Skip to main content
California Department of Education Logo

California Workforce Pathways Minutes

The Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee plans to address workforce pathways to address California’s regional economies.

REPORT OF ACTION
Friday, March 10, 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
Jeffrey Burdick
Pamela Haynes, Vice Chair
California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent
None
  1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory
    A. Call to Order
    Advisory Chair Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 9:03 a.m.
    B. Housekeeping Items
    Tom Adams, Deputy Superintendent of Instruction, Learning, and Standards Support Branch at the California Department of Education (CDE), presented a few housekeeping items and noted the meeting was being recorded.
  1. How We Do Our Work
    A. Introductions
    The committee members introduced themselves through an icebreaker and asked staff and members of the audience to introduce themselves.
    B. Overview of Committee Work, including Composition and Partners (Information)
    Patricia de Cos, Deputy Executive Director at the State Board of Education (SBE), reviewed the current federal Carl D. Perkins law, which was last reauthorized in 2006, and the California Education Code which outlines the purpose and role of the advisory with the ultimate goal being the creation of a draft for a new state plan. The idea of including ex-officio members was also introduced. Ex-officio members would only provide input to the advisory.
    C. Bagley-Keene/Open Meetings Act (Information)
    Judy Cias, Chief Counsel for the SBE, provided an overview of the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act.
    D. Meeting Norms (Information)
    Tom Adams shared with advisory members meeting norms that are used by Glen Price, Chief Deputy Superintendent at the CDE. The committee accepted these norms but added one more “Have fun.”
    • Create a Safe Zone. Members should speak freely and honestly. Maintain a safe and respectful environment, regardless of rank or position.
    • Create a Safe Zone. Members should speak freely and honestly. Maintain a safe and respectful environment, regardless of rank or position.
    • Listen actively and empathetically to each other without interrupting each other. Enter the space with a positive and supportive intent. Participate actively and respect each other.
    • Be open to new ideas by suspending judgement. Engage with each other through clarifying questions and constructive comments. Be willing to try new ways of doing something.
    • Recognize individual preferences and styles of working/communicating. Create inclusive meetings and workspaces that engage everyone actively.
    • Work together on a common, achievable goal. Communicate openly, to ensure that all team members are on the same page. Recognize all participants' contributions, regardless of position. Define success and evaluate whether it has been achieved.
    • Empower the facilitator. Support the facilitator in their role for the purpose of the group reaching its goals.
    • Check for understanding. Participants and facilitator should discuss what are the meeting, roles, and next steps.
  1. Overview of Recent Initiatives (Information)

    Patricia de Cos and Van Ton-Quinlivan, Vice-Chancellor of Workforce and Economic Development at the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO), provided information on current initiatives impacting pathway.

  1. Welcome (Information)

    Chancellor Eloy Oakley at the CCCCO provided a welcome and thank you to the Board for coming together to meet together, the interface between K-12 and college is blurring and needs to continue to blur. Excitement about aligning systems to help students through the systems.

  1. Overview of Recent Initiatives

    This item is a continuation of the Overview of Recent Initiatives item.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Member Ortiz-Licon would like to see how college and career readiness fit within the California Way and the work in the chancellor’s office.
    • Member Rucker mentioned another dimension to the conversation is outcomes the differences with the two systems and federal and state laws.
    • Member Rucker noted that we need to talk about the career pipeline since people do not stay with one career, what are the roles and outcomes for the pipeline including supports for the individuals moving through the pipeline.
  1. Career Pathways (Information)

    Donna Wyatt, the Director of Career and College Transition Division at the CDE; discussed the CDE’s current career pathway efforts in K–12 and adult education.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Chair Sun suggested to create a clearinghouse for all types of career pathway models.
    • Member Rucker expressed that she would like the advisory to keep in mind the concerns about choices for students located in smaller, more rural communities throughout the state. Member Rucker would also like to see demographic data around students participating in pathways, how are students being selected for programs, and how accommodations are being provided for students with disabilities.
    • Vice Chair Haynes would like to keep in mind pathway development for adult learners. The challenge for students on the adult education pathway is that many do not complete.
    • Member Ortiz-Licon would like to keep in mind the many aspects surrounding work-based learning activities. We also need to consider who our workforce is and who are the students going into the industry workplace. Internships are also very difficult with Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) students, especially when the internship is paid. There is an interesting tension between what educators in K-12 saying that ‘we are educating students for careers that do not yet exist,’ but we analyze labor market data to drive regional pathway implementation and development. Something else to keep in mind is the racialization of pathways in smaller learning communities, for example in many Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) pathways the colors of the students are different due to the math and science requirements for the pathway. We also need to be mindful of the historical issue of tracking students in vocational education, many families remember tracking and the implications of those practices.

