California Workforce Pathways Minutes Dec. 2017

REPORT OF ACTION
Friday, December 15, 2017

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Present

State Board of Education Representatives

• Feliza Ortiz-Licon
• Patricia Rucker
• Ting Sun, Chair

Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors Representatives

• Joseph Bielanski
• Pamela Haynes, Vice Chair
• Valerie Shaw

Ex-Officio Members

• Gustavo Herrera, Young Invincibles
• Alma Salazar representing David Rattray, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent

• None

1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Meeting
   • Call to Order
     Chair Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 10:01 a.m.
   • Introductions
     Chair Sun facilitated introductions of all meeting attendees.
     
   • Meeting Overview
     Chair Sun provided an overview of the meeting’s planned agenda.
   • Approval of Meeting Minutes
     Chair Sun asked for the approval of the September 15, 2017 meeting minutes. Motioned carried by Member Haynes and seconded by Member Rucker. Minutes were approved without edits.
   • Housekeeping
     Donna Wyatt, Division Director, California Department of Education (CDE) shared the following housekeeping items:
     • Where the restrooms are located,
     • Remind attendees to silence their cell phones,
     • Meeting materials are available by request, please refer to the posted agenda, and
     • Announce that the meeting is being audio recorded for internal purposes.
   • Purpose of Committee Meetings
     Patricia de Cos, Deputy Executive Director, State Board of Education (SBE) reviewed with committee members the purpose and journey of the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee, including the K–12 context and the roles of state and local agencies within the Local Control Funding Formula (LCFF).
   • Essential Questions
     Chair Sun reminded committee members of the following guiding questions.
     • What policies and/or principles should the joint committee recommend the state agencies to adopt in order to support the improvement or development of high quality college and career pathways?
     • How well are we serving our students with transitions from one system/institution to another, and providing high quality college and career pathways?
     • What longitudinal data sharing infrastructure is needed to support and understand trends within student progress, transitions, and the workforce?

2. Draft Principles and Discussion
   Chair Sun introduced Marty Alvarado from Jobs for the Future who presented and lead a discussion around the draft principles.

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Ex-Officio Member Rattray was impressed with the document and felt that many of the comments that have been shared were reflected in the document. Ex-Officio Member Rattray would like to see more inclusion of the California Way which would offer more enhancements. Rattray wonders if we should have more talk around race, and other forms of bias and inequities to become more explicit on the topic of equity while being careful to not to start tracking students. Rattray would like to see the STEM ecosystem work, which looks at the connection of the types of learning that take place in school, after school, and through internships, and workplace settings. He would like us to be intentional about supporting the connection between all these learning settings. In terms of alignment we can’t say too much about having shared goals, measures, cultures, practices, methods, and the co-creation of goals, solutions and measures, we need to drive this home. Still feels a little too high school and community college, would like to reflect that this is a Birth–20 process.
   • Member Ortiz-Licon loves that the document has students at the core and the flow/format. Would like to see more strengthening of equity and access, and not only look at the institutional barriers but include disparities and narrowing achievement and opportunity gaps. Ortiz-Licon would also like to see diversity and inclusion down to the pathway level looking at the different pathways and at the hierarchy of those pathways to ensure that there is equity and diversity in all pathways including the more rigorous and prestigious pathways. System alignment, Ortiz-Licon would like to see “rigorous” across career pathways so they all lead to viable industries and help mobility. Advising and counseling also needs to have more emphasis.
   • Member Shaw shared that we need to focus on promoting leadership at all levels.
   • Member Bielanski made comments by walking through the document. Student centered we need to be careful on the inclusion of multiple exit and entry points and provide more clarity to students to help them stay focused and complete the pathway, the inclusion of counseling can help in this area. In system alignment we need to emphasize the need for common terminology and data collection to ensure students are getting jobs. The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) is making progress on curriculum approval which is very important when talking about career education because approval needs to be quick. We need to include the career advisory boards and that they meet often. In the area that talks about transportation and child care, what happens when there is a change of funding, where is the money coming from? We also need a mind shift/culture change we need to communicate this to stakeholders. It would also be nice to connect K–12 pathways with the colleges’ guided pathways.
   • Chair Sun felt that the document was very thorough and coherent and liked that is takes a student perspective from the beginning. Sun wonders how we can make these principles more user friendly so they can be used for practical guidance and to help build capacity, not just a checkbox. How do we build capacity? Maybe create a best practice appendix. Sun would also like to see under the working norms section have each bullet start with a verb.
   • Vice Chair Haynes would like to see more on diversity, equity, and access and encourage interdependence. Create a common framework on equity defining who we are talking about and encourage interdependence K–14+.
   • Member Rucker likes the norms that define positive and intentional collaboration. The mindset shift is very important. We are still missing with naming the “ALL” for students, we still don’t clearly address the students who do not matriculate normally, and including students with special needs, English Learners, what are we doing for unsuccessful students? Would like to see the addition of a working norm so it does not sit in a vacuum integrate the California Way. Would also like to address sustainability.
   • Ex-Officio Member Herrera likes that the principles are student centered and the inclusion of adult learners. Would like more unpacking of the equity and access piece and address institutional barriers, including barriers like homelessness and child care. Would like to see more articulation of student outcomes for continuous improvement and inform students with this information as well to help them make data informed decisions.
   • Member Bielanski also mentioned the Career Ladders Project which helps build relationships between K12 and community colleges and has a self-assessment for K–12 partnerships.
   • Ex-Officio Member Rattray requested to have a more in depth conversation about the document which Member Rucker agreed especially with terms that can be interpreted differently among committee members.

