Association of California

Community College Administrators

Leadership and Governance in Twenty-first Century California

Constance M. Carroll, Ph.D. Chancellor

San Diego Community College District

“THE ONLY CONSTANT

IS CHANGE.”

-Heraclitus

National Community College Context

Public: 986

Private: 115

Tribal: 31

Total: 1,132

Source: AACC 2014 Fact Sheet 3

America at the “Tipping Point”

U.S. Population, Actual and Projected:

2012 and 2050

2012 2050

Population (in millions) 316 438

Share of total

Foreign born 13% 19%

Racial/Ethnic Groups

White 63% 47%

Hispanic 17% 29%

Black 13% 13%

Asian 5% 9%

Age Groups

Children (17 and younger) 24% 23%

Working age (18-64) 62% 58%

Elderly (65 and older) 14% 19%

Source: 2012 data: U.S. Census Bureau

Source: 2050 projection: Pew Research Center, 2008

4

State “Minorities”

Hawaii 83%

California 65%

New

Mexico

64%

Texas 58%

States That Have Reached the

“Tipping Point”

5

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012

California Demographic History

6

30%

40%

60%

70%

80%

90%

White

Latino/Hispanic

40%

13%

38%

3%

6%

12%

78%

California Population by Race/Ethnicity, 1970–2010

African American

Multiracial 20%

10%

0%

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Source: United States Census Bureau, decennial censuses and American Community Survey

100%

50% Asian/Other

CHANGING METHODS

7

Laboratory

Contract Education

Workforce Training

Global Education

Open-Entry Open Exit

Online

MOOCs

Learning Communities

Lecture

Community

College

Changing Instructional Delivery

& Learning Methodologies

8

Changing Student Support Systems

FROM: TO:

Online Systems

•Registration

•Counseling

•Learning Support

9

CHANGING STUDENTS

10

The American Community Colleges

Students

13 Million Students: 8 million credit · 5 million non-credit

• 45% of U.S. Undergraduates

• 45% of First-Time Freshmen

• 57% Women, 43% Men

• 60% Part-Time, 40% Full-Time

• Average Age – 28 years

Source: AACC 2014 Fact Sheet 11

72 Districts

California Community Colleges

Urban

112 Colleges

Suburban

Rural

A Diverse System

2.1 MILLION

STUDENTS

12

CCC System Demographics

American Indian

0%

Asian12%

Pacific Islander

1%

Filipino3%

Latino/ Hispanic

38%

African American

7%

White30%

Two or More Races

3%

Unknown6%

Source: http://datamart.cccco.edu/Students/Student_Term_Annual_Count.aspx

112 colleges

2,292,252, students

13

UC System Demographics

American Indian

1%

Asian33%

Filipino4%

Latino/ Hispanic

19%

African American

4%White33%

Unknown6%

Source: http://legacy-its.ucop.edu/uwnews/stat/statsum/fall2012/statsumm2012.pdf

10 universities

238,686 students

14

CSU System Demographics

American Indian

0%

Asian

16%

Pacific Islander

0%

Filipino

1%

Latino/Hispanic

35%

African

American5%White

31%

2 or More Races

5%

Unknown

7%

Source: http://www.calstate.edu/AS/stat_reports/2013-2014/feth02.htm

23 universities

436,560 students

15

Statewide K-12

Student Demographics

Source: http://www.ed-data.k12.ca.us/App_Resx/EdDataClassic/fsTwoPanel.aspx?#!bottom=/_layouts/EdDataClassic/profile.asp?Tab=1&level=

04&reportNumber=16#studentsbyraceethnicity

9,919 schools

6,226,989 students

American Indian

1% Asian

9%

Pacific Islander

1%Filipino

2%

Latino/Hispanic

53%

African American

6%

White

25%

Two or More

Races2%

Unknown

1%

16

CHANGING MISSION

&

LEADERSHIP ISSUES

17

California Community Colleges

Student Success Task Force Final Recommendations

18

Background and History

Pursuant to Senate Bill 1143, the California Community Colleges Board

of Governors established the Student Success Task Force with the

charge of examining best practices and models for accomplishing

student success and presenting recommendations

12-month strategic planning process to improve student success

• January – June 2011: The Task Force began its work.

• July – September 2011: Developed recommendations.

• September 30, 2011: Released draft recommendations, which were

vetted statewide at conferences and public town halls.

• December 7, 2011: The Task Force reviewed feedback on draft

recommendations and revised to form finalized recommendations.

• January 9, 2012: Final recommendations were approved by the

Board of Governors.

• September 27, 2012: SB 1456 (Lowenthal) enacted.

• July 1, 2014: Student Success and Support Program; Student Equity

Plan in Budget.