    Van Ton-Quinlivan discussed the CCCCO’s current efforts in relation to career pathways.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Member Rucker would like add staffing to the CDE and CCCCO wish lists. The staff providing the training for these programs are retiring and current plans for replacing them are weak. We also need to include infrastructure on the wish lists, a family friend has to travel to three college campuses in order to complete her certificate program, for K-12 we need to look at the infrastructure for students who leave their school to attend a pathway in a ROP/C centers. We still continue to devalue dual enrollment opportunities for career technical education programs, many dual enrollment courses are still academic focused. Would like to see clear linkages between the programs and how students are served in those programs.

Break (10:50-11:00)

  1. Facilitating Transitions and Transfers – K-12 to Community College and Four-Year Institutions of Higher Education (Information)

    Greg Peterson, Vice President of Student Support Services at the CCCCO, shared information on student transitions.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Member Ortiz-Licon is impressed with the work happening in Long Beach with the Long Beach College Promise (The Promise).
  1. Federal Update (Information)

    Michael Brustein, Partner at Brustein and Mansevit, PLLC. Attorneys at Law, a recognized expert in the area of Career Technical Education and federal policy, called in to discuss the reauthorization of the federal Carl D. Perkins law.

    Michael provided an overview of current funding and transition to the new law:

    • Perkins career technical education (CTE) has been flat funded for well over 20 years in the range of $1.1 Billion. This fact is due to the lack of effective advocacy in D.C. and the viewpoint by former ED Secretaries that CTE is not a priority.
    • CDE receives between 12 and 13 percent of the federal grant, and the dollars are allocated primarily on population counts.
    • 85 percent of the State allocation must flow through to Districts and Colleges.
    • Perkins is a much more flexible funding vehicle than Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) or Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Recipients have a broad range of options on how to expend the dollars, but there is a statutory supplement non supplant provision.
    • Federal dollars are used primarily for equipment and supplies (computers), as well as staff salaries.
    • Federal funds must be used to improve the CTE program.
    • Congress first imposed accountability provisions in Perkins lll in 1998, but did not add sanctions until Perkins lV in 2006.
    • Perkins lV was enacted in 2006 with a five year authorization. Under the "contingent funding" provision in the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), Congress continues to appropriate funds in perpetuity.
    • CDE is still operating under its original five year State Plan.
    • Congress is unlikely to move on Perkins V this year and so CDE will continue to operate under its old plan for the period July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.
    • Even if Congress moves on reauthorization in early 2018, CDE will likely operate under a Transition Plan for the period July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
    • We will likely not be operating under a new State Plan until July 1, 2019.
    • The bills that were moving forward last summer in the House and Senate reflected "minor tinkering", not a major overhaul similar to the ESSA rewrite.
    • The House/Senate proposed raising the ceiling on Corrections to 2 percent, and the "reserve" from 10 percent to 15 percent.
    • The most significant revision proposed by the House/Senate would be to place federal expenditures in the future under the umbrella of "Programs of Study". This result, in my opinion, would eliminate the significant flexibility in the current law.
    • The House/Senate bill would eliminate the federal oversight on accountability, and remove all sanctions.
    • The secondary education performance indicators would track ESSA and the p/s indicators would track the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA).
    • The House/Senate proposal would permit the definition of concentrator to include a student enrolled in three CTE exploratory courses.
    • For the first time ever, a maintenance of effort violation would allow for a proportionate reduction.
    • The Section 134 Local Plan would be substantially changed to become a needs assessment.
  1. Community College Success Metrics (Information)

    Kathy Booth, WestEd, discussed the CCCCO’s Success Metrics and CalPass Plus and the LaunchBoard.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Vice Chair Haynes would like us start thinking of ourselves as K–14.