3. College/Career Indicator
   Chair Sun introduced Cindy Kazanis, Division Director, Analysis, Measurement and Accountability Reporting Division, CDE. Cindy introduced Betty Miura from the Academic Accountability Unit, together they provided an update on the work involved with the development and implementation of the College and Career Indicator (CCI) used for K–12 Accountability.

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Ortiz-Licon clarified that a student who scores a 3 on an AP exam which is in the “prepared” category, but scores a 2 on the SBAC exam, which is in the “approaching prepared” category, would be considered “prepared” because of the AP exam score. Member Ortiz-Licon and Member Rucker voiced concern with this because they feel that the majority of the measure for that student was in the “approaching prepared” category. Having just one measure in the “prepared” category should not bump the student up without taking the other measures into account, thus the student is not truly “prepared”. We need to ensure that schools are actually preparing students.
   • Member Rucker agreed saying that we could be inappropriately elevating schools to a higher category. Thought this would be in the aggregate where a single data point could elevate a student to the next category.
   • Chair Sun mentioned that this is in some of the other measures in the system, but not all for example a-g completion and a few stand alones that were not clear.
   • Member Rucker is concerned that we are giving lip service to our principles and ideas because we are talking about multiple pathways, multiple options, and on-ramps for entering into the process of supporting students as they matriculate through our different segments but that is not reflected in the new accountability system. If we are not going to make sure that under the umbrella of CTE pathways that we are looking at all the ways that students participate in CTE programs we are giving lip service to something we are writing a state plan for. When we talk about CTE pathways we are not talking about one kind of CTE we are talking about all the options that students have to participate in CTE programs. This accountability system does not include this. If we do not include this we are creating a system that does not allow for multiple options and entry points because we are creating a system that will not allow for it.
   • Ex-Officio Member Rattray is proud of the work the state has done for the CCI and the dashboard. Some potential indicators like performance-based assessments, student portfolios, and senior projects are ways to evaluate student work, but are not ready for the state system. This is where the importance of local indicators. Districts need encouragement to use these as local indicators. Work-based learning and internships are other important indicators.
   • Vice Chair Haynes shared that the Los Rios Community College District, Sacramento City Unified School District, UC Merced, and UC Davis have signed a MOU around data sharing. We have been talking about data sharing and it is huge and we need to do it and help school districts align themselves in a way to share with local partners. Data is developed in different ways and we need trust, clarity of purpose, and ask the right questions to get the right data out of these systems.
   • Member Ortiz-Licon believes that we cannot look at an indicator that does not look at certain subgroups that have historically been underperforming and missing in the datasets. We can’t look at the CCI without looking at the students that it is impacting. We are raising the question that students are missing and we need to know where they are. They are our students, K–12 students, but they will be your students next and if they are not getting to you then it is relevant to the conversation.

