CWPJAC Minutes May 12, 2017

REPORT OF ACTION
Friday, May 12, 2017

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Present

State Board of Education Representatives

• Feliza Ortiz-Licon
• Patricia Rucker

Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors Representatives

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

Ex-Officio Members

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

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent

• Ting Sun, Chair

Agenda of the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee

1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory

• Call to Order
  Vice Chair Haynes called the meeting to order at approximately 8:59 a.m. and welcomed a new member from the community colleges, Valerie Shaw. Vice Chair Haynes announced a change in the posted agenda, the Sacramento County Office of Education will not be presenting.
• Introductions
  Tom Adams facilitated small introductions of all meeting attendees, as well as welcoming the new ex-officio members.
• Approval of March 10, 2017 Meeting Minutes
  Vice Chair Haynes asked for the approval of the March 10, 2017 meeting minutes. Minutes were approved without edits.
• Housekeeping
  Tom Adams provided housekeeping information, including that the meeting was audio recorded for internal reference purposes and that meeting documents can be downloaded on the Box.com website.
• Purpose of Meetings
  Patricia de Cos discussed the history of how the committee was reconvened and the purpose of the California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee meetings.
• Essential Questions
  Vice Chair Haynes shared the following essential questions:
  • How well are we serving our students?
  • What are the high quality elements of a college and career pathway?
  • What longitudinal data sharing infrastructure is needed to understand student progress?

2. Why Alignment?
   Vice Chair Haynes introduced Marty Alvarado and Joel Vargas from Jobs for the Future (JFF) who discussed why career pathways are a powerful vehicle for building a cohesive and comprehensive system across the K-12, community colleges, and workforce sectors enabling continuous access to and success in education and training for California’s workforce. They stated that this potential can only be realized through strategic and intentional cross-agency system alignment.

    

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Rucker wondered how investing in state leadership would help due to the Local Control Funding Formula mindset, seems antithetical.
   • Member Rucker also raised the teacher shortage issue and how overlapping policies exasperates the issue of drawing industry experts into the teaching field.
   • Member Bielanski and Member Shaw wanted to have examples from other states where system alignment is working well.
   • Member Ortiz-Licon and Member Shaw were curious on sustainability, especially with leadership changes, highlighting the upcoming California election which will end with a newly elected Governor and State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
   • Ex-Officio Member Rattray mentioned that dosage matters as well as using the opportunity to coalesce and communicate to the field.

3. Data Alignment Panel
   • Vice Chair Haynes introduced Kathy Booth from WestEd and Ken Sorey from Educational Results Partnership, who presented transition data that are collected in CalPASS Plus.
   • Vice Chair Haynes introduced Cindy Kazanis and Jenny Singh from the California Department of Education (CDE) who presented on the current developments with the College/Career Indicator (CCI), some data around career technical education (CTE) with special population information, and the new data sharing agreement between the CDE and the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO).
   • Vice Chair Haynes introduced Donna Wyatt from the CDE who presented on Perkins data that was submitted to the federal government including data on graduation rates and specific pathways.
     

Break (10:45 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.)

4. System Alignment From the Student Perspective
   Donna Wyatt introduced the following panel from Oakland Unified School District (OUSD). OUSD presented on the alignment structures in place with OUSD and Peralta Community College District focusing on dual enrollment including the student experience.
   • Rachel Antrobus, Adjunct Professor, College of Alameda, Peralta Community College District
   • David Maduli, Pathway Coach, Fremont High School, Oakland Unified School District
   • Kevin Nguyen, Student, Oakland Unified School District
   • Preston Thomas, Executive Director, Linked Learning Office and High School Network Superintendent, Oakland Unified School District
   • Indya Vandycke, Student, Oakland Unified School District
     

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Ortiz-Licon shared concerns about the foundational skills that high school students need in order to be successful in a college course. In addition, the need to educate students on the required skills in the ninth or tenth grade, before they start a dual enrollment course.
   • Member Bielanski added that many colleges have a course on college success strategies that can help to fill the transitional gap.

5. System Alignment From a Systems Perspective

   Matt Roberts introduced the following panel from the Kern County Office of Education, Bakersfield College, and CSU Bakersfield. The presentation covered the work in Kern county addressing system alignment through the Kern Promise.

   • Dr. Robert Arias, Chief Deputy, Local and Statewide Initiatives, Kern County Superintendent of Schools Office
   • Dr. Kristen Barnes, CEO/President/CEO, Kern Community Foundation
   • Dr. Janet Fulks, Dean of Institutional Effectiveness, Bakersfield College
   • Dr. Jacqueline Mimms, Associate Vice President for Enrollment Management, California State University, Bakersfield

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Rucker voiced concerns about master schedule, course availability, and course offerings at the postsecondary level, extending a student’s timeline for graduation.

