between the community colleges and regional stakeholders. The Chancellor's Office has a difficult if not impossible ISO challenge as a facilitator and consultant unless it can track and participate in discussions of regional and community priorities and responses. One way to improve the Board's understanding of the needs of the community colleges would be to shift a portion of its staff from a centralized Sacramento office into offices located closer to the colleges, even on college campuses. Shifting the Chancellor's outreach and facilitation activities from Sacramento to the various regions of the state would improve the ability of the Chancellor to understand local dynamics and community needs. The Chancellor's Office Community-Level Responsibilities The Chancellor's Office 'maintains two divisions that work through the comrn un ity colleges. The Educational Services and Economic Development Division provides guidance and leadership to local programs. The Student Services and Special Programs Division supports student success. The effectiveness of both divisions is tied to their ability to address local needs. Educational Services and Economic Student Services and Special Programs Development .; Contracts and Grants .; Matriculation <I' Econom ic.DevelopmentiED > Net <I' DSPS <I' Vocational Education/jTPA .; Transfer and Articulation .; Tech..prep ./ Student Government <I' Gender Equity <I' Counsel ing .; Competitive Technology ./ EOPS/CARE .; International Trade <I' Admissions/Records .; Environmental Technology ./Foster Care .; Small Business Programs ./ Child Development <I' Workplace Learning Resources ./ Student Financial Aid .; Contract Education .; CaIWORKs/GAIN <I' Health Programs ../ Health Services <I' Curriculum and Instructional Resource ./ Career Placement Services Development <I' Agency/library Resources .; Non-Credit Courses/Community Service .; Intersegmental Joint Projects! USSP <I' library Planning and Development .; Transfer Policy (Curriculum) .; Immigrant Workforce Training .; Distance Education and Technology 81 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The fiscal implications of aligning the Chancellor's Office to its functions need to be explored, but could be funded by reallocating existing resources. The analysis should consider the costs and consequences of poorly informed service decisions resulting from insufficient awareness of community needs. Improve the Use of Information in Decision-making Information that can be used to inform decision-making is inaccessible, inconsistent and not reported for individual colleges. Information can be a powerful tool for college leaders, voters, taxpayers and students. Improving the use of information in decision-making requires charging a single entity with ensuring that information is accurate, reliable, available and understandable. An Office of Accountability charged with a quality control function could meet this requirement. Requiring local boards to widely disseminate community college service information would improve the ability of local constituencies, particularly students, to make informed decisions when they elect trustees, vote on local bond measures, and decide which community college is best geared to meeting their learning needs. Creating an Office of Accountability. The Board of Governors and the Chancellor are the leadership and accountability authorities for the community colleges. The Chancellor could establish an Office of Accountability as a division charged with quality control. The office could identify effective accountability measures for each college mission and disseminate them to the colleges. The revised organizational charts on the following pages shift research and analysis and performance planning activities from within the policy analysis unit in the Chancellor's Office into a separate Office of Accountability. Presently, each district controls the data it sends to the Chancellor's Office for statewide accountability reports. Inconsistencies in how data are identified, collected and presented present difficulties in the preparation of those reports. lSI Further, the Effectiveness report has the ingredients necessary to motivate the colleges to improve their service quality and operating efficiency, but the Chancellor's Office provides no indication that it will aggressively challenge the colleges to improve services. Under the Partnership for Excellence program, for instance, the Chancellor proposes to use a $2.8 billion investment over seven years to leverage a 2.4 percent increase in the rate of successful course completion.ls2 An Office of Accountability, charged with collecting and disseminating data, developing accountability strategies and issuing report cards on the 82 REINV/GORA TlNG GOVERNANCE operations of each college, could improve accountability and increase the Board's ability to bring statewide leadership to the community colleges. The Office of Accountability could establish uniform effectiveness and fiscal management report requirements that would allow college leaders, community members, and potential students to clearly understand the pay-off that comes with the investment of their time and money. Part of the quality control function could be generating information on opportunities and strategies for service improvement. The Office of Accountability could be charged with improving the ability of the Chancellor's Office to use data to motivate behavioral change. The charts on the following pages describe the current organizational structure of the Chancellor's Office and how it could be reorganized to put community-based functions closer to the colleges they serve. 83 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Governing from Sacramento ... As currently organized, the Chancellor's Office struggles to respond to the needs of local community colleges. Statewide functions, such as legal affairs and external relations, and community-based functions, such as student services and economic development, are all located in Sacramento. Chancellor Vice Chancellor I Legal Affairs & Huma n Fisc al Policy Student Services Contracts Resourc es D ivision & Special Division Programs Governmental Educational Relations & Services & External Affairs Economic Development * 84 RflNVIGORA TlNG GOVERNANCE Bringing the Chancellor's Office closer to communities ... An alternative organizational structure would move community-based functions into local offices to better respond to the needs of the various regions of the state. The Office of Accountability could be established as a separate division to handle quality control and better inform decision-making. ChanceUor Vice Chancellor 1 Legal Affairs & Huma n Fisc al Policy Contracts Resour ces Di vision Division Governmental Policy Analysis Relations & Division External Affairs Student Educational Services & Es;onomicDevelopment Regional Offices Consultation/Facilitation: Regional offices could improve service to the districts. The Chancellor is currently responsible for enhancing student access, retention, equity and successful goal fulfillment. These activities would be more effective if they were responsive to and driven by the realities of community and regional needs. ED> Net regions depicted for illustrative purposes only. Numbers correspond to college districts listed in Appendix C. 85 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Informing stakeholders on community college performance. Collecting information is only effective if decision-makers have access to and understand that information. An Office of Accountability could make the information available. In tum, local boards could be charged with widely disseminating information on their colleges throughout their communities. This information would enable voters, taxpayers and students to hold locally elected community college boards accountable, by making decisions at the ballot box as well as decisions about which college to attend. Increased accountability could improve the quality of community college services, such as teaching quality, and could improve access to the colleges. Federal student right-to-know regulations require the community colleges to inform potential students of particular characteristics of their institutions, including availability of financial assistance, course completion and graduate rates and time-to-degree information. Similarly, California requires the colleges to report information that could be used to help students and voters make choices about their colleges. While this information is available, it is not presented in a way that allows clear comparisons and encourages public accountability. As an example of how this information could be used to inform the public, data gathered by the Chancellor's Office has been presented for each college in Appendix D. An expanded annual report card would inform students, voters, and community leaders about college activities and their effectiveness. Efforts to inform the public and potential customers about the services they receive for their tuition and taxes will improve their ability to shop around and to inform their elected leaders of their satisfaction with community college services. Under state law, each district is required to conduct an annual, independent fiscal audit. The colleges could be subject to an annual performance audit that expresses to their consumer base the most pertinent information, in clear and easy-to-read formats, regarding where community college funding originates and what services and outcomes are provided in exchange for tuition and taxpayer support. The following page lists potential performance data that could be used to inform community college constituencies on the adequacy, efficiency and effectiveness of individual community colleges. 86 RflNVICORA TlNG GOVERNANCE Potential Performance Report Data Several states collect and disseminate data on community college services, including California. This list of potential indicators was compiled from data currently collected in California, North Carolina or recommended elsewhere in this report. Any report card should be clear, uniform, easy-ta-understand and present a valid and reliable image ofthe services available from a particular community college. Student Success o 0 Course and program completion rates. Time to employment. o Passing rates for basic skills and general 0 Percent of enrollees receiving bachelor's or i education courses. advanced degrees. o 0 Rate of success on licensure exams. Percent of enrollees finding employment ! or other outcomes. o 0 Percent of enrollees transferring or Increase in earnings of enrollees. receiving degree. o Time to degree. Employer satisfaction with graduates. Performance of transfers after two years . . ~<.<.~~.---.~--~~.<-~.~~.~~.<~~,,< Teaching Quality o Student/faculty ratio. o Faculty with recognized pedagogy education or independent teaching awards. o Teaching and learning support services for faculty and students. Instructional Resources o Library and computing resources. o Faculty salaries as a percent of regional average. o Percent of revenue dedicated to instructional services. Access o Articulated missions and areas of specialization. o Targeted student population. o Student body as percent of targeted population. o Student retention and persistence. o Course offerings by educational and vocational disciplines. o Enrollment by educational degrees held, employment status, income and demographics. Fiscal Management o Annual audit summary. o Annual revenue source and expenditure information. o Number of programs given performance review as percent of total. o Performance review findings. 87 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Recommendation 4: The Governor and the Legislature should reform the community college governance structure to increase the accountability and efficacy of college leaders. Specifically: (J Strengthen the state Board of Governors. The Board of Governors should be empowered to facilitate excellence in the community colleges, to establish statewide access and educational goals, and to enable voters and students to scrutinize their colleges. Two ways to strengthen the Board of Governors would be: v' Revise the make-up of the Board of Governors. The board may be a more independent, robust and credible voice and force if it represents legislative as well as executive interests and concerns. v' Improve scrutiny of potential appointees. The appointing authorities should recruit to the Board of Governors high caliber persons who are willing to dedicate the time and resources necessary to lead our community colleges toward realizing their full potential. (J Align the Chancellor's Office with its various levels of responsibilities. The Board of Governors should replace the single statewide, central office with a smaller central office and several regional offices. The central office should handle statewide responsibilities where the Chancellor serves as the head of the system. Regional offices should handle those functions that are community-based and designed to support the needs and successes of the local colleges and college students. (J Create a California Community College Office of Accountability. The Office of Accountability should be created within the Chancellor's Office and charged with monitoring quality control in our community colleges. Its responsibilities should include performing oversight functions, assessing weaknesses and proposing improvements. The Office of Accountability should publish the annual accountability report that should be revised to include effectiveness data for each of our community colleges. o Require all local boards to annually publish and disseminate information on their goals and results. Based on the assessments called for in Recommendation 2, all local boards should be required to publish an annual mission report that details the district's goals for the upcoming academic year. District goals should be based on the expertise of each college and address the needs of their economic, academic and business communities. The report should identify goals for transfer students, professional enhancement priorities and vocational education and establish which services will be provided to support these goals. To better aid the public in understanding, 88 RflNVIGORA TlNG GOVERNANCE clearly and easily, how local districts are spending limited financial resources, and to better hold districts and individual colleges accountable, all local boards should be required to publicly release their mission reports in a press conference to be followed by an open meeting to discuss the elements of the district report with the public. The press conference / meeting should occur on the same day statewide to ensure maximum public focus and exposure. The public also should be well aware of which interests are supporting the election of each community college board member. Annual mission reports should refer the public to sources of information that identify campaign contributions received by community college trustees. 89 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 90 CONCLUSION Conclusion »Percentageof jobs in U.S. economy that are unskilled: 20.153 » Percentage difference in average earnings between a high school graduate and college graduate: 76}54 all » Rank of the Ca.lifornia community colleges, among higher education institutions, according to capacity to serve large numbers or students with diverse needs: 1s t. 155 » Number of independent research reports recently issued addressing the unfulfilled promise of the California: community colleges: 7.156 C alifornia has developed an educational infrastructure that can provide a solid link between the New Economy and the New California. Properly managed, the education offerings of the community colleges will broaden participation in California's prosperity, efficiently provide for a growing and ambitious popUlation, and prepare the state for an increasingly competitive marketplace. California can continue the present course, investing billions of dollars in the community colleges - and debating, complaining, and attempting to cajole them into providing quality opportunities for personal and societal success. Or the state's political, educational, business and community leaders - including students - could reform the culture of the colleges to recognize and reward leadership, accountability and clarity of purpose. The question is whether the return on the public investment in community colleges will increase, and who will accrue those benefits. The Commission's recommendations would fortify the community aspect of community colleges while ensuring that statewide interests are met, as well. While the task is difficult and the challenges are sophisticated, the principles are not. California is made up of diverse economies, cultures and communities. Delivering appropriate services requires the community colleges to have local leaders at the helm who are attentive and responsive. Individual colleges are best positioned to understand and respond to their communities, to build programs that deliver needed skills and create lifelong learners. 91 -------------- -------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION The individual community colleges should: o Communicate with the public - their students as their customers and their communities as their investors - the goals they will pursue, the services they will provide and how they will provide them. o Assess how well they are meeting those goals and communicate their progress continuously and aggressively. The State, too, must playa role, in large part because it has become by default the funder and rulemaker. It has proven impossible for the Legislature to dictate solutions to management problems - to legislate will. As a result, the State should steer the investment of public funds to maximize public benefit and ensure adequate access, particularly for those without other opportunities. The State should: o Provide financial incentives to teachers who provide quality instruction, to students who are persistent, and to colleges that continuously identify and remove long-standing barriers to student success. o Provide the leadership necessary to ensure that all adults truly have access to worthwhile programs, and those programs are aligned with the regional economic and social interests they are intended to serve. This strategy would improve accountability by giving students the information to be smart consumers of educational services. Employers would know where to turn to develop a stream of skilled employees. And voters would be able to provide valuable feedback to elected boards - informally and at the ballot box. Under these conditions, quality community colleges will flourish and struggling colleges will be identified, picked up by new leaders - innovators and entrepreneurs - and turned around. Under these conditions, community college access will mean universal participation and benefit and quality teaching will produce lifelong learners. The jewel of California's educational systems could, and perhaps should, be the community colleges. 92 ApPENDICES Appendices 93 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 94 ApPENDICES Appendix A Little Hoover Commission Public Hearing Witnesses Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Community College Public Hearing on January 28, 1999 Thomas J. Nussbaum, Chancellor Lin Fraser, Central Region Representative California Community Colleges California Part-time Faculty Association William H. Pickens, Director Margaret Quan, Founding Member California Citizen's Commission on Higher California Part-time Faculty Association Education Michele Bonds, Director, Augustine P. Gallego, Chancellor State/Governmental Relations for San Diego Community College District Associated Student Body Government Los Angeles City College Guy F. Lease, Superintendent/President Lake Tahoe CommunityCollege Fred Fontino, Student Trustee San Bernardino Community College District Terrence Burgess, President Chabot College Louis Reyes, Policy Director California Student Association of Kathleen O'Connell Hodge Community Colleges (CALSACC) and State Vice Chancellor of Educational Services Student Senate South Orange County Community College District Barbara Davis-Lyman Academic Senate for California Community Colleges Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Community College Public Hearing on March 25, 1999 Arthur M. Cohen, Professor Margaret Heisel, Director Higher Education and Work Outreach, Admissions and Student Affairs Unviersity of California, Los Angeles University of California President's Office Glee Johnson, Chief Deputy Chancellor Allison G. Jones California Community Colleges Senior Director, Access and Retention Office of the Chancellor Betty Sundberg California State University Transfer and Articulation Specialist Office of the Chancellor Mark G. Edelstein, President California Community Colleges Diablo Valley College 95 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Fred Gaskin, President/ Superintendent Donna Mekis, Transfer Center Director Cerritos College Cabrillo College Linda Case, Coordinator Donald P. Wagner, Trustee Transfer Opportunity Program South Orange County Community College University of California, Davis District Witnesses Appearing at Little Hoover Commission Community College Public Hearing on April 22, 1999 Stephen Levy, Director/Senior Economist Victoria P. Morrow, Vice Chancellor Center for Continuing Study of the California Community Colleges California Economy Lyla A. Eddington, Dean Kurt A. Chilcott, President/ CEO Education Development Program CDC Small Business Finance Corporation Rio Hondo College Susan M. Gamage Patrick Ainsworth Community Relations Manager Assistant Superintendent NEC Electronics, Inc. Department of Education State of California David Goodreau, Chairman Southern California Small Manufacturers Robert J. Hotchkiss Association Acting Assistant Secretary Department of Education Brice W. Harris, Chancellor Stateof California Los Rios Community College District Edward K. Kawahara, Deputy Secretary Nick Kremer, Dean of Instruction Trade and Commerce Agency Cosumnes River College State of California Jesus (Jess) Carreon Superintendent/President Rio Hondo College 96 ApPENDICES Appendix B Little Hoover Commission Community College Advisory Committee The following people served on the Community College Advisory Committee. Under the Little Hoover Commission's process, advisory committee members provide expertise and information but do not vote on the final product. The list below reflects the titles and positions of committee members at the time of the advisory committee meetings in 1998 and 1999. Gary W. Adams Timothy A. Dave Chancellor's Office Community College Faculty Member California Community Colleges Bill Davis The Honorable Dede Alpert Vice President Member of the Senate California Association for Local Economic State of California Development Daniel Alvarez Barbara Davis-Lyman Assistant to the Speaker of the Assembly President of Academic Senate State of California Sacramento City College Nancy Anton John Davitt Consultant, Senate Education Committee Superintendent/President State of California Glendale Community College John Avakian The Honorable Denise Ducheny Director, Mu ltimedia/ En tertainment Member of the Assembly Initiative State of California Ed>Net Lyla A. Eddington Arnold Bray Dean, Education Program School Services of California, Inc. Rio Hondo College Terrence Burgess Warren Fox President Executive Director Chabot College California Postsecondary Education Commission Patrick M. Callan