4. University of California Curriculum Integration
   Chair Sun introduced Sarah Fidelibus from the University of California (UC) Office of the President who presented on the University of California Integration Institute (UCCI) which brings general education and career technical education teachers together to build UC “a-f” courses that fully and seamlessly integrate core subjects like math, sciences, and English with high demand, high wage career technical education industry sectors.The results are courses that are engaging and rigorous and align perfectly for inclusion into college and career pathway programs of study.

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Vice Chair Haynes wonders who is left out of these courses for instance men of color. We want to make sure we continue to look at things through an equity lens.

5. Teacher Credentialing
   Donna Wyatt opened a conversation around teacher credentialing.
   • California Commission on Teaching Credentialing
     Donna Wyatt introduced Annie Johnston, Statewide Technical Assistance Provider for the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office’s Teacher Preparation Pipeline programs, and Principal Investigator of the College and Career Academy Support Network at UC Berkeley's Graduate School of Education who presented on the roles of community colleges in developing and aligning education pathways to expand and diversify the K–12 teacher workforce including policy proposals, both regulatory and legislative, to expand community college faculty’s capacity to provide dual enrollment courses in a format that promotes equitable access and supports in K–12 settings.

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Shaw believes that we need [industry] practitioners to teach these [career technical education] courses. How can we change the system to attract practitioners to teach these courses?
   • Member Rucker mentions that we need to have one voice when it comes to teacher certifications and getting industry practitioners into the classroom. One of the largest barriers is the Social Security financial impact to those that leave their industry and enter teaching.
   • Member Sun mentioned that many of these areas are outside the scope of the committee, but also shares that we can impact the conversation by finding ways to integrate, articulate, and find new ways to certify these instructors.
   • Ex-Officio Member Rattray believes that a vision for our state plan can include professional capacity building and long-term professional development and to articulate the issues with Social Security even though we cannot address the issue. Rattray adds that in the business world the certification hour requirements do make sense because business is competency based. Are there competency-based ways to certify instructors since time is not the powerful factor?
   • Dual Credential
     Chair Sun introduced Stephanie Biaggetti from the California State University Sacramento (CSUS), College of Education who presented on the unique process and program that identifies and recognizes work experience in single subject credential candidates so that those candidates can qualify and earn both a single subject credential and a designated subject CTE credential. In addition to this dual credential program CSUS also offers a pathway certificate program that educates and trains teachers to work effectively and collaboratively in integrated college and career pathways.

6. Public Comment
   Chair Sun asked for public comment.
   • Sheryl Ryder – Placer County Office of Education
   • Tracie Zerpoli – Tri Cities Regional Occupational Program

7. Discussion and Next Steps
   Chair Sun facilitated a short conversation about the day and to discuss the direction for future meetings.
   • Essential Questions
     • What policies and/or principles should the joint committee recommend the state agencies to adopt in order to support the improvement or development of high quality college and career pathways?
     • How well are we serving our students with transitions from one system/institution to another, and providing high quality college and career pathways?
     • What longitudinal data sharing infrastructure is needed to support and understand trends within student progress, transitions, and the workforce?
   • Schedule of Future Meetings
     Future Meeting Dates for 2018:
     • Friday, May 11, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
     • Friday, July 13, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
     • Wednesday, September 19, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
     • Thursday, November 15, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

8. Adjournment
   Chair Sun will adjourn the meeting and remind everyone that the next meeting is scheduled on Friday, March 16, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.