19

Student Success Task Force

Recommendations

1. Increase College and Career Readiness

2. Strengthen Support for Entering Students

3. Incentivize Successful Student Behaviors

4. Align Course Offerings to Meet Student Needs

5. Improve the Education of Basic Skills Students

6. Revitalize and Re-Envision Professional Development

7. Enable Efficient Statewide Leadership & Increase Coordination Among Colleges

8. Align Resources with Student Success Recommendations

20

COMMUNITY COLLEGE

BACCALAUREATE

21

The California Context

1960 Master Plan for Higher Education

University of California

California State University

California Community Colleges

Independent Institutions 22

University of California Primary academic research institution

Undergraduate through doctoral programs

California State University* Broader undergraduate through masters programs

Less stringent admissions requirements

Community Colleges Certificates and Associate Degrees in academic and

vocational programs

Open access

*Authorized to offer doctoral degrees in selected areas, SB 724 (2005)

CA Master Plan for Higher Education

(1960)

23

California Community College Mission

• Open Access to Higher Education

• Transfer Education

• Career Technical Education

• Adult/Continuing Education

• Basic Skills/Remedial Education

• Support Services

• Economic Development

24

Changes in Degree Requirements

The high school diploma is no longer the entry requirement for jobs.

The associate degree has been replaced by the bachelor’s degree as the entry requirement for many jobs.

The Master Plan needs to be updated to reflect new workforce realities.

25

Bachelor’s Degree Pathways

Articulation Agreement

Two + Two Program

University Center

Distance

Learning/Degree

Completion

Community College

Baccalaureate

26

States Currently Authorizing

Community College Baccalaureates

27

1. New York 1970 12. Indiana 2004

2. West Virginia 1990 13. Washington 2005

3. Utah 1992 14. Georgia 2005

4. Vermont 1993 15. North Dakota 2006

5. Florida 1997 16. Arkansas 2006

6. Nevada 1998 17. Oklahoma 2006

7. Louisiana 2001 18. Wisconsin 2010

8. Hawaii 2003 19. Illinois 2012

9. Texas 2003 20. Michigan 2012

10. Minnesota 2003 21. Colorado 2014

11. New Mexico 2004

Report Presented to the CCC Board of Governors

March 4, 2014

CCC Baccalaureate Degree

Study Group Conclusion

“After much discussion and feedback, the

Study Group believes that the offering of

baccalaureates by the California

community colleges merits serious review

and discussion by the Chancellor and the

Board of Governors.”

28

Enables 15 districts to propose and implement one bachelor’s

degree.

State Chancellor/BOG to determine pilot districts based on

resources, and local and regional needs

Coordination with the state universities

Duplication of public university programs to be avoided

Legislature to set student fees, state compensation

Local boards to determine governance, administration, standards,

and formats

Evaluation and report to State Chancellor and Board of Governors

SB 850 (Block, 2014): Community College Baccalaureate Pilot Program

29

Senate Higher Education Committee (4/24/14)

Senate Appropriations Committee (5/23/14)

Senate (5/27/14)

Assembly Higher Education Committee (6/24/14)

Assembly Appropriations Committee (TBD)

Assembly (TBD)

Senate (TBD)

Governor (TBD)

SB 850 (Block, 2014): Approvals

30

Added to draft standards new requirements specific to

bachelor’s degree

Minimum 120 semester credits

Minimum GE requirement 36 semester credits

All standards apply and interpreted in the context of the degree

(e.g. faculty credentials, library resources, etc. should be

appropriate to the degree)

Substantive Change Process

ACCJC Bachelor’s Degree

Requirements

31

ADULT EDUCATION

32

AB 86

Regional Consortia

Community College Districts

K-12 Districts

33

LEADING & MANAGING

THE INSTITUTION

34

Leadership in the 21st Century

External

Forces

Internal

Forces

35

State Comm. Colleges

Regulations

University Changes

Technology

Federal Regulations

Demographics Accreditation Requirements

& Actions

Student Needs

Business &

Industry

Legislative Term Limits

District Budget

& Policies

State Economy

Community

College

Changing External Impacts

36

Community Colleges

Three Types of CEOs

Chancellor

Superintendent

President

President (Institutional)

College

College

College

College

Multi-College District Single College District Single College in

Multi-College District 37

Community College Dynamics

Personal

Informal

Hands-On

Intense

Representative

Formal

Resistant to Change

Intense

Small Large Medium

Rural Suburban Urban

Advisory Board? Appointed Board? Elected Board?