National Center for Public Policy and Higher Lin Fraser Education Central Regional Representative CPFA Linda Collins Academic Senate for Fred Frontino California Community Colleges Associated Students San Bernardino Valley College Bob Cumming Director of Economic Development Diana Fuentes-Michel Ed Net Assistant Secretary of Education State of California 97 ------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Elaine Gaertner De bra A. Landre Director, Organizational Development President Ed>Net, Institute for Business Performance Community College Association Marlene Garcia Wess Larson Senate Office of Research Assembly Republican Caucus State of California State of California Murray Haberman Estelle Lemieux Assistant Director California Teacher's Association California Research Bureau The Honorable Ted Lempert Scott Hammer Chair Director, Contract Education/South Assembly Higher Education Committee Ed>Net David E. Leveille Gerald C. Hayward California Postsecondary Education Director Commission Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE) Jonathan Lightman Execu tive Director Margaret Heisel Faculty Association of California Office of the President Community Colleges University of California Stuart Marshall Kathleen O'Connell Hodge Legislative Analyst's Office Vice Chancellor of Educational Services State of California South Orange County Community College District Katherine Martinez Communications Director Gloria Hom FACCC, Inc. Interested Individual Vera M. Martinez Glee Johnson Vice Chancellor Deputy Chancellor Instructional Services, North Orange California Community Colleges County Community College District Sandy Kirschenmann Judy Michaels Ed Net Coordination Network California Federation of Teachers Los Rios Community College District David Militzer Dorothy Knoell, Ph.D. Coordinator Consultant in Higher Education Bay Area Partnership Nick Kremer Rita Mize Dean Director, State Policy and Research Cosumnes River College Community College League of California George Kurtz Victoria P. Morrow Interested Individual Vice Chancellor of Educational Services and Economic Development, California Robert Laffoon-Villegas Community Colleges Chancellor's Office Director, Research & Communication California Citizen's Commission on Higher Education 98 ApPENDICES Peggy S. Olivier David Viar Vocational Education Execu tive Director California Community Colleges Community College League of California Nancy Padberg Judy Walters Interested Individual Vice Chancellor California Community Colleges William Pickens Executive Director Vicki Warner California Citizen's Commission on Higher Dean, Vocational Education Education Chancellor's Office, California Community Colleges Lynn Podesto Principal Program Budget Analyst Paul Warren California Department of Finance, Legislative Analyst's Office Education Systems Unit State of California Len Price Evelyn Weiss President, California Community College President Association of Occupational Education Faculty Association of California Los Medanos College Community Colleges Margaret Quan Norval L. Wellsfry Founding Member Dean of Instruction California Part-time Faculty Association Sacramento City College Charles Ratliff Barbara Whitney California Postsecondary Education Chancellor's Office Commission California Community Colleges Louis Reyes Robert Yoshioka Policy Director Part-time Representative California Student Association of (Southern California) FACCC Community Colleges Pamela Zanelli Encarnacion Ruiz Acting Director, District Public Affairs Interested Individual SOCCCD Bill Scroggins President, Academic Senate California Community Colleges 99 ------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 100 ApPENDICES Appendix C California Community College Districts and Colleges 1 Allan Hancock Joint 27 Los Angeles 2 Antelope Valley East Los Angeles College 3 Barstow Los Angeles City College Los Angeles Harbor College 4 Butte Los Angeles Mission College 5 Cabrillo Los Angeles Pierce College 6 Cerritos Los Angeles Southwest College 7 Chabot-Las Positas Los Angeles TradeTechnical College Chabot College Los Angeles Valley College Las Positas College West Los Angeles College 8 Chaffey 28 Los Rios 9 Citrus American River College 10 Coast Cosumnes River College Coastline CC Sacramento College Golden West College 29 Marin Orange Coast College 30 Mendocino-Lake 11 Compton 31 Merced 12 Contra Costa 32 Mira Costa Contra Costa College 33 Monterey Peninsula Diablo Valley College 34 Mt. San Antonio Los Medanos College 35 Mt. San Jacinto 13 Desert 14 EI Camino 36 Napa Valley 37 North Orange County 15 Feather River Cypress College 16 Foothill-De Anza Fullerton College De Anza College 38 Palo Verde Foothill College 39 Palomar 17 Fremont-Newark Ohlone College 40 Pasadena Area 18 Gavilan 41 Peralta 19 Glendale College of Alameda Laney College 20 Grossmont-Cuyamaca Merritt College Cuyamaca College Vista College Grossmont College 42 Rancho Santiago 21 Harnell Santa Ana College 22 Imperial Santiago Canyon College 23 Kern 43 College of the Redwoods Bakersfield College 44 Rio Honda Cerro Coso College 45 Riverside Porterville College 24 Lake Tahoe 46 South Orange County Irvine Valley College 25 Lassen Saddleb ack College 26 Long Beach 47 San Bernardino Crafton Hills College San Bernardino Valley College 101 --------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 48 San Diego 62 Sonoma San Diego City College Santa Rosa JL College San Diego Mesa College 63 Southwestern San Diego Miramar College 64 State Center 49 San Francisco Fresno City College City College of San Francisco Reedley College 50 San Joaquin Delta 65 Ventura County 51 San Jose/Evergreen Valley Moorpark College Evergreen Valley College Oxnard College San Jose City College Ventura College 52 San Luis Obispo County 66 Victor Valley Cuesta 67 West Kern 53 San Mateo Taft Canada College 68 West Valley-Mission College of San Mateo Mission College Skyline College West Valley College 54 Santa Barbara 69 West Hills 55 Santa Clarita 70 Yosemite College of the Canyons Columbia College 56 Santa Monica Modesto Junior College 57 Sequoias 71 Yuba 58 Shasta-Tehama-Trinity 59 Sierra Joint 60 Siskiyous 61 Solano 102 ApPENDICES Appendix D Community College Effectiveness Data Quality information helps consumers and administrators make informed choices about where they invest their time and money. When students and parents know how successfully the colleges serve students, they can make informed decisions about where to attend college. College administrators also benefit from good information that allows them to see where they need to focus attention. Policy-makers and oversight entities benefit from data that enable them to compare performance over time and one institution with another. Federal and state laws require the community colleges to collect information on their performance. Much of this information is inaccessible or unwieldy. Where available, it is generally published in the aggregate, representing statewide performance. The most widely referenced source of performance data for the community colleges is a report titled The Effectiveness of California Community Colleges on Selected Performance Measures. It is available from the Chancellor's Office or via the Chancellor's Website at http://www.cccco.edu/cccco/mis/effect21.htm. The information contained in this appendix is drawn from the data sources used to prepare the Effectiveness report and other reports. The information presented here is disaggregated to reflect the Chancellor's Effectiveness indicators for individual colleges. The Commission presents this data as an example of information that is presently available and that could be used to better inform students, parents, voters and policy-makers on the priorities and performances of each college. The following information on each college is an illustration of the usefulness of data. This presentation is not a report card for the colleges. Other data may provide a clearer or more representative image of the efforts of particular colleges. 103 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 104 ApPENDICES All Colleges 1998-99 Enrollment: 2,261,451 Headcount 988,724 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 733,886 (31 %) Career planning 400,681 (17%) Transfer 5,678,785 4,695,264 (83%) 3,922,798 (69%) AA or AS degree 114,823 (5%) Personal develop. 213,629 (9%) Vocational 577,495 515,637 (89%) 455,177 (79%) Voc. degree!cert. 134,219 (6%) Unsure 625,278 (27%) Basic Skills 478,782 383,167 (80%) 280,804 (59%) Basic skills 123,922 (5%) Total 7,571,551 6,260,450 (83%) 5,178,841 (68%) Basic Skills Course fnrollments~ fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 3.1% English 270,872 70,454 (26%) Business & Mgmt 7.8% Industrial Tech. 3.2% Mathematics 173,453 38,112 (22%) Computer/Info Science 5.1% Mathematics 7.4% Total 444,325 108,566 (24%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 7.6% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 2.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.4% Political Science 1.5% Transfer 63.6% Basic Skills 10.4% Fine & Applied Arts 8.0% Psychology 3.3% Vocational 27.7% Non-Credit 10.4% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.1% Remaining 30.6% Enrollment: FTES (Full Time Equivalent Students): A measure of the number of students a college serves that accounts for variation in the number of classes students take. One FTES is roughly equivalent to one student taking five 3-credit courses each semester for two semesters. Headcount: Sum of individual students actually enrolled for all terms in the academic year. Student Performance: Enrolled: Represents the number of students who enrolled in the course. Completed: Represents the number who finished the course. Successful: Refers to students who earned a grade of A, B, C or Credit. Basic Skills: Basic skills courses are pre-collegiate level courses. Data reflect only basic skills math and English courses. Enrolled: Represents the number of students who began course. Advancement: Represents students who later successfully completed a higher level course. Percentage of course enrollments by type. Totals do not equal Enrollment by Course Type: 100 percent. Some courses are counted as vocational and as transfer. Student Goals: Information on student goals is used to determine whether the college programs and services match student needs. Transfer: Transfer to a four-year university. AA or AS degree: Obtain an Associate's degree. Vocational degreeicert.: Obtain a vocational education degree or certificate. Basic skills: Improve basic skills. Career planning: Plan for or learn about a new career or improve skills. Personal development: Complete credits for high school diploma or personal interests. Unsure: Undecided or unreported. Course Enrollments: Represents course enrollments in various disciplines as a percentage of all course enrollments. 105 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 106 ApPENDICES Alameda 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,040 Headcount 3,462 FTES Student Performance Student Coals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,351 (38%) Career planning 1,195 (14%) Transfer 17,249 13,570 (79%) 11,934 (69%) M or AS degree 472 (5%) Personal develop. 773 (9%) Vocational 2,060 1,678 (81%) 1,426 (69%) Voc. degree!cert. 378 (4%) Unsure 1,729 (20%) Basic Skills 3,134 2,497 (80%) 1,660 (53%) Basic skills 927 (11%) Total 26,623 20,991 (79%) 17,620 (66%) Basic Sldlls Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 1.9% English 1,442 458 (32%) Business & Mgmt 6.7% Industrial Tech. 4.4% Mathematics 669 111 (17%) Computer/Info Science 8.1% Mathematics 8.2% Total 2,111 569 (27%) Economics 1.6% Physical Education 6.5% Education 0.5% Physical Sciences 1.1% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.5% Political Science 2.2% Transfer 60.2% Basic Ski lis 11.1% Fine & Applied Arts 4.1% Psychology 4.8% Vocational 25.2% Non-Credit 7.4% Foreign Language 2.0% Sociology/Anthro 1.9% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.2% Remaining 34.9% Allan Hancock 1998-99 Enrollment: 21,537 Headcount 8,0:i4 FTES Student Performance Student Coals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,242 (26%) Career planning 4,182 (20%) Transfer 40,351 34,799 (86%) 29,476 (73%) M or AS degree 663 (3%) Personal develop. 2,348 (11%) Vocational 11,543 10,682 (93%) 9,577 (83%) Voc. degree!cert. 1,537 (7%) Unsure 5,629 (27%) Basic Skills 2,631 2,221 (84%) 1,641 (62%) Basic skills 955 (5%) Total 59,135 51,461 (87%) 43,479 (74%) Basic Skills Course Enrol.ments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.6% History 3.1% English 663 155 (23%) Business & Mgmt 5.8% Industrial Tech. 2.1% Mathematics 1,056 317 (30%) Computer/Info Science 3.7% Mathematics 5.8% Total 1,719 472 (27%) Economics 0.6% Physical Education 10.1% Education 1.5% Physical Sciences 2.1% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.6% Political Science 1.0% Transfer 52.9% Basic Skills 4.0% Fine & Applied Arts 11.8% Psychology 1.9% Vocational 31.7% Non-Credit 24.4% Foreign Language 1.7% Sociology/Anthro 2.5% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.3% Remaining 36.8% American River 1998-99 Enrollment: 42,970 Headcount 16,055 FTES ·5tudent'Performance Student;Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 16,019 (46%) Career planning 6,005 (17%) Transfer 102,491 83,559 (82%) 70,772 (69%) M or AS degree 950 (3%) Personal develop. 1,715 (5%) Vocational 16,855 15,847 (94%) 15,069 (89%) Voc. degree!cert. 3,437 (10%) Unsure 5,538 (16%) Basic Skills 7,617 6,182 (81%) 4,796 (63%) Basic skills 896 (3%) Total 143,321 118,487 (83%) 101,033 (70%) . Basic Skills Course EnroUments,.FaIl1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 3.2% English 2,039 656 (32%) Business & Mgmt 5.9% Industrial Tech. 3.3% Mathematics 2,253 439 (19%) Computer/Info Science 8.7% Mathematics 8.5% Total 4,292 1,095 (26%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 6.6% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 3.0% Enrollment iJy Course Type* English 7.3% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 70.0% Basic Ski lis 5.6% Fine & Applied Arts 6.2% Psychology 4.9% Vocational 36.0% Non-Credit 2.3% Foreign Language 1.8% Sociology/Anthro 2.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.7% Remaining 30.4% 107 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Antelope Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 17,968 Headcount 7,519 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,146 (37%) Career planning 2,795 (17%) Transfer 48,236 40,063 (83%) 34,114 (71%) AA or AS degree 726 (4%) Personal develop. 1,120 (7%) Vocational 4,716 4,144 (88%) 3,222 (68%) Voe. degree/cert. 642 (4%) Unsure 4,477 (27%) Basic Skills 5,600 4,261 (76%) 2,978 (53%) Basic skills 744 (4%) Total 65,694 54,042 (82%) 44,081 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.2% History 3.5% English 1,381 344 (25%) Business & Mgmt 6.0% Industrial Tech. 3.0% Mathematics 1,522 341 (22%) Computer/Info Science 6.4% Mathematics 11.5% Total 2,903 685 (24%) Economics 0.8% Physical Education 7.2% Education 2.9'l'0 Physical Sciences 4.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.3% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 72.6% Basic Skills 6.9% Fine & Applied Arts 9.8% Psychology 3.7% Vocational 27.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.1% Sociology/Anthro 2.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.3% Remaining 18.2% Bakersfield 1998-99 Enrollment: 20,386 Headcount 9,982 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,733 (49%) Career planning 3,282 (17%) Transfer 62,413 51,665 (83%) 40,198 (64%) AA or AS degree 1,776 (9%) Personal develop. 1,262 (6%) Vocational 7,825 7,100 (91%) 6,275 (80%) Voe. degree/cert. 644 (3%) Unsure 2,814 (14%) Basic Skills 6,078 4,752 (78%) 3,218 (53%) Basic skills 289 (1%) Total 82,892 68,299 (82%) 53,311 (64%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.7% History 6.4% English 694 94 (14%) Business & Mgmt 4.2% Industrial Tech. 3.4% Mathematics 112 7 (6%) Computer/Info Science 3.9% Mathematics 7.0% Total 806 101 (13%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 8.6% Education 0.8% Physical Sciences 2.1% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.5% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 73.4% Basic Skills 10.3% Fine & Applied Arts 5.6% Psychology 4.4% Vocational 25.5% Non-Credit 0.6% Foreign Language 2.3% Sociology/Anthro 3.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.5% Remaining 35.5% Barstow 1998-99 Enrollment: 5,473 Headcount 1,827 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,665 (34%) Career planning 1,099(23%) Transfer 9,646 8,226 (85%) 6,774 (70%) AA or AS degree 583 (12%) Personal develop. 228 (5%) Vocational 3,369 3,079 (91 %) 2,622 (78%) Voe. degreeicert. 618 (13%) Unsure 190 (4%) Basic Skills 571 427 (75%) 323 (57%) Basic skills 452 (9%) Total 15,313 13,202 (86%) 10,901 (71%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.2% History 3.6% English 362 68 (19%) Business & Mgmt 8.9% Industrial Tech. 1.8% Mathematics 433 82 (19%) Computer/Info Science 6.1% Mathematics 6.6% Total 795 150 (19%) Economics 2.0% Physical Education 5.7% Education 1.7% Physical Sciences 1.6% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.7% Political Science 0.0% Transfer 53.0% Basic Skills 3.4% Fine & Applied Arts 5.1% Psychology 5.4% Vocational 29.9% Non-Credit 1~.~% Fureign Language 1.0% Sociology/Anthro 0.0% * Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.5% Remaining 36.2% 108 ApPENDICES Butte 1998-99 Enrollment: 24,346 Headcount 10,677 FTES Student Performance .. Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,388 (32%) Career planning 3,377 (14%) Transfer 54,279 49,867 (92%) 40,127 (74%) M or AS degree 1,134 (5%) Personal develop. 1,641 (7%) Vocational 3,397 3,316 (98%) 3,177 (94%) Voc. degree/cert. 958 (4%) Unsure 7,373 (32%) Basic Skills 3,297 3,045 (92%) 2,289 (69%) Basic skills 1,443 (6%) Total 80,689 74,832 (93%) 62,016 (77%) Basic Skilfs Course Enrollments, FaU 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.7% History 2.4% English 2,278 688 (30%) Business & Mgmt 6.3% Industrial Tech. 2.8% Mathematics 1,715 395 (23%) Computer/Info Science 3.6% Mathematics 7.9% Total 3,993 1,083 (27%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 15.9% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.0% Enrollment by Course Type* English 4.8% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 59.4% Basic Skills 6.1% Fine & Applied Arts 5.1% Psychology 2.2% Vocational 23.9% Non-Credit 14.7% Foreign Language 1.7% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.6% Remaining 36.8% Cabrillo 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,554 Headcount 9,811 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,920 (30%) Career planning 5,756 (30%) Transfer 57,144 48,813 (85%) 40,318 (71%) M or AS degree 1,061 (5%) Personal develop. 3,273 (17%) Vocational 9,775 8,458 (87%) 7,243 (74%) Voc. degree!cert. 820 (4%) Unsure 1,896 (10%) Basic Skills 3,246 2,700 (83%) 2,089 (64%) Basic skills 783 (4%) Total 83,855 70,994 (85%) 58,234 (69%) Basic Skills Course EnrollmentS Fan'1998 r Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.7% History 1.9% English 1,496 548 (37%) Business & Mgmt 7.5% Industrial Tech. 1.3% Mathematics 1,290 266 (21%) Computer/lnfo Science 6.9% Mathematics 7.7% Total 2,786 814 (29%) Economics 0.5% Physical Education 6.9% Education 1.1% Physical Sciences 2.4% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.0% Pol itical Science 1.4% Transfer 64.5% Basic Skills 3.3% Fine & Applied Arts 12.3% Psychology 1.6% Vocational 25.3% Non-Credit 4.3% Foreign Language 5.7% Sociology/Anthro 2.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.2% Remaining 25.4% Canada 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,161 Headcount 3,248 FTES ... student Performance .... Student·Goals .' Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,406 (24%) Career planning 2,083 (21%) Transfer 24,128 19,707 (82%) 17,557 (73%) M or AS degree 980 (10%) Personal develop. 1,711 (17%) Vocational 2,021 1,718 (85%) 1,147 (57%) Voc. degreelcert. 827 (8%) Unsure 1,808 (18%) Basic Skills 3,581 2,693 (75%) 2,212 (62%) Basic skills 202 (2%) Total 32,995 26,681 (81%) 22,319 (68%) .< Basic .Sldlls Course EnroUmen~/.faU '1998. Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.6% History 2.6% English 1,575 592 (38%) Business & Mgmt 15.7% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 418 104 (25%) Computer/Info Science 2.8% Mathematics 6.2% Total 1,993 696 (35%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 11.7% Education 0.3% Physical Sciences 2.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.0% Political Science 0.4% Transfer 71.5% Basic Skills 12.0% Fine & Applied Arts 5.8% Psychology 2.0% Vocational 34.1% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.3% Sociology/Anthro 1.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.9% Remaining 33.7% 109 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Canyons 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,077 Headcount 6,318 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,090 (10%) Career planning 1,006 (9%) Transfer 42,295 36,479 (86%) 29,628 (70%) AA or AS degree 199 (2%) Personal develop. 204 (2%) Vocational 1,374 1,175 (86%) 935 (68%) Voe. degreelcert. 229 (2%) Unsure 8,685 (76%) Basic Skills 4,422 3,707 (84%) 2,473 (56%) Basic skills 38 (0%) Total 53,678 46,126 (86%) 36,500 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2,4% History 5.6% English 689 210 (30%) Business & Mgmt 6.8% Industrial Tech. 2.7% Mathematics 1,851 560 (30%) Computer/Info Science 0.7% Mathematics 10.9% Total 2,540 770 (30%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 6.2% Education 1.0% Physical Sciences 2.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.9% Political Science 2.8% Transfer 71.8% Basic Ski lis 8.1% Fine & Applied Arts 7.3% Psychology 4.5% Vocational 23.8% Non-Credit 8.2% Foreign Language 1.9% Sociology/Anthro 3.4% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 27.2% Cerritos 1998-99 Enrollment: 32,535 Headcount 15,2<)'" FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,792 (52%) Career planning 6,153 (20%) Transfer 87,726 66,730 (76%) 54,551 (62%) AA or AS degree 1,985 (6%) Personal develop. (0%) Vocational 10,854 9,294 (86%) 8,121 (75%) Voe. degreelcert. 4,638 (15%) Unsure 2,078 (7%) Basic Skills 9,759 7,457 (76%) 5,945 (61 %) Basic skills (0%) Total 119,395 91,447 (77%) 74,770 (63%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.9% History 3.9% English 6,119 2,343 (38%) Business & Mgmt 8.4% Industrial Tech. 5.2% Mathematics 4,125 879 (21%) Computer/Info Science 5.0% Mathematics 9.7% Total 10,244 3,222 (31 %) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 5.5% Education 2.4% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.6% Political Science 2.6% Transfer 66.1% Basic Skills 11.5% Fine & Applied Arts 8.9% Psychology 4.0% Vocational 30.9% Non-Credit 2.4% Foreign Language 1.6% Sociology/Anthro 3.1% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.6% Remaining 19.9% Cerro Coso 1998-99 Enrollment: 9,993 Headcount 2,856 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,699 (26%) Career planning 2,037 (19%) Transfer 19,366 16,904 (87%) 13,715 (71 %) AA or AS degree 407 (4%) Personal develop. 2,872 (27%) Vocational 2,866 2,771 (97%) 2,560 (89%) Voe. degreeicert. 219 (2%) Unsure 1,933 (18%) Basic Skills 1,093 871 (80%) 658 (60%) Basic skills 341 (3%) Total 27,318 24,117 (88%) 19,230 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.6% History 3.8% English 621 95 (15%) Business & Mgmt 2.9% Industrial Tech. 2.7% Mathematics 818 205 (25%) Computer/Info Science 16.1% Mathematics 8.8% Total 1,439 300 (21%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 9.2% Education 2.2% Physical Sciences 2.