Working Lunch

  1. Career Readiness Indicators (Information)

    Cindy Kazanis, Director of the Analysis, Measurement and Accountability Reporting Division at the CDE, and Jenny Singh, Administrator, Academic Accountability Unit at the CDE, discussed the developing College/Career Indicator (CCI), including options for career readiness, and its role in California’s new K–12 accountability system.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

      • Member Rucker is concerned with the weight of academics over CTE in the CCI, Member Rucker would like to see other activities like the completion of a capstone course or obtaining a certificate to be included in the CCI. In addition, the CCI will not be helpful to colleges and the industry if we do not have some overlapping data points that the colleges are already tracking, some should be included in the CCI.
  1. Common Terms

    Tom Adams highlighted some common terms that have been used throughout the day.

    • Inclusion and equity – nontraditional students and special needs students, sensitivity of who the students are, we don’t have biases on who should be in the programs
    • Linkages between K–12 and CC – one thing to satisfy our needs and desires like data collections, but also the need to be student oriented and program oriented and the experiences the students have.
    • Seamless pathways for students.
    • Data – we need to keep moving forward.
    • Dual enrollment and a focus on CTE.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Member Ortiz-Licon in order to work we need to know the points of tension (i.e. funding) that has happened so we can be mindful of them moving forward.
    • Vice Chair Haynes mentioned that some of the work is difficult because of the silos that exist within each system and then are compounded with the silos that are created when we start working outside our respective system.
    • Member Rucker mentioned that the articulation courses are personality driven, so when one person retires from either system the program disintegrates because others are not aware of the agreement, the agreements are not sustained, and there is a need to institutionalize the agreements.
    • Member Ortiz-Licon added that we need to focus our work around four ideas integration, sustainability, scalability, and outcomes. These could be our guiding values. Chair Sun added beliefs as a value as well.
  1. Workforce Development (Information)

    Tim Rainey, Executive Director of the California Workforce Investment Board, presented on the Workforce Development initiatives underway in California, including the federal WIOA.

    Recommendations/Thoughts from board members:

    • Vice Chair Haynes wants to keep in mind that people need to know what the opportunities are for a career path at the beginning of the individual’s journey.
    • Member Rucker one of the obstacles about inequality of opportunity is that today college students cannot afford the same kind of college opportunities that college students were afforded to college students 50 years ago, when community college was free. Another concern is that working class folks (especially the long-term unemployed), are not interested to go back to school to learn a new job skill to compete in today’s economy due to the expense and time away from the life that is happening around them, the more successful models are when the employers create workplace, work-based career ladder training opportunities. We also need to understand what our workforce pipeline looks like and that it is not terminal, it does not end when you get a job, the pipeline is circular.
  1. Public Comment
    • Fred Jones – Get REAL Coalition (Manufacturers Association)
  1. Next Steps:

    Chair Sun suggested putting something together on our common values, beliefs and values for this work and talking about these areas of focus we want to start like common terminology, coherence in the systems, regional partnership, and data sharing.

    Tom Adams said we will draft something. We will focus on one or two areas, and wanted to know what the board would like to start with.

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

    Members would like to start with the last two items.

    Chair Sun would like to try to have a white paper by the end of the year.

    Vice Chair Haynes would like to see under system alignment, as appropriate, to include data sharing since it is key to this work. Chair Sun sees that system alignment could include data sharing and dual-enrollment as sub-categories.

    Patricia de Cos sees these topics as interrelated. And when talking about system alignment to find successful models and be a model for locals and to facilitate the work currently happening at the local level. Bringing in models/exemplars to present to the advisory as well.

    Tom Adams noted that at the next meeting staff would find successful models for system alignment.

    Members reflected on the day and said they did not know what they were signing up for but are very happy to be on this advisory and look forward to the work ahead.

    Van Ton-Quinlivan wanted to talk about the format of the meetings and for each subject matter we want to identify one or two pre-readings/expert papers for the board to process and then find some exemplars/field practitioners to organize an expert panel with a few preselected questions. Members agreed that this sounded great at this time. Van also mentioned that language matters, stating that they have changed their language from academics and CTE to general education and CTE, since many educators say that CTE is academic.

    Chair Sun will not be at the May 12 meeting, so Vice Chair Haynes will be acting as chair in May.

***ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING***
Questions:   Lisa Reimers | lreimers@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-1762
Last Reviewed: Monday, May 22, 2017