38

Internal Constituencies

Faculty Academic Vocational Full-Time/Part-Time Gender Ethnicity Age, Longevity Union/Senate Teaching/Non-Teaching Credit/Non-Credit

Students Resident Commuter Full-Time Part-Time Day/Evening Involvement Traditional Re-Entry Gender Ethnicity

Administration Executive Middle Management Gender Ethnicity Age, Longevity History

Support Staff

Clerical Technical Trades

Governing Boards

Elected Appointed

39

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

& GOVERNANCE

40

72 Districts

California Community Colleges

Budget Process

State Budget - Proposition 98

Governor - Legislature

State Board of Governors & System

Local Boards of Trustees & Districts

Federal &

Special Funds

• Allocations

112 Colleges

41

Budget

• Based on Growth

• Foundations

• Partnerships

• Contract Education

• Entrepreneurship

New Funding

• Reallocation of Resources

• Collaboration

• Out-sourcing

Change Mechanism

42

Administration

AB 1725 (1988)

“Ten Plus One”

Winton Act

SB160 (1976)

“Rodda Act”

Yeshiva Decision (1980)

U.S. Supreme Court

Collective Bargaining

Governance

Changing Decision-Making

Trends

43

Academic Senate Title 5 “10 + 1” Section 53200 (c)

1. Curriculum, including establishing

2. Degree & Certificate Requirements

3. Grading Policies

4. Educational Program Development

5. Standards & Policies regarding Student Preparation and success

6. College Governance structures, as related to faculty roles

7. Faculty roles and involvement in accreditation process

8. Policies for faculty professional development activities

9. Processes for program review

10.Processes for institutional planning and budget development

The “Plus 1”

Other academic and professional matters as mutually agreed upon

44

Fiscal control by Legislature & State system

Loss of local Board taxing ability (Prop. 13)

Diminishing revenue & flexibility

Increasing categorical accountability mandates

New Governance requirements AB 1725

Yeshiva Decision (1980)

Impact on employees of chronic underfunding

Challenges for Bargaining

45

LEADERSHIP AND

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

THE SAN DIEGO MODEL

46

The San Diego

Community College District

California’s second-largest

community college district.

Serves the City of San Diego

and surrounding region.

5 Member Elected Board of

Trustees.

47

San Diego CCD Leadership Team

Dr. Constance M. Carroll

Chancellor

Board of Trustees

Bernie Rhinerson, Dr. Maria Nieto Senour, Rich Grosch,

Peter Zschiesche, Mary Graham

Dr. Anthony Beebe

President

City College

Dr. Pamela Luster

President

Mesa College

Dr. Patricia Hsieh

President

Miramar College

Vacant

Interim President

Continuing Education

48

50,000 Students Enroll in Credit

Programs

49

50,000 Students Enroll in

Continuing / Adult Education

• Educational Cultural Complex

• North City Campus

• At Mesa College

• At Miramar College

• West City Campus

• Cesar Chavez Campus

• Mid-City Campus

• Centre City Campus 50

42,000 Service Personnel Enroll at Military Base Programs

51

Negotiations and Goals

Scope of Negotiations

7 Unions

3 Meet & Confer Groups

Board Goals

• Fiscal responsibility to public

• Fairness to employees

• Relate bargaining to state revenue

• Eliminate acrimonious processes

• Better coordinate bargaining with governance

52

Benefit of Collective Bargaining Approach

Resource Allocation Formula (RAF)

New Revenue Streams (COLA, Growth, etc.)

Employees

District

Budget

Units Colleges

Continuing Education

Other Functions

53

Market studies to determine salary schedule alignment with

benchmark districts

Each employee unit may use funding as determined, without

changing working conditions or workload

Transparency of all financial information

Other Aspects

54

55

AFT GUILD San Diego Community Colleges

Local 1931 of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO

• Predictability for members

• Bargaining agent decision-making flexibility

• Removes major economic issues from contention

• Promotes collaboration

• Other considerations

Collective Bargaining - Summary

• Defines working conditions

• Establishes Processes for

Resolving Conflicts

• Protects Employee Rights

• Formalizes Decision-Making

Benefits Difficulties

• No Local Control of Revenue

• Single-Focus Representation

• “Exclusive”

• May Conflict with Shared

Governance

56

STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE

57

Cultivating a Culture of Change Within the Institution Open to Ideas/Innovation Safe for Failure Rewarding/Recognizing Success Support (Money, Time, Connections, etc.)

Encouraging Team Approach

Promoting Collaboration Interdepartmental Grants Other Institutions Industry

Relating Change to Vision, Planning, Goals

Institutionalizing Positive Outcomes

Telling the Story

Elements of Successful Change

58

The World of the CEO

Capital

Development

CEO

Institutional

Leadership & Management 59

GOOD LUCK!