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.8~'o Political Science 1.1% Transfer 74.3% Basic Skills 3.8% Fine & Applied Arts 8.2% Psychology 4.5% Vocational 33.5% Non-Credit 1.1% Foreign Language 2.2% Sociology/Anthro 1.2% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.5% Remaining 18.8% 110 ApPENDICES Chabot 1998-99 Enrollment: 21,342 Headwunt 9,990 FTES .Student Performance Student (;oals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,614 (43%) Career planning 2,172 (11%) Transfer 68,720 54,454 (79%) 46,355 (67%) AA or AS degree 2,576 (13%) Personal develop. 973 (5%) Vocational 2,046 1,901 (93%) 1,684 (82%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,033 (5%) Unsure 4,384 (22%) Basic Skifls 6,543 4,911 (75%) 3,485 (53%) Basic skills 402 (2%) Total 79,486 63,188 (79%) 53,371 (67%) Basic Skills Course fnrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 5.4% English 3,093 919 (30%) Business & Mgmt 5.7% Industrial Tech. 4.6% Mathematics 2,021 502 (25%) Computer/Info Science 4.4% Mathematics 11.3% Total 5,114 1,421 (28%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 11.7% Education 3.0% Physical Sciences 2.6% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.6% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 85.7% Basic Ski lis 9.2% Fine & Applied Arts 6.7% Psychology 6.0% Vocational 26.8% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.4% Sociology/Anthro 3.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 4.1% Remaining 18.6% Chaffer 1998-99 Enrollment: 24,374 Headcount 11,117 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,706 (43%) Career planning 3,167(14%) Transfer 69,194 55,208 (80%) 45,350 (66%) AA or AS degree 2,749 (12%) Personal develop. 2,029 (9%) Vocational 5,429 4,779 (88%) 4,232 (78%) Voc. degree/cert. 2,046 (9%) Unsure 1,059 (5%) Basic Skifls 5,007 4,011 (80%) 2,915 (58%) Basic skills 1,868 (8%) Total 90,760 72,191 (80%) 58,953 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.4% History 4.0% English 2,713 514 (19%) Business & Mgmt 7.4% Industrial Tech. 2.6% Mathematics 1,961 411 (21%) Computer/Info Science 4.4% Mathematics 7.6% Total 4,674 925 (20%) Economics 1.5% Physical Education 5.7% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 3.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.2% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 64.9% Basic Skills 9.7% Fine & Applied Arts 5.5% Psychology 3.3% Vocational 28.5% Non-Credit 10.1% Foreign Language 1.9% Sociology/Anthro 4.4% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.7% Remaining 33.2% Citrus 1998-99 Enrollment: 20,655 Headwunt 10,249 FTES .. Student PerfOrmance Student Cioats Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,120 (49%) Career planning 1,352 (7%) Transfer 47,950 42,501 (89%) 31,838 (66%) AA or AS degree 888 (5%) Personal develop. 37(0%) Vocational 4,011 3,735 (93%) 3,196 (80%) Voc. degree/cert. 2,063 (11%) Unsure 5,138 (28%) Basic Skills 4,025 3,477 (86%) 2,188 (54%) Basic skills (0%) Total 68,791 60,825 (88%) 44,987 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 3.1% English 1,873 519 (28%) Business & Mgmt 5.2% Industrial Tech. 3.0% Mathematics 2,177 495 (23%) Computer/Info Science 2.7% Mathematics 9.2% Total 4,050 1,014 (25%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 8.1% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.7% Political Science 1.9% Transfer 56.9% Basic Ski lis 17.1% Fine & Applied Arts 11.1% Psychology 4.9% Vocational 22.0% Non-Credit 6.1% Foreign Language 1.5% Sociology/Anthro 2.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.3% Remaining 30.7% 111 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Coastline 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,628 Headcount 4,417 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,053 (34%) Career planning 2,557 (12%) Transfer 31,348 27,135 (87%) 22,127 (71%) AA or AS degree 681 (3%) Personal develop. 3,107 (15%) Vocational 768 694 (90%) 642 (84%) VoC. degreelcert. 1,337 (6%) Unsure 5,287 (26%) Basic Skills 2,797 2,449 (88%) 1,925 (69%) Basic skills 556 (3%) Total 37,194 32,210 (87%) 26,224 (71%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.7% History 2.8% English 2,584 518 (20%) Business & Mgmt 5.0% Industrial Tech. 2.1% Mathematics 651 146 (22%) Computer/Info Science 30.9% Mathematics 2.7% Total 3,235 664 (21%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 5.2% Education 0.8% Physical Sciences 2.0% Enrollment by Course Type* English 2.7% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 58.2% Basic Skills 4.7% Fine & Applied Arts 10.2% Psychology 2.0% Vocational 40.6% Non-Credit 31.1 % Foreign Language 4.2% Sociology/A nth ro 1.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.0% Remaining 21.5% Columbia 1998-99 Enrollment: 4,743 Headcount 1,857 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,442 (35%) Career planning 519 (13%) Transfer 11 ,903 10,048 (84%) 8,373 (70%) AA or AS degree 241 (6%) Personal develop. 1,167 (28%) Vocational 1,228 1,038 (85%) 810 (66%) VoC. degreelcert. 334 (8%) Unsure 269 (7%) Basic Skills 311 237 (76%) 179 (58%) Basic skills 155 (4%) Total 14,897 12,547 (84%) 10,288 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.8% History 2.6% English 74 7 (9%) Business & Mgmt 8.6% Industrial Tech. 1.8% Mathematics 52 2 (4%) Computer/Info Science 6.2% Mathematics 5.5% Total 126 9 (7%) Economics 0.3% Physical Education 12.5% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 3.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.0% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 68.9% Basic Skills 2.6% Fine & Applied Arts 9.3% Psychology 4.1% Vocational 32.1 % Non-Credit 13.7% Foreign Language 1.4% Sociology/Anthro 1.5% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.5% Remaining 27.2% Compton 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,653 Headcount 4,9]4 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,071 (32%) Career planning 2,582 (27%) Transfer 23,072 18,254 (79%) 16,072 (70%) AA or AS degree 504 (5"10) Personal develop. 510 (5%) Vocational 3,596 2,769 (77%) 2,478 (69%) VoC. degree.icert. 952 (10%) Unsure 349 (4%) Basic Skills 7,193 5,287 (74%) 4,358 (61%) Basic skills 1,755 (18%) Total 35,098 27,243 (78%) 23,728 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fal11998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.5% History 4.1% English 2,724 531 (19%) Business & Mgmt 5.6% Industrial Tech. 2.7% Mathematics 2,102 236 (11%) Computer/Info Science 3.9% Mathematics 7.9% Total 4,826 767 (16%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 9.4% Education 0.4% Physical Sciences 1.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.5% Political Science 1.1% Transfer 62.1% Basic Skills 18.3% Fine & Applied Arts 4.6% Psychology 5.6% Vocational 31.4% Non-Credit 5.2% Foreign Language 1.7':-';0 SociologyiAnthro 1.2% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.0% Remaining 39.1% 112 ApPENDICES Contra Costa 1998-99 Enrollment: 13,660 Headcount 5,622 FTES ··Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,215 (23%) Career planning 1,884 (14%) Transfer 27,144 23,056 (85%) 20,070 (74%) M or AS degree 310 (2%) Personal develop. 2,955 (21%) Vocational 3,449 3,165 (92%) 2,828 (82%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,303 (9%) Unsure 2,996 (22%) Basic Skills 2,829 2,100 (74%) 1,609 (57%) Basic skills 1,265 (9%) Total 44,904 38,130 (85%) 32,188 (72%) Course .E nrollments, FaU 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 2.0% English 1,972 509 (26%) Business & Mgmt 7.0% Industrial Tech. 2.4% Mathematics 1,254 224 (18%) Computer/Info Science 7.8% Mathematics 7.3% Total 3,226 733 (23%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 12.8% Education 1.4% Physical Sciences 2.3% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t!-b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 6.0% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 55.8% Basic Skills 6.8% Fine & Applied Arts 9.4% Psychology 1.5% Vocational 24.6% Non-Credit 8.1% Foreign Language 1.3% SOciology/Anthro 1.7% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.4% Remaining 27.3% Cosumnes River 1998-99 Enrollment: 24,434 Headcount 9,054 FTES Student Performance . ..' Student Coals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,834 (42%) Career planning 4,633 (20%) Transfer 61,453 50,907 (83%) 43,041 (70%) M or AS degree 642 (3%) Personal develop. 1,609 (7%) Vocational 3,948 3,254 (82%) 2,836 (72%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,886 (8%) Unsure 3,836 (17%) Basic Skills 4,683 3,844 (82%) 2,570 (55%) Basic skills 736 (3%) Total 76,038 62,489 (82%) 51,846 (68%) Basic Sldlls Course Enroilments,FaU1998 Program Enrolled Advancement 2.1% History 3.2% English 1,980 531 (27%) 7.2% Industrial Tech. 2.8% Mathematics 1,663 372 (22%) 12.7% Mathematics 8.5% Total 3,643 903 (25%) 1.2% Physical Education 8.0% 1.2% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Type. 8.9% Political Science 0.9% Transfer 75.8% Basic Skills 6.7% 6.9% Psychology 2.6% Vocational 34.6% Non-Credit 4.8% 2.2% Sociology/Anthro 2.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. 1.2% Remaining 24.8% Crafton Hills 1998-99 Enrollment: 8,335 Headcount 3,769 FTES "'!.'/ .Student Performance ......; Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,124 (38%) Career planning 1,487 (18%) Transfer 20,083 15,895 (79%) 12,918 (64%) M or AS degree 469 (6%) Personal develop. 1,750 (21%) Vocational 2,978 2,759 (93%) 2,558 (86%) Voc. degreeicert. 188 (2%) Unsure 1,125 (14%) Basic Skills 1,229 853 (69%) 650 (53%) Basic skills 107 (1%) Total 29,240 23,308 (80%) 19,041 (65%) Basic stdlls Course EnroIlments,faIf1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.3% History 3.0% English 394 88 (22%) Business & Mgmt 7.8% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 758 220 (29%) Computer/Info Science 3.6% Mathematics 11.5% Total 1,152 308 (27%) Economics 1.7% Physical Education 8.0% Education 3.4% Physical Sciences 4.3% P------E-n-ro-ll-m-e-nt- b-y- C-o-u-rs-e- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 8.9% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 68.4% Basic Skills 5.0% Fine & Applied Arts 5.3% Psychology 7.5% Vocational 25.1% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/Anthro 3.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.7% Remaining 17.4% 113 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Cuesta 1998-99 Enrollment: 12,505 Headcount 7,3S0 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,805 (59%) Career planning 1,389 (12%) Transfer 47,105 39,617 (84%) 33,497 (71 %) AA or AS degree 1,006 (9%) Personal develop. 666 (6%) Vocational 2,558 2,290 (90%) 2,081 (81 %) Voc. degree/cert. 607 (5%) Unsure 878 (8%) Basic Skills 2,685 2,277 (85%) 1,630 (61%) Basic skills 188 (2%) Total 58,828 49,377 (84%) 41,124 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.1% History 5.0% English 365 95 (26%) Business & Mgmt 7.2% Industrial Tech. 3.5% Mathematics 1,131 376 (33%) Computer/Info Science 2.5% Mathematics 10.3% Total 1,496 471 (31%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 6.7% Education 2.9% Physical Sciences 5.9% P------E-n-ro-ll-m-e-nt- b-y- C-o-u-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 7.5% Political Science 3.3% Transfer 78.1% Basic Skills 4.8% Fine & Applied Arts 7.2% Psychology 2.5% Vocational 23.6% Non-Credit 2.9% Foreign Language 2.6% Sociology/Anthro 3.0% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.9% Remaining 24.0% Cuyamaca 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,716 Headcount 4,312 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,514 (44%) Career planning 1,695 (17%) Transfer 29,833 23,716 (79%) 19,491 (65%) AA or AS degree 776 (8%) Personal develop. 502 (5%) Vocational 153 145 (95%) 94 (61%) Voc. degreelcert. 407(4%) Unsure 2,186(21%) Basic Skills 1,517 1,189 (78%) 933 (62%) Basic skills 171 (2%) Total 33,805 26,893 (80%) 21,933 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.2% History 3.0% English 376 108 (29%) Business & Mgmt 6.8% Industrial Tech. 3.6% Mathematics 1,282 376 (29%) Computer/Info Science 7.9% Mathematics 10.1% Total 1,658 484 (29%) Economics 2.1% Physical Education 15.5% Education 0.9% Physical Sciences 3.3% ~-----En-ro~ll-me-n~t b-y -C-ou-rs-e T-y-pe-* ----~ English 8.1% Political Science 0.7% Transfer 86.7% Basic Skills 5.0% Fine & Applied Arts 4.1% Psychology 3.2% Vocational 27.7% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.9% Sociology/Anthro 2.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.0% Remaining 21.4% Cypress 1998-99 Enrollment: 20,395 Headcount 10,282 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,287 (44%) Career planning 2,896 (15%) Transfer 52,750 41,111 (78%) 33,544 (64%) AA or AS degree 904 (5%) Personal develop. 797 (4%) Vocational 20,964 17,173 (82%) 14,601 (70%) Voc. degreeicert. 877 (5%) Unsure 4,837 (26%) Basic Skills 3,895 2,878 (74%) 2,269 (58%) Basic skills 333 (2%) Total 88,735 69,826 (79%) 57,362 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.7% History 3.7% English 2,789 1,277 (46%) Business & Mgmt 9.1% Industrial Tech. 2.0% Mathematics 1,736 460 (26%) Computer/Info Science 3.8% Mathematics 8.5% Total 4,525 1,737 (38%) Economics 1.7% Physical Education 9.6% Education 0.4% Physical Sciences 3.4% P------E-n-ro-ll-m-e-nt- b-y- C-o-u-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 9.1% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 58.4% Basic Skills 5.4% Fine & Applied Arts 10.4% Psychology 3.9% Vocational 29.0% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.3% Sociology/Anthro 1.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfE'r. Health 8.9% Remaining 17.7% 114 ApPENDICES De Anza 1998-99 Enroll ment: 40,180 H eadcount 19,342 FTES Student .P erformance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,238 (39%) Career planning 8,027 (20%) Transfer 139,189 120,686 (87%) 106,044 (76%) AA or AS degree 1,729 (4%) Personal develop. 4,194(11%) Vocational 9,360 8,654 (92%) 6,998 (75%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,385 (4%) Unsure 7,626 (19%) Basic Skills 5,762 5,124 (89%) 3,956 (69%) Basic skills 1,305 (3%) Total 180,135 157,841 (88%) 136,236 (76%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 3.7% English 3,448 1,972 (57%) Business & Mgmt 7.1% Industrial Tech. 2.8% Mathematics 2,175 610 (28%) Computer/Info Science 8.8% Mathematics 10.1% Total 5,623 2,582 (46%) Economics 1.7% Physical Education 8.4% Education 0.4% Physical Sciences 3.4% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.0% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 81.2% Basic Skills 2.9% Fine & Applied Arts 6.3% Psychology 2.9% Vocational 28.0% Non-Credit 0.1% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.1% Remaining 22.4% Desert 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,738 Headcount 7,219 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,380 (32%) Career planning 3,074 (22%) Transfer 36,811 31,287 (85%) 26,811 (73%) AA or AS degree 373 (3%) Personal develop. 1,517 (11%) Vocational 3,340 2,958 (89%) 2,536 (76%) Voc. degree/cert. 630 (5%) Unsure 2,627(19%) Basic Skills 8,532 6,815 (80%) 5,006 (59%) Basic skills 1,071 (8%) Total 51,935 43,713 (84%) 36,372 (70%) Basic. Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.1% History 2.3% English 3,607 939 (26%) Business & Mgmt 3.7% Industrial Tech. 1.6% Mathematics 2,798 635 (23%) Computer/Info Science 7.3% Mathematics 10.2% Total 6,405 1,574 (25%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 6.9% Education 0.3% Physical Sciences 2.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.9% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 57.3% Basic Skills 29.9% Fine & Applied Arts 5.7% Psychology 3.8% Vocational 22.4% Non-Credit 1.9% Foreign Language 2.8% Sociology/Anthro 2.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.6% Remaining 33.0% Diablo Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 36,062 Headcount 16,094 FTES StudentPerlormance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,049 (43%) Career planning 4,820 (14%) Transfer 109,215 89,138 (82%) 78,471 (72%) AA or AS degree 1,054 (3%) Personal develop. 4,573 (13%) Vocational 12,923 11,892 (92%) 10,583 (82%) Voc. degree/cert. 2,069 (6%) Unsure 4,673 (13%) Basic Skills 4,009 3,302 (82%) 2,707 (68%) Basic skills 2,568 (7%) Total 137,118 113,189 (83%) 99,357 (72%) Basic Skills Course Enrol.ments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 5.0% English 1,459 409 (28%) Business & Mgmt 6.0% Industrial Tech. 3.6% Mathematics 1,820 423 (23%) Computer/Info Science 7.6% Mathematics 10.1% Total 3,279 832 (25%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 7.3% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 5.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.8% Political Science 1.1% Transfer 79.7% Basic Skills 3.1% Fine & Applied Arts 6.6% Psychology 4.6% Vocational 24.0% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.3% Sociology/Anthro 2.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.7% Remaining 22.4% 115 -------------------------------- - LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION EI Camino 1998-99 Enrollment: 37,168 Headcount 17,807 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 16,992 (46%) Career planning 5,005 (14%) Transfer 108,217 86,021 (79%) 71,290 (66%) AA or AS degree 1,580 (4%) Personal develop. 1,904 (5%) Vocational 2,832 2,419 (85%) 2,186 (77%) Voe. degree/c:ert. 1,409 (4%) Unsure 8,667 (24%) Basic Skills 10,427 8,337 (80%) 5,832 (56%) Basic skills 1,110 (3%) Total 135,584 107,052 (79%) 86,746 (64%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.1% History 3.0% English 2,937 1,015 (35%) Business & Mgmt 4.7% Industrial Tech. 2.8% Mathematics 3,370 750 (22%) Computer/Info Science 4.2% Mathematics 10.9% Total 6,307 1,765 (28%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 6.7% Education 0.7% Physical Sciences 3.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.5% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 70.2% Basic Ski lis 14.1% Fine & Applied Arts 10.0% Psychology 3.2% Vocational 21.6% Non-Credit 3.7% Foreign Language 3.3% Sociology/A nth ro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 27.5% Evergreen Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,245 Headcount 6,319 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,532 (13%) Career planning 682 (3%) Transfer 34,544 28,150 (81 %) 23,093 (67%) AA or AS degree 132 (1 %) Personal develop. 77 (0%) Vocational 4,792 4,669 (97%) 4,464 (93%) Voe. degree/cert. 9,844 (50%) Unsure 3,198 (16%) Basic Skills 6,860 5,616 (82%) 4,260 (62%) Basic skills 3,293 (17%) Total 53,278 43,979 (83%) 36,107 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.7% History 3.3% English 2,969 1,269 (43%) Business & Mgmt 7.3% Industrial Tech. 3.0% Mathematics 1,282 271 (21%) Computer/Info Science 3.3% Mathematics 8.4% Total 4,251 1,540 (36%) Economics 1.5% Physical Education 6.0% Education 1.2% Physical Sciences 2.6% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.6% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 62.7% Basic Skills 14.1% Fine & Applied Arts 4.8% Psychology 2.6% Vocational 26.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.3% Sociology/A nth ro 0.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.6% Remaining 39.0% Feather River 1998-99 Enrollment: 2,882 Headcount 1,119 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 850 (28%) Career planning 464 (16%) Transfer 7,243 6,469 (89%) 5,748 (79%) AA or AS degree 80 (3%) Personal develop. 528 (18%) Vocational 1,033 865 (84%) 757 (73%) Voe. degree/cert. 88 (3%) Unsure 933 (31%) Basic Skills 578 402 (70%) 286 (49%) Basic skills 50 (2%) Total 9,239 8,062 (87%) 7,054 (76%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.4% History 4.5% English 147 30 (20%) Business & Mgmt 11.1% Industrial Tech. 1.5% Mathematics 252 34 (13%) Computer/Info Science 0.4% Mathematics 5.2% Total 399 64 (16%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 16.9% Education 1.4% Physical Sciences 2.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.2% Pol itical Science 1.4% Transfer 74.8% Basic Skills 9.8% Fine & Applied Arts 2.7% Psychology 2.0% Vocational 30.4% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 0.8% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.3% Remaining 35.4% 116 ApPENDICES Foothill 1998-99 Enrollment: 29,834 Headcount 12,870 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,854 (21%) Career planning 4,934 (17%) Transfer 72,919 65,157 (89%) 59,665 (82%) AA or AS degree 647 (2%) Personal develop. 5,536 (20%) Vocational 2,841 2,560 (90%) 2,350 (83%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,564 (6%) Unsure 8,694 (31 %) Basic Skills 869 762 (88%) 676 (78%) Basic skills 1,102 (4%) Total 99,459 89,238 (90%) 82,235 (83%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.0% History 2.5% English 1,757 829 (47%) Business & Mgmt 3.2% Industrial Tech. 8.8% Mathematics 659 186 (28%) Computer/Info Science 9.6% Mathematics 6.8% Total 2,416 1,015 (42%) Economics 1.2% Physical Education 10.1% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 4.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 2.9% Political Science 0.7% Transfer 68.2% Basic Skills 1.0% Fine & Applied Arts 9.4% Psychology 2.1% Vocational 35.0% Non-Credit 0.8% Foreign Language 2.7% Sociology/Anthro 1.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 4.7% Remainirl.8 26.5% Fresno City 1998-99 Enrollment: 27,932 Headcount 14,896 FTES .s tudent Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 12,511 (44%) Career planning 4,087 (14%) Transfer 93,720 80,677 (86%) 57,817 (62%) AA or AS degree 2,267 (8%) Personal develop. 553 (2%) Vocational 10,378 9,503 (92%) 7,271 (70%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,683 (6%) Unsure 7,174 (25%) Basic Skills 4,737 4,062 (86%) 2,865 (60%) Basic skills 319 (1%) Total 116,005 100,299 (86%) 71,739 (62%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.6% History 3.5% English 1,639 619 (38%) Business & Mgmt 11.3% Industrial Tech. 7.5% Mathematics 2,624 650 (25%) Computer/Info Science 0.6% Mathematics 7.8% Total 4,263 1,269 (30%) Economics 1.2% Physical Education 7.0% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 2.1% Enrollment by Course Type· English 7.1% Political Science 0.2% Transfer 83.5% Basic Skills 6.3% Fine & Applied Arts 7.1% Psychology 5.0% Vocational 30.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.1% Sociology/Anthro 4.5% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.5% Remaining 24.1% Fullerton 1998-99 Enrollment: 30,295 Headcount 14,195 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 13,609 (48%) Career planning 3,771 (13%) Transfer 77,786 60,473 (78%) 50,207 (65%) AA or AS degree 816(3%) Personal develop. 1,253 (4%) Vocational 15,165 11,912 (79%) 9,789 (65%) Voc. degree/cert. 677 (2%) Unsure 2,386 (8%) Basic Skills 6,170 4,722 (77%) 3,488 (57%) Basic skills 5,778 (20%) Total 119,075 92,350 (78%) 75,717 (64%) Basic Skills Course EnroUments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.2% History 4.0% English 2,003 685 (34%) Business & Mgmt 5.4% Industrial Tech. 3.1% Mathematics 2,236 554 (25%) Computer/Info Science 6.3% Mathematics 9.8% Total 4,239 1,239 (29%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 7.9% Education 0.7% Physical Sciences 5.1% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.1% Political Science 2.7% Transfer 63.6% Basic Skills 5.5% Fine & Applied Arts 12.7% Psychology 3.5% Vocational 22.7% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.3% Sociology/Anthro 4.