   Matt Roberts introduced the following panel from the Orange County Office of Education. The presentation highlighted work underway in Orange County addressing system alignment.

   • Stephanie Feger, K-14 Pathways Regional TA Provider, Coast Community College District
   • Steve Glyer, Orange County Department of Education
   • Amy Kaufman, Orange County Department of Education

6. Public Comment

   Vice Chair Haynes asked for public comment; no public comments were presented.

7. Discussion

   Discuss Essential Questions
   Vice Chair Haynes facilitated a conversation around the three essential questions.

   How well are we serving our students?
   • We are not serving our students well and we continue to create barriers
     • Example: Oakland USD – majority of teachers are new or on an emergency permit/credential
   • Need to address new students and make sure we are being culturally relevant and ensure that technology is up to date.
   • System Alignment is important to bring together “good work” and “good money,” the younger generation wants to do both, and students do not want to feel that they have to choose one path over another; they want to do good work and make good money.
   • We need to create sustainability of programs.
   • Are we addressing needs of part-time students?
   • Using Oakland USD dual enrollment as an example; high school students need to be counselled on the differences in expectations between a high school class and a college class. The differences in classroom behavior, study habits, work level, and what is expected outside of the classroom.
   • What do support services look like? Approaches to students?
   • Cultural supports and navigational supports are needed for students, especially for first generation students.
   • There needs to be sensitivity to racial and institutional bias.
   • Pathways are not programs; they are a vehicle and a structure for students to have clear ways of looking and finding programs, not just individual courses that are disconnected. How do students navigate what their interest are, pathways is a framework that has been successfully used in CTE which we are trying to expand.
     • The goal is to provide clarity and tools to help students navigate the complexity of the institutions, and we need to provide clear signs on how to move through the system.
   • Pathways are not just for students out of high school, it needs to include part-time students, who also need to have a pathway and supports.
   • We need to blur the lines between CTE and academics.

   What are the high quality elements of a college and career pathway?

   • Community College faculty needs professional development on pathways and what does pathway work mean.
   • There needs to be an equal level of rigor to enable the transfer of knowledge and skills from one place to another including college level versus high school and to aid in upper mobility.
   • The regional economy is a reality and allows us to focus on local needs (example: California Career Pathways Trust model).
   • Employers hire who is in front of them which does not attribute to a state-wide monolithic economy; what’s the role of the state to build capacity look like in a world of subsidiarity?
   • Sustainability of leadership: There has to be a regional movement, we need an entity to nurture regions to ensure that the movement doesn't die.
   • Entry versus exiting, especially part time students in the colleges, how are we going to get them out (not having them continually take courses)?
   • What does it mean to be enrolled in college: fear, anxieties?
   • Need support services for students to help students navigate school post-graduation from high school and to feel welcome.

   What longitudinal data sharing infrastructure is needed to understand student progress?

   • The state’s dual enrollment data needs to be complete, we are not on the same page across the agencies.
     • We need to know where the data is going and where is it not.
     • Who is doing the data and what programs are involved?
   • We need to fill the picture of where college students and K-12 students are

8. Next Steps

   Scheduling Meetings
   Members decided to move the scheduled meeting time to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. going forward.
   

   Future Meeting Dates for 2017:
   • Friday, July 14, 2017 – 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (changed to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
   • Friday, September 15, 2017 –9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (changed to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
   • Monday, November 6, 2017 –9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. (changed to 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.)
   • Proposed meeting dates for 2018 are yet to be determined.

   Proposed Areas of Focus
   Below are some proposed areas of focus, which are inter-related.

   • Career Guidance / Counseling
   • Dual Enrollment
   • Data Sharing
   • Work-based Learning
   • System Alignment
   • Defining and Promoting Quality Career Pathways

   Member Ortiz-Licon asked about the use of common definitions when talking about data.
   Member Rucker would like to look at CALPADS more in depth, including what we collect and we need to know what some of the difficulties are.

   Next meeting to focus on data:
   • Potential topics:
     • CALPADS
     • Salary Surfer
     • Understanding the data tools that CA is relying on; advantages and deficits
     • Higher Ed data tools

Tom Adams summarized that the goal is to gain a better understanding of where the kids are in K–12, and how they matriculate through postsecondary and into the workforce, and find the misalignments.

Member Rucker clarified, we understand how students are matriculating not only through the K–12 system, but how they then transfer and transition into postsecondary. We want to understand the data tools we are relying on to tell us those things. We have heard about the college’s data system, but there are other data applications we are relying on to tell us this information. We need a deep dive on CALPADS to understand what its advantages are, and what the fundamental deficits for this work are. What it can tell us and why it is not meshing with what the higher education is looking for. We want to understand more about the data tools that are being used to inform this conversation from all three segments.

The next meeting is scheduled for July 14, 2017 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Member Bielanski will not be in attendance at the July meeting.