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.

Friday, May 11, 2018

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
  • David Rattray, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent
  • None
  1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Meeting
    • Call to Order
      Chair Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 10:05 a.m.
    • Introductions
      Chair Sun had participants make introductions.
    • 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 March 16, 2018 meeting minutes. Motioned carried by Vice Chair Haynes and seconded by Member Bielanski. 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, 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.
    • 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. Principles in Action
    A panel of experts representing K–12 and community colleges from the Orange County and Tulare consortia shared their lessons learned from the California Career Pathways Trust and the Career and Technical Education Incentive Grant Program. They also provided input to the joint committee on the principles.
    • Joy Soares, Director, College and Career, Tulare County Office of Education
    • Thad Russell, Dean, Workforce Development and Career Technical Education (CTE), College of the Sequoias
    • Gustavo Chamorro, LAOCRC, Orange County Director, Rancho Santiago Community College District
    • Amy Kaufman, Executive Director, Orange County Pathways, Orange County Department of Education

    Feedback from committee members:

    • Member Bielanski suggested that since there will be a presentation to the SBE on the principles, we should also present to the Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) Board of Governors (BOG).
    • Vice Chair Haynes reflected on the conversation about strengthening and growing existing intersegmental collaboration to empower this rising generation. In the colleges every department has a committee and then there is the academic senate, they are not constructed to talk to each other. They continue with their siloed work without thinking of other implications, like student support services and fiscal. Some colleges “get it” and have started breaking down silos and collaborating. Other schools are still trying to do pathway work within the existing structures. One model is more successful than the other. We need to prepare the colleges for the students, not the students for the college.
    • Chair Sun agreed and shared that as we developed our systems in the past, the What and How became the Why, then we lost our Whys.
    • Member Bielanski asked if there were enough pathways, giving an example that the mentality at Berkeley High School is that the only pathway is to UC Berkley and there are no other pathways.
    • Van Ton-Quinlivan, CCCCO, brought up the techniques of collaboration, the fourth revolution is causing a compression of time. We need to think about techniques like Design Thinking, Lean Six Sigma, and Formal Consultation to help us step into a room more easily as issues arise.
    • Member Rucker talked about how silos can be a good thing when talking about the norms they have created for working together and collaborating. Inside the sphere of influence they have direct locus of control, but when you are doing these big systems work we need to ask not only who should be in the conversation, but when they should be in the conversation. Ebb and flow with the conversation.
    • Ex-Officio Member Herrera also wanted to highlight the need to bring students to the table, as well as K–12 and community college, and those transferring between systems to see all the experiences students are going through. How do we get feedback from students and how do we continue to get feedback for continuous improvement.
    • Member Rucker wanted to thank the presenters for the conversation, and the focus on creating a system, not just implementing a grant. Member Rucker supports lowering the counselor ratio, how it looks to not only develop the capacity of counselors but also increase the access to counselors by students. The ratios of counselors has not changed, while their work has, which requires them to have more contacts with more students in their schools.
    • Member Rucker wanted to share that military recruiters are very good at using the tools they are given to do the work we are talking about. Having an alliance/partnership with the military recruiters could help.
  1. Guiding Principles Focusing on Equity and Access
    Chair Sun asked Committee members for input on equity and access for the principles document.

    Feedback from committee members:

    • Member Rucker feels that the edits are reflective of the conversations the committee members have had.
    • Member Shaw feels that the edits are wonderful.
    • Vice Chair Haynes is pleased that equity and access were pulled out and defined. Some believe that equity is about equality, and it is not, which means that you have to be committed to it by placing staff and resources to those with the most need, and identifying those that have a lot of need, a little need, and those that are there. Pulling them out is critical as these are standalone issues.
    • Member Bielanski commented that the content is well done, the only suggestions would be editorial, because at the top we have Preamble, but there is no other categories. We should add Guiding Principles after the second paragraph, on page three at the top there should be Elements of High- Quality Career Pathways, and there is already one subtitle on page six.
    • Ex-Officio Herrera, stated that he had similar comments as previous joint advisory members, he thinks these edits captures the conversation, and had no more comments.
    • Chair Sun agrees with adding subtitle sections. Two concepts that were brought up were including the word alliance, and the idea of recruitment. It is not just about the supports, but helping and nudging students.
    • Chair Sun asked members if they were comfortable with the edits mentioned and staff making those changes.
    • Tom Adams, CDE, asked members if we could (on page four) use professional learning instead of professional development since that is the term we are currently using.
    • Ex-Officio Member Rattray is happy with the place we are at with the principles.
  1. Guided Pathways
    Chair Sun introduced Kathy Booth, WestEd, who presented on the community college’s Guided Pathways initiative.

    Feedback from committee members:

    • Unpacking Terms: Student-Centered Services
      • Member Rucker mentioned that we have to be careful when using these mega-terms because they mean something different to different people. For example, Math 21 is not the same as Math 16-A, they are both calculus classes but they are not the same. We have to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
      • Member Rucker feels that the most important thing that happened in this conversation is the first time that the first question was why. People are sacrificing efficiency for taking time to ask the why. On paper this might make the programs easier to navigate, but there are some larger issues that still need to be addressed.
  1. Public Comment
    Chair Sun asked for public comment; no public comments were presented.
  1. Discussion and Next Steps
    Committee members decided to cancel the July meeting and change the date of the November meeting. Chair Sun would also like to get feedback from the field on the principles.
    • Future Meeting Dates for 2018:
      • Friday, July 13, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. (Meeting cancelled)
      • 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.
  1. Adjournment
    Chair Sun adjourned the meeting reminding everyone that the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, September 19, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Questions:   Tara Neilson |
Last Reviewed: Friday, April 29, 2022