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.0% Remaining 20.3% 117 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Gavilan 1998-99 Enrollment: 8,577 Headcount 3,983 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,730 (23%) Career planning 2,552 (34%) Transfer 18,974 15,765 (83%) 13,369 (70%) AA or AS degree 309 (4%) Personal develop. 796 (10%) Vocational 1,207 1,069 (89%) 980 (81%) Voc. degree!cert. 455 (6%) Unsure 1,382 (18%) Basic Skills 3,373 2,751 (82%) 1,987 (59%) Basic skills 361 (5%) Total 26,275 21,690 (83%) 17,971 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.0% History 2.6% English 784 204 (26%) Business & Mgmt 8.9% Industrial Tech. 1.7% Mathematics 469 117 (25%) Computer/Info Science 0.4% Mathematics 2.4% Total 1,253 321 (26%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 8.8% Education 0.9% Physical Sciences 1.9% ~----------------------------~ Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.8% Political Science 0.9% Transfer 62.5% Basic Skills 14.1% Fine & Applied Arts 7.2% Psychology 3.0% Vocational 24.7% Non-Credit 10.0% Foreign Language 1.7% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.4% Remaining 45.0% Glendale 1998-99 Enrollment: 31,170 Headcount 13,648 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,424 (30%) Career planning 3,535 (11 %1 Transfer 64,772 57,536 (89%) 44,961 (69%) AA or AS degree 1,677 (5%) Personal develop. 2,070 (7%) Vocational 2,466 2,295 (93%) 1,979 (80%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,301 (4%) Unsure 9,972 (32%) Basic Skills 4,236 3,843 (91%) 2,807 (66%) Basic ski lis 3,136 (10%) Total 84,935 75,609 (89%) 58,769 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement 2.1% History 2.3% English 7,141 1,052 (15%) 11.7% Industrial Tech. 1.5% Mathematics 1,413 289 (20%) 4.1% Mathematics 6.9% Total 8,554 1,341 (16%) 1.3% Physical Education 4.1% 2.3% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Type* 6.9% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 54.5% Basic Skills 15.4% 7.2% Psychology 1.8% Vocational 22.5% Non-Credit 17.1% 1.4% Sociology/Anthro 1.8% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. 1.0% Remaining 38.9% Golden West 1998-99 Enrollment: 21,636 Headcount 8,478 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 10,056 (52%) Career planning 2,132 (11 %) Transfer 53,223 43,527 (82%) 36,038 (68%) AA or AS degree 775 (4%) Personal develop. 1,859 (10%) Vocational 7,315 6,831 (93%) 6,412 (88%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,226 (6%) Unsure 3,033 (16%) Basic Skills 6,164 5,043 (82%) 3,410 (55%) Basic skills 331 (2%) Total 73,555 60,712 (83%) 49,825 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.4% History 2.7% English 3,384 983 (29%) Business & Mgmt 16.4% Industrial Tech. 1.8% Mathematics 1,249 326 (26%) Computer/Info Science 2.3% Mathematics 7.2% Total 4,633 1,309 (28%) Economics 0.5% Physical Education 9.0% Education 6.3% Physical Sciences 2.4% ~----------------------------~ Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.4% Political Science 1.9'¥o Transfer 67.7% Basic Skills 12.1% Fine & Applied Arts 9.4% Psychology 3.1% Vocational 31.2% Non-Credit 6.6% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/Anthro 2.2% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.8% Remaining 19.6% 118 ApPENDICES Grossmont 1998-99 Enrollment: 26,057 Headcount 12,341 FTES Student ··Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 14,737 (58%) Career planning 2,916 (12%) Transfer 92,348 72,293 (78%) 59,867 (65%) AA or AS degree 1,745 (7%) Personal develop. 756 (3%) Vocational 327 269 (82%) 244 (75%) Voc. degreelce rt. 730 (3%) Unsure 4,017 (16%) Basic Skills 4,420 3,324 (75%) 2,483 (56%) Basic skills 417(2%) Total 109,332 85,516 (78%) 70,444 (64%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.3% History 4.1% English 1,136 452 (40%) Business & Mgmt 6.9% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 2,922 870 (30%) Computer/Info Science 5.0% Mathematics 10.5% Total 4,058 1,322 (33%) Economics 2.1% Physical Education 8.4% Education 1.2% Physical Sciences 3.7% EntoUment by Course Type* English 9.5% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 85.3% Basic Skills 4.3% Fine & Applied Arts 8.0% Psychology 3.7% Vocational 22.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 4.6% Sociology/Anthro 3.3% * Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 22.5% Hartnell 1998-99 Enrollment: 15,585 Headcount 6,231 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,994 (29%) Career planning 2,829 (21%) Transfer 40,682 33,491 (82%) 29,485 (72%) AA or AS degree 1,049 (8%) Personal develop. 2,056 (15%) Vocational 3,270 2,959 (90%) 2,832 (87%) Voc. degreelcert. 1,298 (9%) Unsure 1,549 (11%) Basic Skills 5,072 3,547 (70%) 2,857 (56%) Basic skills 975 (7%) Total 53,155 43,059 (81%) 37,542 (71%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 3.5% English 1,773 646 (36%) Business & Mgmt 4.4% Industrial Tech. 3.6% Mathematics 3,154 654 (21%) Computer/Info Science 3.8% Mathematics 10.6% Total 4,927 1,300 (26%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 11.2% Education 0.8% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.1% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 76.6% Basic Skills 10.7% Fine & Applied Arts 9.6% Psychology 3.9% Vocational 23.8% Non-Credit 0.9% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.7% * Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.4% Remaining 23.0% Imperial Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 9,166 Headcount 4,892 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,940 (44%) Career planning 859 (10%) Transfer nla nla nla AA or AS degree 1,437 (16%) Personal develop. 92 (1%) Vocational nla nla nla Voc. degreelcert. 420 (5%) Unsure 1,865 (21%) Basic Skills nla nla nla Basic skills 409 (5%) Total nla nla n/a Basic Skills Course Enrollments, falll998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.4% History 5.5% English 3,486 886 (25%) Business & Mgmt 6.0% Industrial Tech. 1.8% Mathematics 946 283 (30%) Computer/Info Science 4.8% Mathematics 7.7% Total 4,432 1,169 (26%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 8.3% Education 4.3% Physical Sciences 1.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 12.9% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 64.3% Basic Skills 10.1% Fine & Applied Arts 3.2% Psychology 3.8% Vocational 39.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.4% Sociology/Anthro 1.7% * Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.1% Remaining 28.9% 119 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Irvine Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 18,118 Headcount 7,590 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,873 (32%) Career planning 4,686 (26%) Transfer 44,199 37,583 (85%) 29,487 (67%) AA or AS degree 179 (1%) Personal develop. 3,437 (19%) Vocational 3,991 3,499 (88%) 2,602 (65%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,699 (9%) Unsure 1,689 (9%) Basic Skills 2,120 1,843 (87%) 1,387 (65%) Basic skills 786 (4%) Total 55,156 46,925 (85%) 36,416 (66%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 7.3% History 4.4% English 847 189 (22%) Business & Mgmt 13.7% Industrial Tech. 0.9% Mathematics 903 189 (21%) Computer/Info Science 6.5% Mathematics 10.3% Total 1,750 378 (22%) Economics 2.3% Physical Education 6.6% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 4.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.6% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 79.9% Basic Skills 3.7% Fine & Applied Art5, 6.8% Psychology .l.l% Vocational 24.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.7% Sociology/Anthro 3.9% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.7% Remaining 18.3% lake Tahoe 1998-99 Enrollment: 6,755 Headcount 1,551 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,177 (18%) Career planning 1,871 (29%) Transfer 14,121 12,398 (88%) 10,789 (76%) AA or AS degree 199 (3%) Personal develop. 1,789 (28%) Vocational 1,955 1,778 (91%) 1,463 (75%) Voc. degree/cert. 134 (2%) Unsure 993 (15%) Basic Skills 1,000 846 (85%) 644 (64%) Basic skills 259 (4%) Total 19,411 17,098 (88%) 14,720 (76%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 1.6% English 504 35 (7%) Business & Mgmt 5.9% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 304 60 (20%) Computer/Info Science 9.1% Mathematics 10.3% Total 808 1,410 (21%) Economics 0.4% Physical Education 12.6% Education 1.0% Physical Sciences 1.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.4% Political Science 0.9% Transfer 73.5% Basic Ski lis 5.3% Fine & Applied Arts 12.6% Psychology 1.5% Vocational 35.8% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 4.7% Sociology/A nth ro 1.3% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.1% Remaining 21.9% laney 1998-99 Enroll ment: 20,802 Headcount 8,210 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,445 (32%) Career planning 2,963 (15%) Transfer 37,319 28,530 (76%) 24,817 (66%) AA or AS degree 983 (5%) Personal develop. 2,110(10%) Vocational 8,500 6,920 (81 %) 6,080 (72%) Voc. degreeicert. 834 (4%) Unsure 4,359 (22%) Basic Skills 5,916 4,607 (78%) 3,762 (64%) Basic skills 2,483 (12%) Total 60,120 46,303 (77%) 39,921 (66%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.3% History 1.4"10 English 2,893 918 (32%) Business & Mgmt 6.1% Industrial Tech. 6.1% Mathematics 2,084 302 (14%) Computer/Info Science 5.1% Mathematics 6.0% Total 4,977 781 (22%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 10.4% Education 0.5% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course T ype* English 5.0% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 61.4% Basic Skills 10.3% Fine & Applied Arts 8.7% Psychology 2.9% Vocational 25.8% Non-Credit 0.8% Foreign Language 1.9% Sociology/Anthro 2.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.1% Remaining 34.7% 120 ApPENDICES las Positas 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,656 Headcount 4,681 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,946 (39%) Career planning 1,348 (13%) Transfer 32,268 26,729 (83%) 23,457 (73%) AA or AS degree 1,174 (12%) Personal develop. 801 (8%) Vocational 1,474 1,339 (91%) 1,261 (86%) Voe. degreeice rt. 529 (5%) Unsure 1,974 (20%) Basic Skills 2,368 2,025 (86%) 1,676 (71 %) Basic skills 222 (2%) Total 38,017 31,739 (83%) 27,901 (73%) Basic Skills" Course Enroltments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 5.7% English 991 311 (31%) Business & Mgmt 2.9% Industrial Tech. 3.1% Mathematics 687 169 (25%) Computer/Info Science 6.7% Mathematics 11.9% Total 1,678 37 (24%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 11.1% Education 3.2% Physical Sciences 4.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.1% Political Science 1.0% Transfer 85.6% Basic Skills 5.1% Fine & Applied Arts 6.8% Psychology 7.2% Vocational 21.9% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.7% Sociology/Anthro 3.0% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.8% Remaining 17.7% lassen 1998-99 Enrollment: 6,479 Headcount 2,244 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,486 (22%) Career planning 826 (12%) Transfer 13,341 12,080 (91 %) 10,633 (80%) AA or AS degree 160(2%) Personal develop. 2,928 (43%) Vocational 1,784 1,657 (93%) 1,382 (77%) Voe. degree/cert. 350 (5%) Unsure 664 (10%) Basic Skills 184 141 (77%) 110 (60%) Basic skills 339 (5%) Total 18,140 16,469 (91 %) 14,468 (80%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, FalJ1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 3.7% English 191 50 (26%) Business & Mgmt 6.8% Industrial Tech. 9.1% Mathematics 166 17 (10%) Computer/Info Science 4.8% Mathematics 3.3% Total 357 530 (21%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 19.0% Education 0.2% Physical Sciences 1.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 4.5% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 77.4% Basic Skills 1.9% Fine & Applied Arts 4.8% Psychology 3.6% Vocational 42.2% Non-Credit 0.5% Foreign Language 1.0% Sociology/Anthro 1.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.7% Remaining 27.9% long Beach City 1998-99 Enrollment: 36,469 Headcount 18,498 FTES Student Performance " Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 11,581 (35%) Career planning 5,558 (17%) Transfer 101,520 79,348 (78%) 69,898 (69%) AA or AS degree 1,693 (5%) Personal develop. 2,187 (7%) Vocational 12,438 10,252 (82%) 9,582 (77%) Voe. degreeicert. 974 (3%) Unsure 8,279 (25%) Basic Skills 10,725 8,875 (83%) 6,677 (62%) Basic skills 3,281 (10%) Total 135,945 106,615 (78%) 92,773 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments," Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.5% History 3.0% English 5,815 2,202 (38%) Business & Mgmt 7.9% Industrial Tech. 3.4% Mathematics 3,297 556 (17%) Computer/Info Science 3.9% Mathematics 5.1% Total 9,112 1,271 (32%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 6.0% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 2.3% Enrollment by. Course Type* English 4.2% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 67.7% Basic Skills 12.9% Fine & Applied Arts 8.9% Psychology 2.2% Vocational 31.6% Non-Credit 2.5% Foreign Language 2.2% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.9% Remaining 35.7% 121 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Los Angeles City 1998-99 Enrollment: 24,213 Headcount 13,662 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,492 (29%) Career planning 5,652 (25%) Transfer 61,173 48,359 (79%) 40,950 (67%) AA or AS degree 1,785 (8%) Personal develop. 1,214 (5%) Vocational 4,063 3,529 (87%) 2,974 (73%) Voe. degree/cert. 1,182 (5%) Unsure 3,995 (18%) Basic Skills 17,144 14,451 (84%) 9,976 (58%) Basic skills 2,188 (10%) Total 89,160 71,236 (80%) 57,491 (64%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.3% History 1.7% English 3,937 1,025 (26%) Business & Mgmt 8.7% Industrial Tech. 0.3% Mathematics 2,888 385 (13%) Computer/Info Science 5.6% Mathematics 9.4% Total 6,825 1,127 (17%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 6.0% 1------.. --------------1 2.1% Physical Sciences 1.9% Education Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.7% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 63.6% Basic Skills 19.6% Fine & Applied Arts 8.4% Psychology 4.1% Vocational 27.5% Non-Credit 4.3% Foreign Language 2.9% Sociology/Anthro 2.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.9% Remaining 32.2% Los Angeles East 1998-99 Enrollment: 34,623 Headcount 13,972 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,142 (22%) Career planning 8,175 (25%) Transfer 89,113 73,602 (83%) 63,007 (71"!o) AA or AS degree 1,069 (3%) Personal develop. 1,039 (3%) Vocational 2,244 1,852 (83%) 1,470 (66%) Voe. degree/cert. 614 (2%) Unsure 11,962 (37%) Basic Skills 6,627 5,259 (79%) 4,106 (62%) Basic skills 2,214 (7%) Total 107,388 87,783 (82%) 73,883 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.9% History 2.5% English 3,437 627 (18%) Business & Mgmt 5.0% Industrial Tech. 1.0% Mathematics 2,170 252 (12%) Computer/Info Science 3.1% Mathematics 8.8% Total 5,607 879 (16%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 11.6% Education 3.1% Physical Sciences 3.4% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e-* -----~ English 8.9% Political Science 2.8% Transfer 73.9% Basic Ski lis 5.5% Fine & Applied Arts 5.9% Psychology 4.9% Vocational 23.2% Non-Credit 10.9% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/A nth ro 4.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 27.2% Los Angeles Harbor 1998-99 Enrollment: 13,935 Headcount 5,727 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,461 (25%) Career planning 3,741 (27%) Transfer 36,732 29,576 (81 %) 25,295 (69%) AA or AS degree 556 (4%) Personal develop. 802 (6%) Vocational 1,822 1,472 (81%) 1,267 (70%) Voe. degree/cert. 327 (2%) Unsure 4,101 (30%) Basic Skills 4,013 3,029 (75%) 2,170 (54%) Basic skills 786 (6%) Total 45,720 36,335 (79%) 30,415 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.7% History 3.5% English 1,259 417 (33%) Business & Mgmt 6.5% Industrial Tech. 2.6% Mathematics 2,248 364 (16%) Computer/Info Science 6.0% Mathematics 7.8% Total 3,507 1,265 (28%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 7.7% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 2.9% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t- b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e-* -----~ English 9.2% Political Science 2.2% Transfer 74.7% Basic Skills 8.6% Fine & Applied ArlO, 9.4% Psychology 3.2% Vocational 27.1% Non-Credit 6.1% Foreign Language 1.6% Sociology/Anthro 4.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.8% Remaining 23.1% 122 ApPENDICES Los Angeles Mission 1998-99 Enrollment: 12,272 Headcount 5,279 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,408 (21%) Career planning 3,797 (34%) Transfer 24,348 20,134 (83%) 16,509 (68%) AA or AS degree 417 (4%) Personal develop. 467 (4%) Vocational 885 790 (89%) 689 (78%) Voc. degreeicert. 271 (2%) Unsure 3,174 (28%) Basic Skills 4,892 4,010 (82%) 2,898 (59%) Basic skills 787 (7%) Total 33,488 27,365 (82%) 21,886 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.6% History 2.4% English 1,258 310 (25%) Business & Mgmt 5.4% Industrial Tech. 0.8% Mathematics 1,318 220 (17%) Computer/Info Science 4.0% Mathematics 8.0% Total 2,576 1,220 (25%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 2.6% Education 3.7% Physical Sciences 1.5% ~------ E - nr - o - llm - e - n - t -b-y - C - ou - r - se - -Ty-p-e-* -----~ English 8.0% Political Science 2.6% Transfer 60.4% Basic Skills 12.7% Fine & Applied Arts 3.3% Psychology 3.1% Vocational 24.6% Non-Credit 15.3% Foreign Language 2.6% Sociology/Anthro 4.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.0% Remaining 45.6% Los Angeles Pierce 1998-99 Enrollment: 20,598 Headcount 9,266 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 9,220 (42%) Career planning 5,771 (26%) Transfer 61,911 50,541 (82%) 42,813 (69%) AA or AS degree 754 (3%) Personal develop. 1,729 (8%) Vocational 2,387 2,059 (86%) 1,802 (75%) Voc. degreeicert. 496 (2%) Unsure 3,245 (15%) Basic Skills 3,117 2,520 (81 %) 2,017 (65%) Basic skills 856 (4%) Total 73,412 59,804 (81%) 50,523 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.0% History 3.6% English 2,526 999 (40%) Business & Mgmt 6.3% Industrial Tech. 2.0% Mathematics 1,487 272 (18%) Computer/Info Science 5.3% Mathematics 9.0% Total 4,013 480 (29%) Economics 1.7% Physical Education 5.2% Education 3.2% Physical Sciences 5.6% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.2% Pol itical Science 2.1% Transfer 74.6% Basic Skills 4.2% Fine & Applied Arts 7.6% Psychology 3.6% Vocational 23.4% Non-Credit 10.0% Foreign Language 2.0% Sociology/Anthro 4.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.1% Remaining 24.9% Los Angeles Southwest 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,514 Headcount 4,418 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,190 (22%) Career planning 3,273 (33%) Transfer 21,538 17,482 (81%) 14,426 (67%) AA or AS degree 710 (7%) Personal develop. 331 (3%) Vocational 507 411 (81%) 383 (76%) Voc. degreeicert. 295 (3%) Unsure 2,421 (24%) Basic Skills 7,105 5,508 (78%) 3,707 (52%) Basic skills 827 (8%) Total 31,554 25,246 (80%) 19,860 (63%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.1% History 2.0% English 1,224 216 (18%) Business & Mgmt 4.4% Industrial Tech. 1.3% Mathematics 1,482 217 (15%) Computer/Info Science 3.6% Mathematics 9.2% Total 2,706 433 (16%) .... Economics 0.5% Physical Education 5.6% t------~--"!""---------- 2.3% Physical Sciences 2.1% Education Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.6% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 56.9% Basic Skills 19.4% Fine & Applied Arts 4.6% Psychology 2.8% Vocational 21.0% Non-Credit 16.6% Foreign Language 1.5% Sociology/Anthro 2.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.6% Remainin!t 44.3% 123 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Los Angeles Trade-Tech 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,516 Headcount 9,948 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,674 (14%) Career planning 9,515 (48%) Transfer 35,681 28,854 (81 %) 25,133 (70%) AA or AS degree 967 (5%) Personal develop. 550 (3%) Vocational 14,335 12,121 (85%) 10,810 (75%) Voe. degree/cert. 1,044 (5%) Unsure 3,559 (18%) Basic Skills 7,981 5,920 (74%) 3,971 (50%) Basic skills 1,319 (7%) Total 67,599 53,979 (80%) 45,732 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.0% History 2.4% English 2,313 537 (23%) Business & Mgmt 9.9% Industrial Tech. 18.1% Mathematics 4,217 590 (14%) Computer/Info Science 3.0% Mathematics 8.4% Total 6,530 67 (19%) Economics 0.4% Physical Education 4.4°1~ Education 1.7% Physical Sciences 2.0% Enrollment by Course Ty pe* English 7.7% Political Science 0.6% Transfer 46.4% Basic Skills 11.1% Fine & Applied Arts 2.9% Psychology 1.7% Vocational 48.7% Non-Credit 8.3% Foreign Language 1.1% Sociology/Anthro 1.8% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.0% Remaining 29.8% Los Angeles Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 26,349 Headcount 10,917 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,314 (28%) Career planning 7,965 (31%) Transfer 73,454 59,196 (81%) 50,127 (68%) AA or AS degree 951 (4%) Personal develop. 2,042 (8%) Vocational 2,317 2,069 (89%) 1,680 (73%) Voe. degree/cert. 569 (2%) Unsure 5,593 (21 %) Basic Skills 7,566 6,103 (81%) 4,649 (61%) Basic skills 1,638 (6%) Total 91,021 73,108 (80%) 60,738 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 2.9% English 2,859 1,028 (36%) Business & Mgmt 5.6% Industrial Tech. 1.6% Mathematics 1,667 237 (14%) Computer/Info Science 3.2% Mathematics 7.9% Total 4,526 2,758 (30%) Economics 1.3'110 Physical Education 5.1% Education 2.7% Physical Sciences 3.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 13.8% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 77.4% Basic Skills 8.2% Fine & Applied Arts 8.3% Psychology 3.3% Vocational 22.5% Non-Credit 3.0% Foreign Language 2.1% Sociology/Anthro 6.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 27.0% Los Angeles West 1998-99 Enrollment: 15,744 Headcount 5,305 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,691 (27%) Career planning 4,803 (35%) Transfer 32,629 26,641 (82%) 21,904 (67%) AA or AS degree 607 (4%) Personal develop. 961 (7%) Vocational 3,957 3,737 (94%) 3,285 (83%) Voe. degree/cert. 294 (2%) Unsure 2,666(19%) Basic Skills 3,440 2,783 (81%) 2,198 (64%) Basic skills 677 (5%) Total 43,782 36,144 (83%) 29,608 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.4% History 3.2% English 1,267 370 (29%) Business & Mgmt 6.6% Industrial Tech. 2.9% Mathematics 1,557 159 (10%) Computer/Info Science 5.2% Mathematics 7.2% Total 2,824 529 (19%) Economics 2.2% Physical Education 7.4% Education 1.8% Physical Sciences 2.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.3% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 67.7% Basic Skills 8.9% Fine & Applied Arts 4.3% Psychology 3.1% Vocational 28.1% Non-Credit 6.0% Foreign Language 3.8% Suciolugy/Anthro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.7% Remaining 27.9% 124 ApPENDICES Los Medanos 1998-99 Enrollment: 16,891 Headcount 6,106 FTES Student Performance· Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,214 (19%) Career planning 4,383 (26%) Transfer 24,336 19,843 (82%) 16,811 (69%) AA or AS degree 709 (4%) Personal develop. 1,453 (9%) Vocational 11,690 10,604 (91%) 9,354 (80%) Voc. degree/cert. 2,162 (13%) Unsure 2,973 (18%) Basic Skills 360 317 (88%) 233 (65%) Basic skills 1,831 (11%) Total 46,236 38,401 (83%) 32,748 (71 %) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.5% History 1.2% English 778 261 (34%) Business & Mgmt 9.5% Industrial Tech. 3.9% Mathematics 1,156 188 (16%) Computer/Info Science 9.9% Mathematics 8.5% Total 1,934 449 (23%) Economics 0.8% Physical Education 7.4% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.3% Political Science 0.0% Transfer 50.6% Basic Ski lis 0.8% Fine & Applied Arts 10.3% Psychology 3.9% Vocational 45.6% Non-Credit 0.2% Foreign Language 1.3% Sociology/Anthro 0.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.9% Remaining 21.8% Marin 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,604 Headcount 6,497 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,510 (24%) Career planning 3,728 (26%) Transfer 42,157 37,829 (90%) 30,187 (72%) AA or AS degree 362 (2%) Personal develop. 1,928 (13%) Vocational 79 70 (89%) 64 (81%) Voc. degree/cert. 344 (2%) Unsure 4,229 (29%) Basic Skills 2,064 1,703 (83%) 1,101 (53%) Basic skills 486 (3%) Total 48,153 42,951 (89%) 33,722 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fat! 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.2% History 2.2% English 1,931 583 (30%) Business & Mgmt 6.6% Industrial Tech. 1.9% Mathematics 997 185 (19%) Computer/Info Science 9.8% Mathematics 8.2% Total 2,928 768 (26%) Economics 0.8% Physical Education 9.8% Education 0.8% Physical Sciences 2.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.7% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 85.6% Basic Skills 5.9% Fine & Applied Arts 14.3% Psychology 3.2% Vocational 23.9% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.6% Sociology/Anthro 2.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.6% Remaining 18.0% Mendocino 1998-99 Enrollment: 7,618 Headcount 2,404 FTES ... 'StudentPeriormance ;Student Goals ; Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,452 (21%) Career planning 1,261 (18%) Transfer 16,213 13,935 (86%) 11,162 (69%) AA or AS degree 167(2%) Personal develop. 1,829 (26%) Vocational 1,195 1,084 (91%) 885 (74%) Voc. degree/cert. 788 (11 %) Unsure 1,261 (18%) Basic Skills 1,596 1,424 (89%) 1,105 (69%) Basic skills 195 (3%) Total 22,867 19,769 (86%) 15,758 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments Fall 1998 t Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 2.6% English 124 32 (26%) Business & Mgmt 10.9% Industrial Tech. 1.7% Mathematics 552 111 (20%) Computer/Info Science 10.3% Mathematics 6.8% Total 676 143 (21%) Economics 0.4% Physical Education 11.0% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.8% Enrollment. by. Course Type* English 5.5% Political Science 0.9% Transfer 67.1% Basic Skills 7.2% Fine & Applied Arts 10.3% Psychology 1.4% Vocational 36.2% Non-Credit 5.1% Foreign Language 4.9% Sociology/Anthro 2.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.0% Remaining 22.7% 125 - -.-~--------------------------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Merced 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,258 Headcount 8,073 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,183 (23%) Career planning 3,780 (21 %) Transfer 41,562 34,520 (83%) 28,464 (68%) AA or AS degree 1,174 (6%) Personal develop. 296 (2%) Vocational 6,318 5,939 (94%) 5,665 (90%) Voc. degreelcert. 818 (4%) Unsure 7,686 (42%) Basic Skills 5,472 4,231 (77%) 2,871 (52%) Basic skills 438 (2%) Total .59,687 49,140 (82%) 40, l32 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 3.6% English 847 113 (13%) Business & Mgmt 5.5% Industrial Tech. 2.1% Mathematics 538 77 (14%) Computer/Info Science 2.0% Mathematics 6.2% Total 1,385 190 (14%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 11.3% Education 2.4% Physical Sciences 1.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 4.7% Political Science 0.1% Transfer 56.3% Basic Ski lis 30.1% Fine & Applied Arts 5.8% Psychology 2.2% Vocational 21.1% Non-Credit 0.5% Foreign Language 1.2% Sociology/Anthro 0.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.4% Remaining 46.9% Merritt 1998-99 Enrollment: 12,048 Headcount 3,771 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,115 (27%) Career planning 2,098 (18%) Transfer 21,375 17,333 (81%) 15,209 (71 %) AA or AS degree 515 (5%) Personal develop. 1,666 (15%) Vocational 1,924 1,737 (90%) 1,551 (81%) Voc. degree/cert. 502 (4%) Unsure 1,554 (14%) Basic Skills 2,176 1,578 (73%) 1,217 (56%) Basic skills 1,975 (17%) Total 28,978 23,548 (81 %) 20,299 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 0.8% English 1,257 321 (26%) Business & Mgmt 4.8% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 1.021 152 (15%) Computer/Info Science 8.6% Mathematics 5.3% Total 2,278 473 (21%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 6.2% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 1.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.3% Political Science 0.7% Transfer 69.5% Basic Skills 8.7% Fine & Applied Arts 3.9% Psychology 2.5% Vocational 41.3% Non-Credit 6.6% Foreign Language 0.7% Sociology/Anthro 3.2% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.1% Remaining 47.7% Mira Costa 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,725 Headcount 6,784 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,130 (28%) Career planning 2,396 (13%) Transfer 39,271 31,407 (80%) 26,171 (67%) AA or AS degree 440 (2%) Personal develop. 4,960 (27%) Vocational 5,020 4,278 (85%) 3,664 (73%) Voc. degreelcert. 845 (5%) Unsure 1,339 (7%) Basic Skills 2,734 2,172 (79%) 1,661 (61%) Basic skills 3,474 (19%) Total 53,195 41,010 (77%) 33,796 (64%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 3.5% English 3,628 538 (15%) Business & Mgmt 4.7% Industrial Tech. 1.2% Mathematics 2,973 766 (26%) Computer/Info Science 6.1% Mathematics 8.4% Total 6,601 1,304 (20%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 7.1% Education 2.2% Physical Sciences 2.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.3% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 58.2% Basic Ski lis 11.8% Fine & Applied Arts 11.6% Psychology 3.8% Vocational 22.1% Non-Credit 16.5% Foreign Language 3.0% Sociology/Anthro 2.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.4% Remaining 27.8% 126 ApPENDICES Mission 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,942 Headcount 7,061 FTES 'Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,828(31%) Career planning 2,108(11%) Transfer 44,373 36,567 (82%) 29,958 (68%) AA or AS degree 1,173 (6%) Personal develop. 2,481 (13%) Vocational 1,162 1,116 (96%) 1,085 (93%) Voc. degree/cert. 857 (5%) Unsure 5,840 (31%) Basic Skills 3,686 2,993 (81 %) 2,058 (56%) Basic ski lis 345 (2%) Total 54,806 45,404 (83%) 36,743 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.4% History 1.6% English 2,223 1,130 (51 %) Business & Mgmt 11.1% Industrial Tech. 5.9% Mathematics 2,044 474 (23%) Computer/Info Science 6.2% Mathematics 8.0% Total 4,267 1,604 (38%) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 5.5% Education 5.4% Physical Sciences 2.6% r-----E-nr-ol~lm-en-t ~by- C-o-ur-se- T-y p-e-* ----~ English 7.2% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 68.0% Basic Skills 5.7% Fine & Applied Arts 8.2% Psychology 1.7% Vocational 31.7% Non-Credit 15.7% Foreign Language 2.2% SOciology/Anthro 1.2% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.1% Remaining 26.3% Modesto Junior 1998-99 Enrollment: 24,607 Headcount 12,501 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 10,440 (45%) Career planning 3,219 (14%) Transfer 71,015 57,883 (82%) 47,362 (67%) AA or AS degree 1,599 (7%) Personal develop. 1,527 (7%) Vocational 8,490 6,165 (73%) 5,520 (65%) Voc. degreelcert. 1,247 (5%) Unsure 3,577 (15%) Basic Skills 5,737 4,680 (82%) 3,439 (60%) Basic skills 1,790 (8%) Total 96,134 76,898 (80%) 62,317 (65%) .B asic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement 3.0% History 4.8% English 3,945 901 (23%) 6.0% Industrial Tech. 2.2% Mathematics 2,009 447 (22%) 3.3% Mathematics 8.3% Total 5,954 1,348 (23%) 0.6% Physical Education 8.0% 2.5% Physical Sciences 2.5% Enrollment by Course Type* 9.2% Political Science 0.9% Transfer 68.0% Basic Skills 9.5% 8.0% Psychology 5.0% Vocational 27.4% Non-Credit 3.4% 1.2% Sociology/Anthro 3.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. 1.1% Remaining 30.5% Monterey Peninsula 1998-99 Enrollment: 20,802 Headcount 7,092 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,996 (17%) Career planning 7,527 (33%) Transfer 30,105 25,032 (83%) 23,019 (76%) AA or AS degree 786 (3%) Personal develop. 7,194 (31%) Vocational 7,919 7,092 (90%) 6,621 (84%) Voc. degreelcert. 972 (4%) Unsure 1,925 (8%) Basic Skills 2,957 2,456 (83%) 2,067 (70%) Basic skills 609 (3%) Total 46,365 39,072 (84%) 35,752 (77%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, fall ·1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.2% History 1.7% English 2,719 936 (34%) Business & Mgmt 5.1% Industrial Tech. 1.4% Mathematics 1,081 331 (31%) Computer/Info Science 2.2% Mathematics 5.5% Total 3,800 1,267 (33%) Economics 0.7% PhYSical Education 11.6% Education 3.5% Physical Sciences 2.3% ~-----,. . E-n~r-ol-lm-e-nt~ b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-pe-*- ----~ English 10.6% Political Science 1.1% Transfer 50.9% Basic Skills 13.3% Fine & Applied Arts 13.1% Psychology 1.8% Vocational 19.6% Non-Credit 18.5% Foreign Language 2.6% Sociology/Anthro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.3% Remaining 29.6% 127 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Moorpark 1998-99 Enrollment: 21,034 Headcount 9,832 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,947 (47%) Career planning 2,056 (11%) Transfer 70,370 57,860 (82%) 49,757 (71 %) AA or AS degree 587 (3%) Personal develop. 550 (3%) Vocational 3,262 2,910 (89%) 2,645 (81%) VoC. degree/cert. 884 (5%) Unsure 5,282 (28%) Basic Skills 4,956 3,621 (73%) 2,879 (58%) Basic skills 794 (4%) Total 85,696 70,164 (82%) 60,146 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% Hi<;tory 5.8% English 482 100 (21%) Business & Mgmt 6.2% Industrial Tech. 0.9% Mathematics 3,045 797 (26%) Computer/Info Science 4.8% Mathematics 10.8% Total 3,527 897 (25%) Economics 1.2% Physical Education 6.2% Education 4.2% Physical Sciences 4.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.7% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 79.2% Basic Skills 6.7% Fine & Applied Art, 9.0% Psychology 3.9% Vocational 20.1% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/A nth ro 4.3% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.4% Remaining 20.9% Mt. San Antonio 1998-99 Enrollment: 47,703 Headcount 22,291 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,211 (35%) Career planning 4,873 (11%) Transfer 111,718 95,420 (85%) 77,624 (69%) AA or AS degree 3,479 (8%) Personal develop. 1,566 (4%) Vocational 11,300 10,306 (91 %) 8,996 (80%) VoC. degreeicert. 3,807 (9%) Unsure 13,103 (30%) Basic Skills 15,160 12,9'56 (85%) 9,201 (61%) Basic skills 1,361 (3%) Total 159,783 136,542 (85%) 108,697 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.8% History 2.5% English 5,335 1,532 (29%) Business & Mgmt 5.4% Industrial Tech. 3.6% Mathematics 3,656 977 (27%) Computer/Info Science 2.9% Mathematics 7.8% Total 8,991 2,509 (28%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 8.6% Education 1.4% Physical Sciences 2.4% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.3% Political Science 1.5% Transfer 50.9% Basic Skills 15.2% Fine & Applied Arts 8.4% Psychology 2.6% Vocational 23.7% Non-Credit 18.9% Foreign Language 2.7% Sociology/Anthro 1.9% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.8% Remaining 34.4% Mt. San Jacinto 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,945 Headcount 5,551 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,759 (34%) Career planning 3,140 (23%) Transfer 38,073 30,408 (80%) 25,665 (67%) AA or AS degree 815 (6%) Personal develop. 577 (4%) Vocational 1,724 1,417 (82%) 1,211 (70%) VoC. degreeicert. 467 (3%) Unsure 3,571 (26%) Basic Skills 2,703 2,024 (75%) 1,424 (53%) Basic skills 570 (4%) Total 48,040 37,881 (79%) 31,316 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.2% History 4.8% English 1,044 262 (25%) Business & Mgmt 5.6% Industrial Tech. 0.5% Mathematics 1,358 340 (25%) Computer/Info Science 9.4% Mathematics 12.8% Total 2,402 602 (25%) Economics 1.5% Physical Education 4.2% Education 2.5~o Physical Sciences 2.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 11.2% Political Science 2.8% Transfer 78.8% Basic Skills 6.4% Fine & Applied Arts 9.7% Psychology 4.2% Vocational 23.2% Non-Credil u.U% Foreign Language 2.7% Sociology/Anthro 4.1 "/0 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.6% Remaining 16.0% 128 ApPENDICES Napa Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,158 Head(()unl 5,247 FTES Student Performance Student Goals '.' Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,399 (17%) Career planning 3,918 (27%) Transfer 29,800 24,318 (82%) 21,343 (72%) AA or AS degree 487 (3%) Personal develop. 951 (7%) Vocational 1,554 1,422 (92%) 1,358 (87%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,392 (10%) Unsure 4,796 (33%) Basic Skills 2,498 1,820 (73%) 1,454 (58%) Basic skills 561 (4%) Total 35,826 28,797 (80%) 25,101 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.2% History 2.0% English 984 200 (20%) Business & Mgmt 4.4% Industrial Tech. 1.7% Mathematics 481 117 (24%) Computer/Info Science 2.4% Mathematics 7.7% Total 1,465 317 (22%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 15.5% Education 0.4% Physical Sciences 9.1% r------E-n-ro-ll-m-e-n-t b-y- C-o-u-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 5.3% Political Science 1.5% Transfer 68.7% Basic Skills 6.7% Fine & Applied Arts 13.0% Psychology 3.2% Vocational 26.4% Non-Credit 17.5% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 1.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.5% Remaining 23.8% Ohlone 1998-99 Enrollment: 18,513 Headcount 7,176 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,771 (33%) Career planning 3,258 (22%) Transfer 38,713 32,307 (83%) 27,846 (72%) AA or AS degree 753 (5%) Personal develop. 985 (7%) Vocational 6,858 6,448 (94%) 6,244 (91 %) Voc. degreeicert. 282 (2%) Unsure 3,942 (27%) Basic Skills 4,195 3,321 (79%) 2,613 (62%) Basic skills 559 (4%) Total 60,404 50,744 (84%) 43,905 (73%) Basic Skills Course Enr<Alments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.7% History 4.1% English 1,820 655 (36%) Business & Mgmt 8.2% Industrial Tech. 2.6% Mathematics 921 187 (20%) Computer/Info Science 10.2% Mathematics 12.6% Total 2,741 842 (31%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 7.0% Education 2.4% Physical Sciences 2.8% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e-* -----~ English 9.4% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 61.7% Basic Skills 13.6% Fine & Applied Arts 7.3% Psychology 2.2% Vocational 34.1% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.1% Sociology/Anthro 1.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.9% Remaining 20.6% Orange Coast 1998-99 Enrollment: 35,315 Headcount 16,915 FTES ,;. ;Student Performance Student Goals. Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 20,592 (58%) Career planning 4,051 (11%) Transfer 128,448 107,366 (84%) 90,457 (70%) AA or AS degree 1,460 (4%) Personal develop. 3,187 (9%) Vocational o Voc. degreelcert. 1,845 (5%) Unsure 4,055(11%) Basic Skills 3,159 2,611 (83%) 1,991 (63%) Basic skills 439 (1%) Total 139,820 115,920 (83%) 96,964 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enroilments,faJI1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 5.6% History 3.2% English 2,071 952 (46%) Business & Mgmt 5.7% Industrial Tech. 3.6% Mathematics 1,235 272 (22%) Computer/Info Science 3.6% Mathematics 8.6% Total 3,306 1,224 (37%) Economics 1.5% Physical Education 6.9% Education 0.6% Physical Sciences 4.7% ~--~-E-n~ro-llm-e~nt- by- C-o-ur-se- T-yp-e*- ---~ English 5.3% Political Science 2.5% Transfer 84.8% Basic Skills 3.4% Fine & Applied Arts 10.8% Psychology 7.7% Vocational 25.3% Non-Credit 5.5% Foreign Language 2.1% Sociology/Anthro 3.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.3% Remaining 22.0% 129 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Oxnard 1998-99 Enrollment: 11,508 Headcount 4,558 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,673 (25%) Career planning 1,315 (12%) Transfer 24,995 20,803 (83%) 17,860 (71 %) AA or AS degree 319 (3%) Personal develop. 314 (3%) Vocational 5,196 4,654 (90%) 3,873 (75%) Voc degree/cert. 839 (8%) Unsure 4,276 (40%) Basic Skills 5,544 4,257 (77%) 3,171 (57%) Basic skills 977 (9%) Total 39,220 32,644 (83%) 27,290 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.7% History 4.6% English 2,524 771 (31%) Business & Mgmt 8.7% Industrial Tech. 3.0% Mathematics 1,104 272 (25%) Computer/Info Science 6.2% Mathematics 6.0% Total 3,628 1,043 (29%) Economics 0.8% Physical Education 7.6% Education 3.2% Physical Sciences 3.1% Enrollment by Course Ty pe* English 4.6% Political Science 1.1% Transfer 61.6% Basic Skills 15.5% Fine & Applied Arts 4.3% Psychology 2.0% Vocational 32.8% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.7% Sociology/Anthro 3.7% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 33.3% Palo Verde 1998-99 Enrollment: 4,526 Headcount 979 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 541 (18%) Career planning 889 (30%) Transfer 2,503 2,239 (89%) 1,809 (72%) AA or AS degree 171 (6%) Personal develop. 135 (4%) Vocational 3,835 3,803 (99%) 3,763 (98%) Voc degreeicert. 213 (7%) Unsure 651 (22%) Basic Skills 600 513 (86%) 340 (57%) Basic skills 411 (14%) Total 8,228 7,643 (93%) 6,773 (82%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.8% History 0.0% English 217 38 (18%) Business & Mgmt 5.7% Industrial Tech. 6.7% Mathematics 171 14 (8%) Computer/Info Science 8.1% Mathematics 5.3% Total 388 52 (13%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 2.6% Education 7.3% Physical Sciences 0.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.8% Political Science 0.0% Transfer 28.8% Basic Skills 10.3% Fine & Applied Arts 0.5% Psychology 1.9% Vocational 59.1% Non-Credit 11.7% Foreign Language 1.2% Sociology/Anthro 0.0% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.7% Remainir:!.[ 51.1% Palomar 1998-99 Enrollment: 42,879 Headcount 16,067 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 10,567 (25%) Career planning 8,513 (20%) Transfer 109,605 99,436 (91 %) 78,803 (72%) AA or AS degree 6,758 (16%) Personal develop. 2,831 (7%) Vocational 800 763 (95%) 656 (82%) Voc degree/cert. 1,792 (4%) Unsure 10,287 (24%) Basic Skills 5,005 4,415 (88%) 2,821 (56%) Basic skills 1,782 (4%) Total 129,032 116,796 (91 %) 91,035 (71 %) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 3.4% English 5,191 1,039 (20%) Business & Mgmt 5.2% Industrial Tech. 6.2% Mathematics 2,656 578 (22%) Computer/Info Science 2.0% Mathematics 8.9% Total 7,847 1,617 (21%) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 6.5% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 3.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.9% Political Science 1.1% Transfer 70.9% Basic Ski lis 6.6% Fine & Applied Alts 9.0% Psychology 3.6% Vocational 24.5% Non-Credit 13.1% Foreign Language 3.4% Sociology/Anthra 2.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.8% Remaining 33.9% 130 ApPENDICES Pasadena City 1998-99 Enrollment: 40,909 Headcount 21,105 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 17,386 (42%) Career planning 5,893 (14%) Transfer 112,140 89,344 (80%) 75,547 (67%) AA or AS degree 2,692 (7%) Personal develop. 3,581 (9%) Vocational 12,119 10,067 (83%) 9,074 (75%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,668 (4%) Unsure 7,369 (18%) Basic Skills 7,906 6,205 (78%) 4,695 (59%) Basic skills 2,602 (6%) Total 146,979 117,145 (80%) 98,357 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 3.8% English 7,028 1,996 (28%) Business & Mgmt 5.2% Industrial Tech. 2.0% Mathematics 2,657 847 (32%) Computer/Info Science 2.6% Mathematics 3.6% Total 9,685 2,843 (29%) Economics 1.2% Physical Education 4.4% Education 1.8% Physical Sciences 3.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.3% Political Science 2.4% Transfer 67.1% Basic Skills 12.3% Fine & Applied Arts 11.6% Psychology 3.0% Vocational 25.3% Non-Credit 3.4% Foreign Language 3.6% Sociology/Anthro 2.8% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.4% Remaining 37.7% Porterville 1998-99 Enrollment: 5,699 Headcount 2,747 FTES . Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,674 (34%) Career planning 802 (16%) Transfer 16,498 13,827 (84%) 10,115 (61%) AA or AS degree 333 (7%) Personal develop. 592 (12%) Vocational 2,845 2,574 (90%) 2,224 (78%) Voc. degree/cert. 312 (6%) Unsure 1,103 (22%) Basic Skills 904 661 (73%) 383 (42%) Basic skills 91 (2%) Total 24,613 20,187 (82%) 14,874 (60%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.7% History 1.9% English 513 189 (37%) Business & Mgmt 3.5% Industrial Tech. 1.1% Mathematics 561 55 (10%) Computer/Info Science 13.2% Mathematics 7.8% Total 1,074 244 (23%) Economics 0.0% PhYSical Education 12.6% Education 2.7% Physical Sciences 1.0% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.3% Pol itical Science 0.0% Transfer 56.4% Basic Skills 0.0% Fine & Applied Arts 5.5% Psychology 1.6% Vocational 32.1% Non-Credit 13.7% Foreign Language 1.1% Sociology/Anthro 1.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 5.9% Remaining 29.4% Redwoods 1998-99 Enrollment: 10,400 Headcount 5,631 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,398 (32%) Career planning 2,156 (21%) Transfer 36,978 34,011 (92%) 27,363 (74%) AA or AS degree 521 (5%) Personal develop. 1,308 (12%) Vocational 1,910 1,807 (95%) 1,584 (83%) Voc. degree/cert. 392 (4%) Unsure 2,429 (23%) Basic Skills 3,551 3,100 (87%) 2,293 (65%) Basic skills 305 (3%) Total 47,649 43,482 (91 %) 34,286 (72%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.0% History 2.2% English 212 35 (17%) Business & Mgmt 4.6% Industrial Tech. 4.8~'O Mathematics 968 246 (25%) Computer/Info Science 10.5% Mathematics 6.7% Total 1,180 281 (24%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 7.4% Education 0.5% Physical Sciences 5.1% EnroUmentby Course Type* English 7.5% Political Science 1.7% Transfer 75.9% Basic Skills 10.3% Fine & Applied Arts 10.1% Psychology 2.8% Vocational 28.7% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.9% Sociology/Anthro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.9% Remaining 25.9% 131 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Reedley 1998-99 Enrollment: 11,513 Headcount 6,372 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,235 (38%) Career planning 1,505 (13%) Transfer 39,066 33,639 (86%) 26,649 (68%) AA or AS degree 662 (6%) Personal develop. 169 (2%) Vocational 1,430 1,295 (91%) 1,163 (81%) Voc. degree/c:ert. 527 (5%) Unsure 3,839 (34%) Basic Skills 2,108 1,753 (83%) 1,192 (57%) Basic skills 246 (2%) Total 49,055 41,938 (85%) 32,604 (66%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.7% History 5.5% English 836 281 (34%) Business & Mgmt 5.5% Industrial Tech. 1.6% Mathematics 946 218 (23%) Computer/Info Science 4.7% Mathematics 11.4% Total 1,782 499 (28%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 6.7% Education 4.7% Physical Sciences 1.1% Enrollment by Course Ty pe* English 14.6% Political Science 3.5% Transfer 78.3% Basic Skills 3.9% Fine & Applied Art, 5.3% Psychology 4.1% Vocational 23.3% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/Anthro 1.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.1% Remaining 24.2% Rio Hondo 1998-99 Enrollment: 36,061 Headcount 10,412 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,197 (28%) Career planning 7,000 (24%) Transfer 57,468 44,515 (77%) 32,523 (57%) AA or AS degree 793 (3%) Personal develop. 900 (3%) Vocational 33,657 31,925 (95%) 30,838 (92%) Voc. degree/c:ert. 1,710 (6%) Unsure 9,048 (31%) Basic Skills 11,599 8,460 (73%) 5,508 (47%) Basic skills 1,320 (5%) Total 108,655 88,595 (82%) 71,498 (66%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement B iological Science~. 2.0% History 2.2% English 4,029 1,378 (34%) Business & Mgmt 3.1% Industrial Tech. 3.5% Mathematics 3,248 829 (26%) Computer/Info Science 2.4% Mathematics 7.9% Total 7,277 2,207 (30%) Economics 0.8% Physical Education 6.5~o Education 1.3% Physical Sciences 1.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.0% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 45.7% Basic Skills 18.9% Fine & Applied Arts 4.5% Psychology 2.1% Vocational 41.4% Non-Credit 1.8% Foreign Language 1.3% Sociology/Anthro 1.5% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.2% Remaining 48.7% Riverside 1998-99 Enrollment: 42,753 Headcount 18,376 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,839 (38%) Career planning 5,859 (14%) Transfer 93,902 87,913 (94%) 66,456 (71 %) AA or AS degree 2,725 (6%) Personal develop. 1,829 (4%) Vocational 19,099 18,616 (97%) 13,624 (71 %) Voc. degree/c:ert. 3,722 (9%) Unsure 11,015 (26%) Basic Skills 5,009 4,738 (95%) 3,042 (61%1 Basic skills 1,096 (3%) Total 129,930 122,402 (94%) 90,628 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.1% History 3.4% English 1,548 342 (22%) Business & Mgmt 5.5% Industrial Tech. 3.2% Mathematics 1,811 330 (18%) Computer/Info Science 10.6% Mathematics 8.8% Total 3,359 672 (20%) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 8.0% Education 2.1% Physical Sciences 2.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.7% Political Science 1.6 'Yo Transfer 68.9% Basic Skills 3.9% Fine & Applied Arts 5.9% Psychology 4.1% Vocational 32.1% Non-Credit 3.6% Foreign Language 3.3% SociologyiAnthro 3.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.1% Remaining 23.0% 132 ApPENDICES Sacramento City 1998-99 Enrollment: 31,388 Headcount 13,327 FTES Student Performance .S tudent· Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 14,481 (42%) Career planning 5,590 (16%) Transfer 82,158 65,923 (80%) 54,778 (67%) AA or AS degree 784 (2%) Personal develop. 1,850 (5%) Vocational 3,832 3,318 (87%) 2,996 (78%) Voe. degree/cert. 2,397 (7%) Unsure 6,757 (19%) Basic Skills 7,433 5,289 (71%) 4,031 (54%) Basic skills 2,802 (8%) Total 107,924 85,831 (80%) 70,520 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.0% History 3.8% English 2,860 863 (30%) Business & Mgmt 5.6% Industrial Tech. 4.3% Mathematics 2,054 453 (22%) Computer/Info Science 5.7% Mathematics 9.5% Total 4,914 1,316 (27%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 7.9% Education 1.7% Physical Sciences 4.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 9.8% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 71.6% Basic Skills 7.4% Fine & Applied Arts 7.2% Psychology 3.8% Vocational 26.4% Non-Credit 3.3% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.4% Remaining 24.3% Saddleback 1998-99 Enrollment: 34,580 Headcount 13,674 FTES Student Performance .. Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,098 (24%) Career planning 8,832 (27%) Transfer 79,248 64,648 (82%) 55,614 (70%) AA or AS degree 270 (1%) Personal develop. 9,823 (30%) Vocational 6,267 5,474 (87%) 4,820 (77%) Voe. degree/cert. 2,650 (8%) Unsure 3,070 (9%) Basic Skills 2,476 1,817 (73%) 1,398 (56%) Basic skills 542 (2%) Total 101,949 82,797 (81 %) 71,251 (70%) Basic SkUls Course EnroUments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.2% History 2.7% English 1,404 292 (21 %) Business & Mgmt 26.6% Industrial Tech. 1.0% Mathematics 1,484 400 (27%) Computer/Info Science 1.5% Mathematics 5.6% Total 2,888 692 (24%) Economics 0.7% Physical Education 10.8% Education 0.6% Physical Sciences 2.6% Enrol.lment by Course Type* English 4.9% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 50.5% Basic Skills 2.8% Fine & Applied Arts 9.2% Psychology 2.7% Vocational 38.0% Non-Credit 34.1% Foreign Language 3.3% Sociology/Anthro 3.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.3% Remaining 19.5% San Bernardino Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,523 Headcount 9,242 FTES ... student Performance Student Coals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,361 (32%) Career planning 4,552 (23%) Transfer 51,932 42,078 (81%) 34,525 (66%) AA or AS degree 1,314 (7%) Personal develop. 2,727 (14%) Vocational 4,741 4,350 (92%) 4,014 (85%) Voc. degree/cert. 768 (4%) Unsure 3,467 (18%) Basic Skills 4,255 3,035 (71%) 2,208 (52%) Basic skills 546 (3%) Total 66,533 53,464 (80%) 43,501 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollrnents, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.7% History 4.1% English 1,776 416 (23%) Business & Mgmt 7.7% Industrial Tech. 7.0% Mathematics 796 95 (12%) Computer/Info Science 3.2% Mathematics 6.2% Total 2,572 511 (20%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 7.4% Education 0.9% Physical Sciences 1.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 8.2% Political Science 1.5% Transfer 76.6% Basic Skills 7.1% Fine & Applied Arts 5.1% Psychology 3.6% Vocational 37.5% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.2% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.8% Remaining 29.7% 133 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION San Diego City 1998-99 Enrollment: 23,222 Headcount 17,653 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 11 ,668 (51 %) Career planning 3,611 (16%) Transfer 56,408 42,129 (75%) 36,207 (64%) AA or AS degree 2,250 (10%) Personal develop. 808 (4%) Vocational 7,525 6,144 (82%) 5,435 (72%) Voc. degree/cert. 6780%) Unsure 3,017 (13%) Basic Skills 4,650 3,222 (69%) 2,367 (51%) Basic skills 627 (3%) Total 79,786 60,045 (75%) 49,937 (63%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.1% History 2.0% English 1,539 491 (32%) Business & Mgmt 8.0% Industrial Tech. 6.5% Mathematics 2,614 437 (17%) Computer/Info Science 3.3% Mathematics 10.4% Total 4,153 928 (22%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 6.6% Education 2.3% Physical Sciences 4.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.8% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 67.7% Basic Ski lis 5.5% Fine & Applied Arts 5.3% Psychology 2.9% Vocational 27.7% Non-Credit 3.5% Foreign Language 4.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.9% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.9% Remaining 29.9% San Diego Mesa 1998-99 Enrollment: 35,240 Headcount 18,771 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 20,266 (58%) Career planning 4,559 (l3%) Transfer 106,408 79,316 (75%) 70,551 (66%) AA or AS degree 2,903 (8%) Personal develop. 1,474 (4%) Vocational 3,882 3,351 (86%) 3,071 (79%) Voc. degreelcert. 9620%) Unsure 4,197 (12%) Basic Skills 3,039 2,214 (73%) 1,703 (56%) Basic skills 461 (1%) Total 125,567 93,615 (75%) 82,106 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.7% History 3.6% English 1,296 434 03%) Business & Mgmt 7.0% Industrial Tech. 2.2% Mathematics 2,166 560 (26%) Computer/Info Science 3.5% Mathematics 10.1% Total 3,462 994 (29%) Economics 1.8% Physical Education 8.0% Education 2.2% Physical Sciences 5.9% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.1% Political Science 2.2% Transfer 81.7% Basic Skills 2.9% Fine & Applied Arts 6.3% Psychology 3.9% Vocational 20.0% Non-Credit 2.4% Foreign Language 8.2% Sociology/Anthro 3.2% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 20.7% San Diego Miramar 1998-99 Enrollment: 15,264 Headcount 5,354 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,634 (41 %) Career planning 4,291 (26%) Transfer 27,422 22,534 (82%) 20,452 (75%) AA or AS degree 1,283 (8%) Personal develop, 395 (2%) Vocational 5,485 5,233 (95%) 5,033 (92%) Voc. degreeicert. 587 (4%1 Unsure 2,813 (17%) Basic Skills 1,260 963 (76%) 776 (62%) Basic ski lis 239 (1%) Total 36,727 30,551 (83%) 27,656 (75%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, FaJl1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.8% History 3.1% English 718 205 (29%) Business & Mgmt 5.3% Industrial Tech. 7.8% Mathematics 941 233 (25%) Computer/Info Science 3.5% Mathematics 7.7% Total 1,659 438 (26%) Economics 1.5% Physical Education 3.2% Education 2.2% Physical Sciences 2.6% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 5.1% Political Science 2.5~o Transfer 72.2% Basic Skills 3.9% Fine & Applied Arts 2.9% Psychology 2.3% Vocational 40.9% Non-Credit 5.3% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 2.7% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.6% RemainirlK 40.9% 134 ApPENDICES San Francisco City 1998-99 Enrollment: 43,405 Headcount 35,651 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 11,094 (26%) Career planning 6,694 (16%) Transfer 140,380 116,457 (83%) 97,391 (69%) AA or AS degree 1,659 (4%) Personal develop. 1,909 (4%) Vocational 2,388 2,053 (86%) 1,695 (71%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,525 (4%) Unsure 18,896 (44%) Basic Skills 6,351 5,229 (82%) 3,513 (55%) Basic skills 1,009 (2%) Total 161,189 133,446 (83%) 110,061 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enroltments,·FaJl1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.3% History 2.9% English 5,208 2,218 (43%) Business & Mgmt 4.1% Industrial Tech. 1.6% Mathematics 3,321 539 (16%) Computer/Info Science 8.0% Mathematics 6.4% Total 8,529 2,757 (32%) Economics 1.8% Physical Education 8.0% Education 1.7% Physical Sciences 4.5% Enrollment by Course Type* English 6.6% Political Science 1.9% Transfer 79.5% Basic Skills 10.6% Fine & Applied Arts 8.2% Psychology 2.5% Vocational 26.8% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 5.5% Sociology/Anthro 1.4% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.1% Remaining 27.6% San Joaquin Delta 1998-99 Enrollment: 26,468 Headcount 12,880 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,397 (26%) Career planning 6,821 (24%) Transfer 83,714 65,445 (78%) 53,732 (64%) AA or AS degree 1,378 (5%) Personal develop. 1,206 (4%) Vocational 2,904 2,464 (85%) 2,012 (69%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,776 (6%) Unsure 7,249 (26%) Basic Skills 6,666 4,826 (72%) 3,567 (54%) Basic skills 2,331 (8%) Total 104,721 80,649 (77%) 65,305 (62%) Basic Skills .. Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.2% History 3.6% English 2,995 829 (28%) Business & Mgmt 4.2% Industrial Tech. 3.7% Mathematics 1,503 205 (14%) Computer/Info Science 5.1% Mathematics 6.9% Total 4,498 1,034 (23%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 5.7% Education 0.7% Physical Sciences 2.2% Enrollment by Course Type'" English 8.8% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 67.4% Basic Skills 17.7% Fine & Applied Arts 6.2% Psychology 2.7% Vocational 24.1% Non-Credit 2.5% Foreign Language 2.1% Sociology/Anthro 2.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.9% Remaining 39.4% San Jose City 1998-99 Enrollment: 17,239 Headcount 6,915 FTES . StudentPeriormance .. Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,301 (14%) Career planning 674 (4%) Transfer 35,933 29,732 (83%) 25,985 (72%) AA or AS degree 181 (1%) Personal develop. 102 (1%) Vocational 1,710 1,589 (93%) 1,456 (85%) Voc. degree/cert. 6,195 (38%) Unsure 3,128(19%) Basic Skills 7,411 6,009 (81%) 4,158 (56%) Basic skills 3,694 (23%) Total 51,006 41,881 (82%) 35,033 (69%) aasic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.6% History 2.8% English 3,287 1,203 (37%) Business & Mgmt 5.8% Industrial Tech. 7.6% Mathematics 1,279 292 (23%) Computer/Info Science 7.1% Mathematics 8.5% Total 4,566 1,495 (33%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 8.3% Education 1.2% Physical Sciences 2.4% Enrollment by Course Type'" English 9.0% Political Science 0.4% Transfer 68.3% Basic Skills 15.1% Fine & Applied Arts 4.7% Psychology 2.2% Vocational 28.6% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.8% Sociology/Anthro 0.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 33.4% 135 -----------------_ .. LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION San Mateo 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,500 Headcount 8,802 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,241 (39%) Career planning 3,062 (16%) Transfer 56,871 45,607 (80%) 38,849 (68%) M or AS degree 1,869 (10%) Personal develop. 1,916 (10%) Vocational 4,430 4,094 (92%) 3,825 (86%) Voc. degree/cert. 1,216 (6%) Unsure 3,150 (17%) Basic Skills 3,656 2,892 (79%) 2,194 (60%) Basic ski lis 298 (2%) Total 71,016 57,034 (80%) 48,300 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.2% History 2.8% English 2,342 919 (39%) Business & Mgmt 12.0% Industrial Tech. 4.3% Mathematics 726 134 (18%) Computer/Info Science 6.3% Mathematics 8.7% Total 3,068 1,053 (34%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 7.1% Education 1.8% Physical Sciences 3.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 11.4% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 77.8% Basic Skills 5.9% Fine & Applied Arts 5.8% Psychology 2.8% Vocational 32.8% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 3.6% Sociology/Anthro 0.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 20.5% Santa Ana 1998-99 Enrollment: 39,993 Headcount 20,5-18 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 8,488 (20%) Career planning 10,847 (25%) Transfer 71,071 56,708 (80%) 47,593 (67%) M or AS degree 2,525 (6%) Personal develop. 4,625(11%) Vocational 19,759 19,048 (96%) 1 7,708 (90%) Voc. degreeicert. 2,411 (6%) Unsure 13,107 (31%) Basic Skills 9,279 7,436 (80%) 5,679 (61%) Basic skills 644 (2%) Total 121,296 101,330 (84%) 85,269 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 1.2% English 5,932 2,403 (41 %) Business & Mgmt 14.6% Industrial Tech. 5.2% Mathematics 4,364 1,468 (34%) Computer/Info Science 4.1% Mathematics 4.8% Total 10,296 3,871 (38%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 7.5% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 1.8% Enrollment by Course Type· English 4.1% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 57.2% Basic Skills 7.7% Fine & Applied Arts 6.5% Psychology 1.6% Vocational 43.9% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 1.8% Sociology/A nth ro 1.1% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.2% Remaining 37.5% Santa Barbara City 1998-99 Enrollment: 18,335 Headcount 13,135 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,505 (41%) Career planning 2,618 (14%) Transfer 73,946 63,659 (86%) 52,709 (71 %) M or AS degree 1,650 (9%) Personal develop. 2,045 (11%) Vocational 3,571 3,159 (88%) 2,828 (79%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,351 (7%) Unsure 1,235 (7%) Basic Skills 3,693 3,026 (82%) 2,153 (58%) Basic skills 1,733 (10%) Total 85,298 73,273 (86%) 59,898 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.8% History 3.2% English 1,600 766 (48%) Business & Mgmt 5.8% Industrial Tech. 3.7% Mathematics 1,893 534 (28%) Computer/Info Science 4.2% Mathematics 5.8% Total 3,493 86 (20%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 4.9% Education 1.0% Physical Sciences 6.0% Enrollment by Course Type* English 11.2% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 85.9% Basic Skills 5.4% Fine & Applied Arts 8.8% Psychology 2.5% Vocational 25.4% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.6% Sociology/Anthro 3.8% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 4.9% Remaining 27.4% 136 ApPENDICES Santa Monica City 1998-99 Enrollment: 46,002 Headcount 22,378 FTES StudenfPerformance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 15,017 (37%) Career planning 5,875 (14%) Transfer 142,509 113,991 (80%) 95,235 (67%) AA or AS degree 538 (1%) Personal develop. 8,206 (20%) Vocational 6,450 5,018 (78%) 4,150 (64%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,332 (3%) Unsure 8,485 (21%) Basic Skills 9,336 7,195 (77%) 5,313 (57%) Basic skills 1,211 (3%) Total 167,267 132,271 (79%) 109,258 (65%) .. BasicSkilJs Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.6% History 4.5% English 2,808 1,281 (46%) Business & Mgmt 7.4% Industrial Tech. 0.8% Mathematics 4,458 1,044 (23%) Computer/Info Science 3.4% Mathematics 9.3% Total 7,266 2,325 (32%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 5.2% Education 0.4% Physical Sciences 3.3% Enrollment by Course Type* English 10.9% Political Science 2.2% Transfer 79.4% Basic Skills 6.1% Fine & Applied Arts 16.5% Psychology 4.7% Vocational 20.5% Non-Credit 6.0% Foreign Language 3.6% Sociology/Anthro 3.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.5% Remaining 21.1% Santa Rosa 1998-99 Enrollment: 50,151 Headcount 18,607 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 11,834 (24%) Career planning 11,719 (24%) Transfer 114,336 96,043 (84%) 82,783 (72%) AA or AS degree 1,398 (3%) Personal develop. 11,351 (23%) Vocational 14,509 12,906 (89%) 11,278 (78%) Voc. degreeicert. 4,044 (8%) Unsure 6,778 (14%) Basic Skills 7,787 6,085 (78%) 4,853 (62%) Basic skills 2,581 (5%) Total 155,270 128,766 (83%) 110,258 (71%) Basic .Skills .. . Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.0% History 1.6% English 6,422 2,061 (32%) Business & Mgmt 10.8% Industrial Tech. 3.8% Mathematics 1,793 519 (29%) Computer/Info Science 5.7% Mathematics 4.9% Total 8,215 2,580 (31%) Economics 0.5% Physical Education 9.6% Education 3.6% Physical Sciences 2.8% Enrollment by Course Type* English 5.3% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 63.6% Basic Skills 7.9% Fine & Applied Arts 9.3% Psychology 2.0% Vocational 32.2% Non-Credit 13.2% Foreign Language 2.7% Sociology/Anthro 2.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.7% Remaining 30.4% Santiago Canyon 1998-99 Enrollment: 16,196 Headcount 6,085 FTES Student performance Stu(lentGoals . Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,916 (21%) Career planning 3,392 (24%) Transfer 25,599 20,460 (80%) 16,884 (66%) AA or AS degree 712 (5%) Personal develop. 1,286 (9%) Vocational 10,481 10,285 (98%) 8,454 (81%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,282 (9%) Unsure 4,349 (31 %) Basic Skills 1,303 1,048 (80%) 810 (62%) Basic skills 159 (1%) Total 40,957 34,611 (85%) 28,281 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments,fafl1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.4% History 2.7% English Not available Business & Mgmt 8.5% Industrial Tech. 22.5% Mathematics Not available Computer/Info Science 3.4% Mathematics 6.0% Total Not available Economics 1.0% Physical Education 4.1% Education 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.3% Enrollment by Course Type~ English 5.4% Political Science 2.7% Transfer 65.0% Basic Skills 3.6% Fine & Applied Arts 6.7% Psychology 2.8% Vocational 42.4% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/Anthro 2.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.0% Remaining 23.8% 137 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Sequoias 1998-99 Enrollment: 14,635 Headcount 8,061 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,933 (49%) Career planning 1,825 (13%) Transfer 49,736 43,332 (87%) 34,813 (70%) AA or AS degree 2,358 (17%) Personal develop. 363 (3%) Vocational 1,926 1,713 (89%) 1,486 (77%) Voc.degree/cert. 1,056 (8%) Unsure 1,323 (9%) Basic Skills 4,242 3,678 (87%) 2,153 (51%) Basic skills 176 (1%) Total 66,347 57,822 (87%) 45,193 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.0% History 3.0% English 1,205 371 (31%) Business & Mgmt 4.0% Industrial Tech. 2.4% Mathematics 1,888 430 (23%) Computer/Info Science 4.7% Mathematics 10.3% Total 3,093 801 (26%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 5.2% I------~-------------_I 2.4% Physical Sciences 1.5% Education Enrollment by Course Type* English 11.5% Political Science 1.8% Transfer 59.9% Basic Skills 5.6% Fine & Applied Arts 6.5% Psychology 2.9% Vocational 28.8% Non-Credit 17.3% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/A nth ro 0.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.4% Remaining 38.0% Shasta 1998-99 Enrollment: 18,006 Headcount 7,342 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 3,651 (22%) Career planning 2,040 (12%) Transfer 43,938 38,394 (87%) 32,674 (74%) AA or AS degree 253 (2%) Personal develop. 2,906 (17%) Vocational 5,670 5,062 (89%) 4,245 (75%1 Voc. degreelcert. 1,547 (9%) Unsure 5,884 (35%) Basic Skills 2,587 2,289 (88%) 1,715 (66%1 Basic skills 494 (3%) Total 61,449 54,184 (88%) 46,024 (75%1 Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 199B Program Enrolled Advancement 5.4% History 3.8% English 1,150 259 (23%) 10.1% Industrial Tech. 4.9% Mathematics 1,312 277 (21%) 3.2% Mathematics 6.5% Total 2,462 536 (22%) 1.1% Physical Education 9.4% 2.2% Physical Sciences 3.4% Enrollment by Course Type* 6.4% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 73. 9% Basic Skills 4.9% 6.6% Psychology 3.3% Vocational 34.5% Non-Credit 5.0% 1.8% Sociology/Anthro 2.3% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. 2.3% Remaining 25.3% Sierra 1998-99 Enrollment: 27,262 Headcount 11,240 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 7,290 (29%) Career planning 4,231 (17%) Transfer 85,806 69,448 (81 %) 59,047 (69%) AA or AS degree 3,771 (15%) Personal develop. 2,601 (11%) Vocational 4,005 3,438 (86%) 3,211 (80%) Voc. degreelcert. 833 (3%) Unsure 5,936 (24%) Basic Skills 1,706 1,253 (73%) 963 (56%) Basic skills 64(0%) Total 101,802 81,943 (80%) 69,384 (68%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.5% History 5.4% English 574 170 (30%) Business & Mgmt 5.3% Industrial Tech. 3.5% Mathematics 947 265 (28%) Computer/Info Science 8.2% Mathematics 7.4% Total 1,521 435 (29%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 7.9% Education 0.8% Physical Sciences 4.5% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e*- -----~ English 7.9% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 82.2% Basic Skills 1.9% Fine & Applied Arts 8.3% Psychology 4.2% Vocational 31.2% Non-Credit Foreign Language 1.8% Sociology/Anthro 2.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.6% Remaining 25.5% 138 ApPENDICES Siskiyous 1998-99 Enrollment: 7,000 Headcount 2,293 FTES <loa'S Student Perlormance· Student Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,333 (19%) Career planning 743 (11%) Transfer 14,571 13,061 (90%) 11,548 (79%) AA or AS degree 218 (3%) Personal develop. 2,615 (37%) Vocational 1,172 1,147 (98%) 996 (85%) Voc. degree/cert. 242 (3%) Unsure 1,682 (24%) Basic Skills 2,506 2,292 (91 %) 1,652 (66%) Basic skills 163 (2%) Total 19,707 17,673 (90%) 15,009 (76%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 2.6% English 254 79 (31%) Business & Mgmt 7.8% Industrial Tech. 1.6% Mathematics 498 121 (24%) Computer/Info Science 5.5% Mathematics 1.7% Total 752 200 (27%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 19.6% Education 1.0% Physical Sciences 2.0% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- -Ty-p-e-* -----~ English 5.4% Political Science 0.7% Transfer 66.1% Basic Skills 17.8% Fine & Applied Arts 9.7% Psychology 2.8% Vocational 25.0% Non-Credit 4.4% Foreign Language 1.6% Sociology/Anthro 1.5% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.0% Remaining 31.4% Skyline 1998-99 Enrollment: 15,747 Headcount 6,337 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,735 (39%) Career planning 2,300 (16%) Transfer 40,903 32,626 (80%) 27,811 (68%) AA or AS degree 1,655 (11 %) Personal develop. 1,398 (9%) Vocational 1,617 1,440 (89%) 1,302 (81%) Voc. degreelcert. 795 (5%) Unsure 2,613 (18%) Basic Skills 2,783 2,107 (76%) 1,660 (60%) Basic skills 270 (2%) Total 49,834 39,323 (79%) 33,153 (67%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 3.6% History 4.3% English 1,795 620 (35%) Business & Mgmt 13.1% Industrial Tech. 4.6% Mathematics 765 185 (24%) Computer/Info Science 3.8% Mathematics 11.2% Total 2,560 805 (31%) Economics 1.0% Physical Education 7.6% Education 2.9% PhYSical Sciences 3.4% ~------E-nr-o-llm--en-t.-b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e-* -----~ English 10.6% Political Science 1.0% Transfer 80.3% Basic Skills 6.4% Fine & Applied Arts 7.1% Psychology 3.7% Vocational 26.9% Non-Credit 0.0% Foreign Language 2.4% Sociology/Anthro 0.6% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.2% Remaining 17.9% Solano 1998-99 Enrollment: 16,994 Headcount 7,329 FTES Student Performance Student. Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 6,963 (42%) Career planning 3,371 (20%) Transfer 45,740 39,545 (86%) 32,910 (72%) AA or AS degree 807 (5%) Personal develop. 1,373 (8%) Vocational 3,139 2,908 (93%) 2,584 (82%) Voc. degreelcert. 1,025 (6%) Unsure 2,434 (15%) Basic Skills 3,871 3,092 (80%) 2,022 (52%) Basic skills 729 (4%) Total 57,251 49,237 (86%) 40,334 (70%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fait 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.3% History 3.4% English 2,207 723 (33%) Business & Mgmt 7.1% Industrial Tech. 3.9% Mathematics 1,620 292 (18%) Computer/Info Science 9.6% Mathematics 9.2% Total 3,827 1,015 (27%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 7.8% Education 0.2% Physical Sciences 3.0% ~------E-n-ro-llm--en-t -b-y -C-ou-r-se- T-y-p-e-* -----~ English 9.2% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 75.4% Basic Skills 8.3% Fine & Applied Arts 7.0% Psychology 3.3% Vocational 34.0% Non-Credit 6.0% Foreign Language 2.5% Sociology/Anthro 1.6% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 26.0% 139 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Southwestern 1998-99 Enrollment: 23,991 Headcount 12,962 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 10,367 (45'10) Career planning 3,867 (17'10) Transfer 85,970 72,586 (84%) 61,437 (71%) AA or AS degree 1,625 (7%) Personal develop. 944 (4%) Vocational 2,420 2,239 (93'10) 1,977 (82%) VoC. degreelcert. 848 (4%) Unsure 4,417 (19'10) Basic Skills 7,825 6,264 (80%) 4,836 (62%) Basic skills 732 (3%) Total 103,105 86,172 (84%) 71,985 (70'10) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 4.3'10 History 4.3'10 English 2,838 1,165 (41%) Business & Mgmt 6.9'10 Industrial Tech. 2.1 '10 Mathematics 2,649 690 (26%) Computer/Info Science 4.5'10 Mathematics 2.7'10 Total 5,487 1,855 (34%) Economics 1.4% Physical Education 6.0% Education 2.8'10 Physical Sciences 3.0'10 Enrollment by Course Ty pe* English 8.6% Political Science 1.3% Transfer 83.0% Basic Skills 8.7% Fine & Applied Arts 7.9% Psychology 3.5% Vocational 24.6% Non-Credit 0.1% Foreign Language 3.0% Sociology/Anthro 2.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 33.3% Taft 1998-99 Enrollment: 7,891 Headcount 1,037 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 638 (12%) Career planning 429 (8%) Transfer 5,150 4,676 (91%) 3,974 (77%) AA or AS degree 109 (2%) Personal develop. 3,673 (70'10) Vocational 8,405 8,360 (99%) 8,264 (98%) Voc. degreelcert. 274 (5'10) Unsure 86 (2%) Basic Skills 579 477 (82%) 314 (54%) Basic skills 45 (1%) Total 14,715 14,008 (95%) 12,861 (87%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 2.0% English 147 43 (29%) Business & Mgmt 2.5% Industrial Tech. 44.2% Mathematics 234 33 (14'10) Computer/Info Science 2.8% Mathematics 4.9% Total 381 76 (20%) Economics 0.0% Physical Education 2.5% Education 1.7% Physical Sciences 0.6% Enrollment by Course Type'" English 5.1% Political Science 0.0% Transfer 38.4% Basic Skills 4.1% Fine & Applied Arts 1.0% Psychology 0.0% Vocational 62.0% Non-Credit 3.0% Foreign Language 1.3% Sociology/Anthro 0.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 4.4% Remaining 24.7% Ventura 1998-99 Enrollment: 19,683 Headcount 8,624 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 5,214 (27%) Career planning 2,047 (11 'Yo) Transfer 54,712 44,685 (82%) 38,269 (70%) AA or AS degree 532 (3%) Personal develop. 725 (4%) Vocational 4,248 3,749 (88%) 3,141 (74%) VoC. degree/cert. 1,576 (8%) Unsure 7,672 (40%) Basic Skills 3,785 3,123 (83%) 2,503 (66%) Basic skills 1,257 (7%) Total 68,019 55,677 (82%) 47,154 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.7'10 History 4.4'10 English 1,566 276 (18%) Business & Mgmt 8.6% Industrial Tech. 4.0'10 Mathematics 1,380 267 (19%) Computer/Info Science 2.1 '10 Mathematics 9.4'10 Total 2,946 543 (18%) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 10.2% Education 6.8% Physical Sciences 6.2% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.2% Political Science 2.1% Transfer 79.8% Basic Skills 5.8% Fine & Applied Arts 9.6% Psychology 4.1% Vocational 21.7% Non-Credit Foreign Language 2.8% Sociology/Anthro 3.4% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 1.5% Remaining 13.7'10 140 ApPENDICES Victor Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 1.5,030 Headcount 6,783 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,898 (21 %) Career planning 2,383 (17%) Transfer 16,787 13 ,055 (78%) 10,465 (62%) AA or AS degree 306 (2%) Personal develop. 167 (1%) Vocational 9,775 7,961 (81%) 6,913 (71 %) Voc. degree/cert. 1,920 (14%) Unsure 5,386 (39%) Basic Skills 3,257 2,610 (80%) 1,670 (51 %) Basic skills 802 (6%) Total 54,734 42,128 (77%) 33,918 (62%) Basic Skills Course Enrortments, Fall .1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.2% History 3.5% English 2,931 619 (21%) Business & Mgmt 11.3% Industrial Tech. 4.3% Mathematics 2,506 734 (29%) Computer/Info Science 4.0% Mathematics 8.5% Total 5,437 1,353 (25%) Economics 0.9% Physical Education 8.4% 1------.. --------------1 0.0% Physical Sciences 2.1% Education Enrollment by Course Type* English 11.3% Political Science 1.6% Transfer 26.7% Basic Skills 16.5% Fine & Applied Arts 4.5% Psychology 3.1% Vocational 27.5% Non-Credit 4.8% Foreign Language 1.7% Sociology/Anthro 0.0% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 3.9% Remainirlll.. 28.8% Vista 1998-99 Enrollment: 6,995 Headcount 1,931 FTES .' Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 1,770 (34%) Career planning 974 (19%) Transfer 11,343 9,008 (79%) 7,600 (67%) AA or AS degree 170 (3%) Personal develop. 1,293 (25%) Vocational 3,370 2,768 (82%) 2,209 (66%) Voe. de gree/c ert. 226 (4%) Unsure 467 (9%) Basic Skills 884 612 (69%) 511 (58%) Basic skills 248 (5%) Total 17,124 13,535 (79%) 11,188 (65%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.4% History 5.0% English 431 103 (24%) Business & Mgmt 6.9% Industrial Tech. 0.0% Mathematics 480 71 (15%) Computer/Info Science 13.5% Mathematics 5.7% Total 911 174 (19%) Economics 0.6% Physical Education 1.4% Education 7.4% Physical Sciences 1.7% Enrollment by Course Type· English 11.4% Political Science 2.0% Transfer 66.7% Basic Skills 5.5% Fine & Applied Arts 12.5% Psychology 1.7% Vocational 33.2% Non-Credit 1.4% Foreign Language 4.9% Sociology/Anthro 3.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.3% Remaining 19.6% West Hills 1998-99 Enrollment: 7,329 Headcount 3,062 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 2,446 (36%) Career planning 911 (13%) Transfer 17,434 14,357 (82%) 11,710 (67%) AA or AS degree 419 (6%) Personal develop. 697 (10%) Vocational 2,159 1,709 (79%) 1,400 (65%) Voe. degree/cert. 207 (3%) Unsure 1,630 (24%) Basic Skills 1,945 1,679 (86%) 1,328 (68%) Basic ski lis 473 (7%) Total 24,944 20,450 (82%) 16,570 (66%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.1% History 3.7% English 640 97 (15%) Business & Mgmt 8.4% Industrial Tech. 2.8% Mathematics 469 132 (28%) Computer/Info Science 5.1% Mathematics 8.0% Total 1,109 229 (21%) Economics 0.2% Physical Education 13.3% Education 4.4% Physical Sciences 0.9% P------ E - nr - o - tlm ~- en - t -b-y - C - ou - r - se - T - y - p - e - * -----~ English 6.8% Political Science 1.4% Transfer 68.1% Basic Skills 9.4% Fine & Applied Arts 3.3% Psychology 2.4% Vocational 28.5% Non-Credit 0.7% Foreign Language 2.1% Sociology/Anthro 1.1% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.6% Remaining 33.3% 141 ------------------------- LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION West Valley 1998-99 Enrollment: 23,798 Headwunt 9,034 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 10,994 (46%) Career planning 1,786 (8%) Transfer 59,278 49,574 (84%) 41,100 (69%) AA or AS degree 835 (4%) Personal develop. 4,281 (18%) Vocational 5,518 4,988 (90%) 4,083 (74%) Voc. degreeicert. 855 (4%) Unsure 4,597 (19%) Basic Skills 3,571 2,942 (82%) 2,137 (60%) Basic ski lis 464 (2%) Total 75,122 63,333 (84%) 52,131 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 1.6% History 3.1% English 2,301 970 (42%) Business & Mgmt 10.0% Industrial Tech. 0.1% Mathematics 548 115 (21%) Computer/Info Science 2.2% Mathematics 6.4% Total 2,849 1,085 (38%) Economics 1.3% Physical Education 8.6% Education 12.2% Physical Sciences 2.7% Enrollment by Course Ty pe* English 8.8% Political Science 1.2% Transfer 62.0% Basic Ski lis 4.0% Fine & Applied Arts 14.2% Psychology 1.9% Vocational 20.1% Non-Credit 23.3% Foreign Language 3.2% Sociology/A nth ro 2.2% 'Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 0.6% Remaining 19.7% Yuba 1998-99 Enrollment: 17,827 Headcount 7,360 FTES Student Performance Student Goals Course Type Enrolled Completed Successful Transfer 4,893 (28%) Career planning 3,657 (21 %) Transfer 45,539 38,164 (84%) 32,480 (71 %) AA or AS degree 831 (5%) Personal develop. 917 (5%) Vocational 5,478 4,693 (86%) 4,088 (75%) Voc. degreeicert. 1,652 (9%) Unsure 4,529 (26%) Basic Skills 5,859 4,600 (79%) 3,161 (54%) Basic ski lis 1,007 (6%) Total 62,818 52,066 (83%) 43,313 (69%) Basic Skills Course Enrollments, Fall 1998 Program Enrolled Advancement Biological Sciences 2.9% History 1.7% English 2,303 519 (23%) Business & Mgmt 22.2% Industrial Tech. 2.7% Mathematics 1,597 209 (13%) Computer/Info Science 1.4% Mathematics 7.5% Total 3,900 728 (19%) Economics 1.1% Physical Education 7.0% Education 1.9% Physical Sciences 1.7% Enrollment by Course Type* English 7.3% Political Science 0.0% Transfer 66.2% Basic Skills 10.9% Fine & Applied Arts 4.1% Psychology 6.5% Vocational 40.7% Non-Credit 4.7% Foreign Language 1.8% Sociology/Anthro 1.8% • Some courses are counted both as vocational and transfer. Health 2.5% Remaining 25.8% 142 ApPENDICES Methodology The data presented in this appendix come from reports issued by the California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office: The Effectiveness of California Community Colleges on Selected Performance Measures (1999) and Partnership for Excellence Fact Book. Student Performance The data are course enrollments. Course types of exclusive. Transfer reflects all transferable courses. Vocational reflects all vocational courses excluding those that are transferable. Basic skills reflect pre-collegiate level courses Enrolled: Represents the number of course enrollments in which the student received a letter grade of A, B, C, CR, D, NC, F, I, W or MW as the official record at the completion of the course. Excluded are noncredit course enrollments with a reported grade of RD, UD, UG and XX. Completed: Course completion refers to the course enrollment receiving an end-of-term official letter grade of A, B, C, D, CR, NC, F or lout of the total course enrollment attempting the course. Attempted enrollment includes the sum of students receiving an official end-of-term letter grade A, B, C, CR, D, NC, F, I, W or MW. Excluded are noncredit course enrollments and those with a reported grade of RD, UD, UG and XX. Successful: Successful course completion refers to the sum of course enrollments receiving an official end-of-term letter grade of A, B, Cor CR Basic Skills Basic skills data are reported for each college as part of the Partnership for Excellence. Data are from a three year period (1995/96 - 1997/98). Basic skills courses are those with a Course Basic Skills Status (CB08) or UP" or "B" as defined in the Chancellor's Office Management Information System Data Element Dictionary. English courses are those that have a Course Program Code (CB03) of: 1501.**, 1503.00, 1504.**, 1507.**,4930.21,4930.70,4930.71. Mathematics courses are those that have a Course Program Code (CB03) of 17**.**, 4930.40, 4930.41,4930.42. Enrolled: Refers to student with a Student Headcount Status (STD7) of "A", "B", "C" or "F" in at least one term during the 1995/96 academic year. Students are associated with the college where they were enrolled during the 1995/96 year. Advancement: To be counted as "Advancement" a student must have enrolled in a basic skills course, then in a subsequent term, they must enroll in a course with a course program code in the same group but which is at a higher level and successfully complete the class. Enrollment by Course Type Measures reflect course enrollments as percent of all enrollments. Course type designation is based on TOP codes. Student Goals Information on student goals is collected through college matriculation services or on student applications. The information is used to determine the match of student goals with the instructional services provided. 143 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION Goal Categories: The Chancellor's Office reports 14 categories of student goals. They have been grouped into the following categories for reporting purposes. Transfer: obtain AA and transfer, transfer without AA AA or AS degree: obtain AA without transfer Voc. degree/cert.: obtain vocational education degree without transfer, earn vocational certificate without transfer Basic skills: improve basic skills Career Planning: formulate career interest, prepare for new career, advance in current career, maintain license or certificate Personal develop.: educational development, complete credits for high school diploma Unsure: undecided, unreported Course Enrollments Community college courses are identified with a numeric coding system referred to as a Taxonomy of Programs (TOP) code. TOP codes are six digit identifiers that begin with a two digit root that is used to classify courses into disciplines. The Chancellor's Office maintains the Taxonomy of Programs. The following TOP codes were used in this Appendix. Biological Sciences: 0400.00 - 0499.00 History: 2205.00 Business & Mgmt: 0500.00 - 0599.00 Industrial Technology: 0924.00 - 0999.00 Computer/Info Science: 0701.00 - 0799.00 Mathematics: 1700.00, 1701.00, 1701.10, Economics: 2204.00 1701.70,1799.00 Education: 0800.00 - 0809.00,0837.00- Physical Education: 0835.00, 0835.10, 0899.00 0835.30, 0835.50. English: 1501.00, 1503.00, 1504.00, Physical Sciences: 1900.00 - 1999.00 1506.00, 1507.00. Political Science: 2207.00 Fine & Applied Arts: 1000.00 - 1099.00 Psychology: 2000.00, 2001.00, 2099.00 Foreign Language: 1100.00 - 1199.00 Sociology / Anthro: 2202.00, 2208.00 Health: 1200.00 - 1299.00 Remaining: All other course enrollments. These disciplines and the TOP codes they represent were selected for presentation based on the statewide distribution of course offerings and the relevance of the discipline to general academic preparation. Disciplines which are not reported but are available from the Chancellor's Office, include: agriculture and natural resources, architecture and environmental design, communications, consumer education and home economics, law, humanities (other than English, which includes philosophy and religion only), library science, military studies, public affairs and services, social sciences (other than those listed above), commercial services, and interdisciplinary studies. 144 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CiTED Notes & Additional Works Cited 145 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 146 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CITED Notes 1. Susan Gamage. Community Relations Manager. NEC Electronics Inc. Apri122, 1999. Testimony to the Commission. 2. Susan Gamage. (See endnote #1) 3. California Employment Development Department. 1999. "California - Occupations with Greatest Growth." (http://www.calmis.cahwnet.gov/FILE/OCCPROJ/cal$F&G.htm). 4. Based on data provided by the California Community College Chancellor's Office, MIS Unit. Data is presented in Appendix D. 5. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 1996. What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. New York: National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. Page 3. 6. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. The Effectiveness of California Community Colleges on Selected Performance Measures. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. Measure 2.13, page 27. Calculation based on 4,026,184 fall 1997 course enrollments extrapolated through 2005 with a 4.2 percent growth rate. 7. Based on current headc ount enrollment and California's adult popUlation. 8. See Appendix D for listing of student goals. 9. Figure based on annual headcount of 2.2 million students with 65,756 students transferring. The Chancellor's Office reports that 55,756 students transferred to UC or CSU in 1997 and estimates that 10,000 students transferred to private colleges and universities. 10. The Chancellor's Office reports fall enrollments only in most publications. Annual enrollment figures reflect non-duplicated headcount for the full academic year. Total enrollment in the fall of 1997 was 1.4 million. Total unduplicated headc ount enrollment for the academic year 1997 was 2.2 million. 11. Donahoe Higher Education Act. Education Code, section 66010.4 12. Callan, Patrick. "The American Academic Profession." 1997. Daedalus 126(4):95-112. 13. California Community College Trustees. 1988. Community College Governance: An Effective Bilateral System for a Diverse System. Sacramento, CA: Community College League of California. Page 4. 14. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote 6). Measures 1.13,1.14,1.11. 15. Johnson, Hans P. 1999. "How Many Californians: A Review of Population Projections for the State." California Counts: Population Trends and Profiles. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. 16. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #6) Table 5, Appendix page 2. 17. California Community College Chancellor's Office. Data provided to the Commission in response to the question, "What is the proportion and number of students on public assistance for the years between academic year 1994/95 and 1997/98. On file. 18. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. A Master Plan for Higher Education in California, 1960 - 1975. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. Page 66. 19. California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office Homepage. (http://www.cccco.edu). 20. Fred Gaskin. President, Cerritos College. Testimony presented to the Commission, March 25, 1999. 147 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 21. Mize, Rita M. 1988. Oversight and Intervention in the Local Operations of California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: Community College League of California. 22. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. Higher Education Enrollments: Is a Tidal Wave Coming? Sacramento, CA: LAO. 23. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1999. Information Item: Riding the Tidal Wave: An Analysis of Growth and Resources for California Higher Education in the First Decade of the Third Millennium. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. 24. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. (See endnote #22) 25. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1999. Year-Round Operation in Higher Education. Sacramento, CA: LAO. 26. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. (See endnote #22) 27. Representation to the Consultation Council is listed on the Chancellor's web-site (www.cccco.edu/cccc/consult/conrep98.htm) . 28. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. A State of Learning: California Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Governmental Studies. 29. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. Toward a Unified State System: A Report on the Governance of the California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. 30. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1995. A Capacity for Growth. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. page 134. 31. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. Analysis of the 1998-1999 Budget Bill. Capital Outlay. California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: LAO. Page H-90. 32. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. (See endnote #~31) 33. California Community College Chancellor's Office, District Audits and Fiscal Condition Unit. Phone Interview. 34. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1999. The FACT Book: Partnership for Excellence, District and College Baseline Data for 1995-96, 1996-97, 1997-98. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 35. California Education Code, Section 66202. 36. Calculation of the community college student transfer rate is controversial. The three percent figure reported here is calculated by dividing the number of community college students entering four-year schools by the number of students enrolled in the community colleges. This is an inconsistent comparison. A stronger analysis of transfer rates would require a cohort study that would track community college students over time. However, the only available cohort study tracked only first-time freshmen over a relatively short time period. The study found that after three years, 9 percent of the students had transferred to four-year institutions. In the absence of a long-term, reliable cohort study, a simple percentage represents one way to interpret how many community college students transfer. 37. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Data provided to the Commission and presented in Appendix D. The California State University defines a community college transfer student as any new student who attempted courses at any community college, excluding students who took community college courses the summer immediately following high school graduation and immediately preceding enrollment in CSU. The University of California defines a community college transfer student based on campus specific definitions. In general, students are considered community college transfer students if they have completed 26-30 units of transferable credit coursework. The 32.2 percent figure reported by CPEC generally only refers to students who transferred with advanced standing. 38. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1999. Student Profiles. Measures 5-4 and 5-11. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. 148 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CITED 39. University of California. January 1998. Information Digest. Pages 35 & 45. 40. Based on 12 year data provided by the California Postsecondary Education Commission. On file. 41. Board of Governors, California Community Colleges. Agenda Item 8.3. March 8-9, 1999. 42. Intersegmental Committee of Academic Senates Independent Colleges and Universities, California Virtual University, Corporate Partners. 1998. Issues of Articulation and Transfer: Final Report of the Workshop Planning Committee. On file. 43. Intersegmental Committee. 1998. (See endnote #42) 44. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1995. Transfer Centers: Implementing Minimum Program Standards. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 45. Charles Ratliff. Deputy Director, California Postsecondary Education Commission. March 25, 1999. Testimony to the Commission. 46. Linda Darling-Hammond. Presentation: "Doing What Matters Most: Investing in Quality Teaching. Sponsored by the California Education Policy Seminar and the California State University Institute for Educational Reform. May 1988. See also, Hanushek, Eric A., John F. Kain and Steven G. Rivkin. 1999. "Do Higher Salaries Buy Better Teachers?" National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper Series. Working Paper 7082. 47. Linda Darling-Hammond. 1998. (See endnote #46) Pages 6 and 10. 48. Higher Education Research Institute. The American College Teacher. University of California, Los Angeles. 1999. 49. Board of Governors, California Community Colleges. The Basic Agenda. 1991. Page 17. 50. Grubb, W. Norton. 1999. Honored but Invisible: An Inside Look at Teaching in Community Colleges. New York: Routledge. 51. Wolke, Robert L. 1999. "It Was the Most Boring Course I Ever Took, But It Led to a Valuable Lesson." Chronicle of Higher Education. October 22, 1999. Point of View. 52. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1997. Minimum Qualificationsfor Faculty and Administrators in California Community Colleges. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 53. Board of Governors. 1991. (See endnote #49) 54. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. Hiring Effective Faculty: An Introduction. Adopted April 1991. Page 2. 55. Sierra College. Employment application procedures: Faculty Application Screening Process. On File. 56. Grubb, W. Norton. 1999. (See endnote #50) Page 289. 57. Linda Serra Haggedorn. Center for Higher Education Policy Analysis. University of Southern California. Phone interview. May, 10, 1999. 58. Grubb, W. Norton. 1999. (See endnote #50) Pages 110 &123. 59. Faculty Development Committee of the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. Guidelines for the Implementation of the Flexible Calendar Program. 1993. 60. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 1995. Facing Change: Building the Faculty of the Future. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities. 61. Grubb, W. Norton. 1999. (See endnote #50) Page 298. 62. Corcoran, Thomas B. 1995. "Helping Teachers Teach Well: Transforming Professional Development". Policy Briefs. New Brunswick, NJ: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Rutgers University. 63. San Joaquin Delta Community College. Faculty and Staff Development: Expenditure Report. Fiscal Year 1996-97. On file. 64. De Anza College. Three Year Human Resources Development Plan 1997-2000. On file. 149 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 65. Golden West College. Staff Development, Human Resources Development Plan 1997-2000. On file. 66. Los Angeles Valley College. Staff Development Program. California Community Colleges Faculty and Staff Development Expenditure Report. July 1, 1997 - June 30, 1998. On file. 67. Henry Padden. Vice Chancellor, Personnel. State Center Community College District. Phone Interview. May 17,1999. 68. The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges. Towards a Model Four Year Tenure Process. Adopted November 1990. Sacramento, CA: The Academic Senate. 69. Sher Weahunt. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, State Governmental Relations Unit. E-mail communication. May 28, 1999. On File. 70. Leatherman, Courtney. "Report Laments Rise of 'Collegiality' as a Factor in Tenure Reviews." Chronicle of Higher Education. September 22, 1999. 71. Sierra College. "Article 19. Evaluation of Non-Tenured Faculty." Tenure Evaluation Policy. Rocklin, CA: Sierra College. 72. Bill Piland. Director, Postsecondary Leadership Program. California State University, San Diego. Phone interview. March 29, 1999. 73. Sagher, Y., M.V. Siadat and Linda Serra Hagedorn. 1999 Draft Paper: Building Study and Work Skills in a College Mathematics Classroom. Page 19. On file. 74. Academic Senate for the California Community Colleges. 1999 Spring Resolutions. Sacramento, CA: Academic Senate. Resolution #9.01. Page 21. 75. Community College League of California. nd. Facing the Millennium: California Community Colleges into the 21st Century. A Policy Paper. Sacramento, CA: Community College League. Page 12. 76. Russell Edgerton. Education Program. Pew Charitable Trusts. July 19, 1999 Phone Interview. 77. American Association of State Colleges and Universities. Facing Change: Building the Faculty of the Future. 1999. Page 8. 78. W. Norton Grubb. Professor and David Gardner Chair in Higher Education. School of Education, University of California, Berkeley. May 26, 1999. Phone interview. 79. Tom Kane. Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. September 27, 1999. Phone Interview. 80. The California State University Institute for Education Reform. The Teachers Who Teach Our Teachers: Teacher Preparation Programs at the California State University. February 1996. Sacramento, CA: CSU Institute for Education Reform. Page 18. 81. Magner, Denise K. 1999. "4 Faculty Members to Be Honored as 'Professors of the Year.m Chronicle of Higher Education. October 21, 1999. 82. Education Code, Sections 66050 - 66052. 83. Education Code, Section 71020.5. 84. Sher Weahunt. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. State Governmental Relations Unit. August 23, 1999. Phone Interview. 85. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #6) Measure 2.41. 86. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #6). Measure 2.51 and 2.53. 87. Murnane, Richard J. and Frank Levy, 1996. "Teaching the New Basic Skills" as published in Controller's Quarterly, August 1998. Page 7. 88. Benner, Chris, Bob Brownstein and Amy Dean. 1999. Walking the Lifelong Tightrope: Negotiating Work in the New Economy. A Status Report on Growing Economic Inequality in the State of California. San Jose, CA: Working Partnership USA. 150 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CITED 89. Benjamin, Roger W., Stephen J. Carroll. 1998. Breaking the Social Contract: The Fiscal Crisis in California Higher Education. . Santa Monica, CA: RAND. 90. George Vernez. RAND. September 23, 1999 Presentation, Latinos in Education. Sacramento, CA: California Family Impact Seminar. 91. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Labor, National Institute of Literacy, and the Small Business Administration. January 1999. 21 Century Skills for 21 Century Jobs. Page iii. st st 92. Bowen, William. Nd. "Postsecondary Education's Roles in Social Mobility and Social Justice." Transforming Postsecondary Education for the 21 Century. Education st Commission of the States. 93. U.S. Departments of Commerce, Education, and Labor, National Institute of Literacy, and the Small Business Administration. 1999. (See endnote #91) 94. Rouse, Cecilia Elena. 1998. "Do Two-Year Colleges Increase Overall Educational Attainment? Evidence from the States." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 17(4):595-620. 95. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 1999. Policy in Transition: Working Toward Systemic Change in Higher Education in the West. Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 96. American Association of University Women Education Foundation. Gaining a Foothold: Women's Transition Through Work and College. Washington, DC: AAUW. Page 13. 97. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. March 9, 1999. Trends on Selected Performance Measures from the Effectiveness Report. Presentation to the Board of Governors. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 98. The Chancellor's Office calculates participation rates based on fall semester enrollments. Although annual enrollment figures are much higher than fall semester enrollments only (1.4 million to 2.3 million), the Chancellor's Office relies on fall semester figures to maintain historical consistency. Prior to the use of a management information system, the colleges were unable to document how many individual students were served throughout an academic year. Fall enrollments have historically been higher than spring enrollments so the fall numbers were and continue to be used to reflect participation rates. The Chancellor's Office reports that participation rates would be higher if the full year attendance were used in the calculation but the pattern of reduced participation from 1975 to today would remain the same. Calculation used is 2,346,438 unduplicated head counts for credit and non-credit enrollments divided by 23,705,548 adults (from DOF Demographic Research Unit, 18+years old). 99. Community College League of California. 1998. Comments ofCCCTand CEOCCC Related to California Citizens Commission on Higher Education Report. Sacramento, CA: Community College League. Page 4. 100. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. July 1999. 1999-2000 Statewide Budget Workshop. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. Page 50. 101. Theresa Tena. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, Fiscal and Business Services Unit. Phone Interview. 102. Community College League of California. nd. (See endnote #75) Page 13. 103. National University. 1999. Brochure: How Do You Want to Grow? San Diego, CA: National University. 104. Colorado College. The Colorado College Block Plan. Colorado Springs, CO: Colorado College. (www.ColoradoCollege.edu/AboutCC/BlockPlan/). 105. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1988. Time to Degree in California's Public Universities. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. 151 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 106. Leovy, Jill. "Students Need to Know More About Aid, Educators Say." Los Angeles Times. August 11, 1999. 107. Leovy, Jill. "Financial Aid Eludes the Poorest Students." Los Angeles Times. Sunday, July ll, 1999. 108. California Community College Chancellor Thomas Nussbaum. 1999. The State of the California Community Colleges. Fall Leadership Conference, September 30, 1999. (www.cccco.edu/html/sos9-99.htm). 109. Chancellor's Office. 1999. New Educators for the 21 Century. Draft. On file. st 110. National Commission on Teaching and America's Future. 1996. (See endnote #5) Ill. Chancellor's Office California Community Colleges.. 1999. (See endnote #6). Measure 2.41. 112. California Community College Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #6). The persistence rate for full-time students is 95.8% (377,436 students) (page 40) and for part time students it is 45.5% (831,046 students) (page 42). From fall 1996 to spring1997, out ofa total of 1,208,482 students, only 739,939 persisted, or 61.2%. 113. One full-time equivalent student is equal to 525 student contact hours in a year, or one student, registered for 15 hours per week for 35 weeks. Full-time students, on average, register for 5 courses per semester. Roughly, the state provides approximately $350 for each student enrolled in each three-credit course. 114. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #34) Based on enrollment in basic skills math courses. Page 46. 115. Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. (See endnote #34) 116. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. April 22, 1998. Memo from Chuck McIntyre: Estimate of Spring 1998 Enrollment. On file. 117. California Community College Chancellor's Office. Data provided by the Chancellor's Office, fall 1997. Summary of Course Offerings and Course Enrollments for Selected Disciplines Statewide. On file. 118. The Chancellor's Office reports that physical education courses accounted for 6.8% of student contact for the fall of 1997. Total expenditures, direct and indirect costs, amount to $3.595 billion. Figure determined by multiplying .068 by $3.595 billion to annualize community college resources derived from contact hours with students in physical education courses. ll9. Burd, Stephen. 1998. "For-Profit Trade Schools Win New Respect in Congress." Chronicle of Higher Education. September 4,1998. 120. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. (See endnote #28) 121. Brewer, Dominic and Maryann Gray. 1997. Connecting College and Community in the New Economy? An Analysis of Community College Faculty-Labor Market Linkages. UC Berkeley, CA: National Center for Research in Vocational Education. 122. Hebel, Sara. "Community College of Denver Wins Fans with Ability to Tackle Tough Issues." Chronicle of Higher Education. May 7, 1999. 123. Education Code 71020.5. 124. Legislative Analyst's Office. 1998. (See endnote #22) 125. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. Fiscal and Business Services Unit. 126. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. (See endnote #28) 127. Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. 1995. Understanding Funding, Finance and Budgeting: A Manager's Handbook. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 128. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1999. (See endnote #34) 129. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. July 1999. (See endnote #100) 130. Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. (See endnote #34) 152 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CiTED 131. Chancellor's Office. 1999. Partnership for Excellence: Report of Reports. Sacramento, CA: CCCCO. 132. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. (See endnote #28) 133. Community College League of California. 1998. Comments of CCCT and CEOCC Related to California Citizens Commission on Higher Education Report. Sacramento, CA: Community College League. 134. Joe Burke. Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government. Public Higher Education Program. July 7, 1999. Phone Interview. 135. Hebel, Sara. 1999. "Virginia Board Wants to Link State Aid for Colleges to Their Performance in Key Areas." Chronicle of Higher Education. May 28, 1999. 136. Miller Brewing Company. 1999. Brochure: Tools for Success. Irvindale, CA: Miller Brewing Company. 137. California Education Code, Section 70901(a). 138. Nussbaum, Thomas J. 1992. Too Much Law. .. Too Much Structure: Together We Can Cut the Gordian Knot. Presentation to the 1992 Annual Convention of the Community College League of California. November 1992. 139. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. (See endnote #28) Page 19. 140. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. (See endnote #29) 141. California Community Colleges Chancellor Thomas Nussbaum. Testimony to the Commission January 28, 1999. 142. California Community Colleges, Chancellor's Office and Community College League of California. 1999. Community College Directory. Sacramento, CA: Chancellor's Office. 143. California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1999. Grant Agreement Economic Development Grant, 99-0230-36. Job Development Incentive Training Fund. Santa Monica College. 144. The Santa Monica Place Shopping Center is owned by The Rouse Company of Columbia, Maryland. 145. Mize, Rita M. 1998. (See endnote #21) 146. Education Code, Section 71020. 147. Clark, Ann Ph.D. 1999. The Money Bottom Line: Public Accountability and Money Management in California's Community Colleges. Presented to the Board of Governors, September 14, 1999. On file. 148. Dardia, Michael and Sherman Luk. 1999. Rethinking the Business Climate. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California. 149. Steve Levy. Senior Economist. Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy. April 22, 1999. Testimony to the Commission. 150. ATKearney. 1999. Workforce Initiative Study: Findings and Recommendations. Joint Venture Silicon Valley. 151. During the preparation of the information presented in Appendix D staff from the Chancellor's Office, discouraged the use of data available from the Chancellor's web-site. Staff stated the data were unreliable and of questionable validity. The data sets referenced in this report were limited to reflect only those data with the high level of confidence, which meant excluding some data available from the colleges but reported with questionable accuracy. 152. Chancellor's Office of the California Community Colleges. 1999. (See endnote #34). Appendix A. 153. Murnane, Richard J. and Frank Levy, 1996. (See endnote #87) 153 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION 154. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Labor, National Institute of Literacy, and the Small Business Administration. January 1999. (See endnote #91) 155. Based on size of the California community college enrollment and open access policies. Reports include: Little Hoover Commission. 2000. Open Minds and Open Doors: Improving Access and Quality. Sacramento, CA: Little Hoover Commission. California Citizens Commission on Higher Education. 1998. A State of Learning: California Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century. Los Angeles, CA: Center for Governmental Studies. California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. Toward a Unified State System. Sacramento, CA: CPEC. Commission on Innovation. 1993. Choosing the Future: An Action Agenda for Community Colleges. Report to the Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges. Organization for Economic Development. 1990. "Higher Education in California." Reviews of National Policies for Education. Paris: DECD. The Commission for the Review of the Master Plan for Higher Education. 1987. The Master Plan Reviewed. Sacramento, CA. Little Hoover Commission. 1986. Inadequate Financial Accountability in California's Community College System. Sacramento, CA: Little Hoover Commission. 154 NOTES & ADDITIONAL WORKS CITED List of Additional Works Cited California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office. 1999. Consultation Council Representatives. Sacramento, CA: www.cccco.edu/cccco/consult/conrep98.htm 1998. Report on Transfers and Degrees and Certificates Awarded, 1996-97. Sacramento, CA:CCCCO. 1995. Taxonomy of Programs. Sacramento, CA:CCCCO. California Department of Education. 1999. Directory of ROCPs. Sacramento, CA: (www.cde.ca.gov/cdwp/rocp/directory.html) California Postsecondary Education Commission. 1998. The Condition of Higher Education in California. Sacramento, CA:CPEC. California State University, Sacramento. 1999. CSUS Student Costs. On file. Ensuring Transfer Success Counselor Institute. 1998. The Most Often Asked Questions ... And The Answers: A Transfer Q & A. Handout prepared by the California State University and University of California. On file. Gose, Ben. 1999. "Working Nights for $8.50 an Hour and a Free College Education." Chronicle of Higher Education. July 23, 1999. Institute for Higher Education Policy. 1999. "The Expanding Universe of Distance Learning." Distance Learning in Higher Education. February 1999. Joint Boards Task Force on Noncredit and Adult Education. 1998. Final Report: Challenges Opportunities Changes. Sacramento, CA: State Department of Education. Karpp, Edward. nd. Draft: Finding Lost Students: Improving the Enrollment Rate of College Applicants. Unpublished paper. On file. Long Beach Community College District. 1999. Part-Time Faculty Vacancy Notice: Hourly Instructors: Child Development. Long Beach, CA: www.lbcc.cc.ca.us. Sacramento City College. 1999 Budget Amounts. On file. Schmidt, Peter. "A State Transforms Colleges with 'Performance Funding. '" Chronicle of Higher Education. July 2, 1999. State Center Community College District. 1997. Agreementfor Fiscal Years 1997-98,1998-99, 1999-2000 between State Center Community College District and State Center Federation of Teachers Local 1533, CFT/ AFT, AFL-CIO. On file. University of California, Davis. 1999. UC Davis Cost of Education. On file. 155 LITTLE HOOVER COMMISSION MEMBERS CHAIRMAN RICHARD R. TERZIAN (R-Los Angeles) Originally appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Governor George Deukmejian in May 1986. Reappointed by Governor Pete Wilson in March 1994 and in March 1998. Partner in the law firm of LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae. Chairman of the Commission since March 1994. Served as Vice Chairman from 1992 to 1994. VICE CHAIRMAN MICHAEL E. ALPERT (D-Coronado) Originally appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly Speaker Willie L. Brown, Jr. in May 1994. Reappointed by the Senate Rules Committee in August 1997. Retired partner in the law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. Former Chief Deputy Commissioner of the California Department of Corporations. ASSEMBLYMEMBER BILL CAMPBELL (R-Villa Park) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa in January 1999. Elected to the 71 st State Assembly District in 1996. Vice Chair of the Assembly Education Committee. CARL COVITZ (R-Los Angeles) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Governor Pete Wilson in October 1993. Reappointed in March 1996. Owner and President of Landmark Capital, Inc. Served as Secretary of the Business, Transportation and Housing Agency from 1991 to 1993 and Undersecretary for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development from 1987 to 1989. DANIEL W. HANCOCK (a-Milpitas) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly Speaker Cruz Bustamante in July 1997. President of Shapellindustries of Northern California since 1985. ASSEMBLYMEMBER SALLY HAVICE (a-Cerritos) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly th Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa in April 1998. Elected to the 56 State Assembly District in 1996. Chair of the Assembly International Trade & Development Committee. SENATOR CHARLES S. POOCH/ClAN (R-Fresno) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle in March 1996. Reappointed by Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa in November 1997, and reappointed by the Senate Rules Committee in February 1999. Elected to the 14th State Senate District in 1998. Vice Chair of the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee. H. ERIC SCHOCKMAN (a-Sherman Oaks) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Assembly Speaker Antonio Villaraigosa in January 2000. Associate Dean and Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Southern California. Former administrator and consultant to the California State Assembly and to the City Council of Los Angeles. SENATOR JOHN VASCONCELLOS (a-Santa Clara) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by the Senate th Rules Committee in February 1997. Elected to the 13 State Senate District in 1996 after serving in the Assembly for 30 years. Chair of the Senate Public Safety Committee, the Subcommittee on Aging and Long-Term Care, and the Select Committee on Economic Development. SEAN WALSH (R-Sacramento) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Governor Pete Wilson in December 1998. Former Deputy Chief of Staff, Communications & Press for Governor Wilson. STANLEY R. ZAX (I-Beverly Hills) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by the Senate Rules Committee in March 1994. Reappointed in January 1998. Chairman and President of Zenith Insurance Company. STANLEY M. ZIMMERMAN (a-Beverly Hills) Appointed to the Little Hoover Commission by Governor Gray Davis in January 2000. President of Home Budget Loans in Los Angeles, escrow officer for DEC Finance, and involved with Mortgage Mart, Inc., a property management firm. "Democracy itself is a process of change, and satisfaction and complacency are enemies of good government." Governor Edmund C. "Pat" Brown, addressing the inaugural meeting of the Little Hoover Commission, April 24, 1962, Sacramento, California Cover Photography: Western Media Imaging and PhotoDisc, Inc.