California Workforce Pathways Minutes

REPORT OF ACTION
Monday, November 26, 2018

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Present

State Board of Education Representatives

• Patricia Rucker
• Ting Sun, Chair

Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors Representatives

• Pamela Haynes, Vice Chair

California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent

• Amy Costa, Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors
• Feliza Ortiz-Licon, State Board of Education
• Man Phan, Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors

Ex-Officio Members

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

1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Meeting
   • Call to Order
     Chair Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 10:20 a.m.
   • Introductions
     Chair Sun had participants make introductions. Chair Sun announced two new members, from the community colleges, joining the committee in January, Jolena Grande and Amy Costa.
     
   • Meeting Overview
     Chair Sun provided a brief overview of the meeting’s planned agenda.
   • 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 purpose
2. Federal Perkins Reauthorization
   Donna Wyatt provided a brief update on the activities around the new Perkins legislation, Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act.
3. Feedback on the Guiding Principles
   Donna Wyatt provided a brief summary on the public feedback, received so far, for the Guiding Principles document.
4. California Initiatives
   Donna Wyatt and Matt Roberts, Dean, Workforce and Economic Development Division, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office (CCCCO) presented to the committee the proposed metrics for the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) and the K–12 Strong Workforce Program (K-12 SWP).

   Feedback from committee members:

   • Member Rucker feels that we need to collect more than the number of students completing two or more career technical education (CTE) courses because there is a continuum of CTE programs and the proposed change is exclusionary. This change does not take into consideration that in high school many students are still surveying and it does not consider public feedback that in small districts they do not have the capacity to expand programs, we need to collect more than just the students completing two courses in a pathway. These metrics do not meet the ideals of growth over time which are embedded in The California Way. We need to add metrics for input and process.
   • Vice Chair Haynes mentions that we are building something that includes fifth graders and they are exploring. We need to push down the exploration into middle school. Then the question becomes, how do we recognize those students at the tenth and eleventh grade and see if they have found a pathway to complete two courses in.
   • Member Rucker does not believe that the legislative intent is to report on students in a pathway (completing two courses in the same pathway), the intent is to collect data on students who have taken a CTE course.
   • Chair Sun stated the rationale should be based on our principles. The principles should be the main piece and demonstrate the rationale.
   • Member Rucker would like to see how the department will be working to help locals report into the California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data System (CALPADS) more accurately, since there is an information misalignment in CALPADS in order to capture the data that needs to be captured. Programs are given administrative costs that should be used to help cleanup data systems. The programs should be accountable and create a timeline of when the systems (CALPADS and Cal-PASS Plus) will be corrected.
   • Patricia de Cos wonders about the status on the MOU between the CCCCO and the CDE for data sharing.
   • Chair Sun summarized the conversation. The first metric, demographic data, we are recommending to hold off until we can figure out the technical difficulties on collecting the data. On the second metric, number of pupils completing CTE courses, we recommend that staff will adjust the metric based on the conversation.
   • Member Rucker, on the third metric, recommends to include the College/Career Indicator (CCI) implementation timeline under concerns, since this will inform what districts will be able to report on. We need to keep in mind that the CCI is a school-level report.
   • Chair Sun stated that the legislative language should not be condensed in these documents, the legislative language should be verbatim. For the third metric, the CCI and certifications should be separated into two metrics.
   • Member Rucker asked who would be responsible for reporting the fourth metric, the number of students completing high school. The graduating cohort is different from students who graduate, the cohort does not include students that do not graduate in four years. We need to be specific on what is being used for this metric.
   • Chair Sun feels that the fourth metric will be kept, and would like to see the source of the metric.  This information on metrics should be included for all metrics.
   • Chair Sun started to review the fifth metric that includes the number of students enrolled in postsecondary, apprenticeships, and other forms of job training. Staff stated that K–12 is not able to collect this information at this time.
   • Member Rucker disagrees and believes that this data is being collected by school counselors. The problem is that there is no place to report this information within state data systems.  This metric could be collected locally and reported as a lagging indicator. The department could make a reporting template to include these metrics that the agencies receiving these funds are required to complete the template.
   • Chair Sun summarized that for the fifth metric the recommendation would be to keep the metric and operationalize it through self-reporting to the department. The sixth metric is the number of students employed and the type of business they are employed.  This would be another self-reported metric.
   • Member Rucker mentioned that there will likely be a lot of incomplete data on this metric because students already know if they are going to college and others will just not know where they will be working.  We will need to collect the data a year after graduation, so there will not be a lot of information. We need to indicate that there is a process (six month survey used in Perkins) for this information and that this will be a lagging indicator.
   • Chair Sun, for the seventh metric, wonders what would be the metrics in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) legislation that still needs to be included here.
   • Member Rucker believes that there are mega terms included in the WIOA core metrics that need to be defined like Certificate, Journey-Level Status, Living Wage, and Median Annual Earnings, and document the data source.
   • Chair Sun confirmed that we want to keep the seventh metric and that we need to include definitions and where the data comes from.
   • Member Rucker wants to see a statement that we are beginning with these three core metrics and that we will be adding metrics in the future. The colleges collect this data, but how do the K-12 agencies report on this metric. They can’t report on the three listed. We need to include a metric that the K-12 agencies can report on.
   • Chair Sun wants to revisit the metrics in WIOA and see what can be reported by the agencies.
   • Vice Chair Haynes is concerned about what, and who, is collecting the data, who is in the best position to collect the data, and what it is being used for.
   • Member Rucker points out that since it is in the legislation we (K-12) has to report something on this metric. Member Rucker suggests that we include a concern that this metric will improve  over time.
   • Chair Sun recommends that the language on the final metric reflect that we will be referencing the new state plan under the new Perkins V Act.
   • Member Rucker wants to ensure that what we are doing here will be reflected and supported in the state’s Perkins V plan.
   • Chair Sun moves the conversation to the 11 essential elements for a high quality CTE program.
   • Member Rucker would like to see that stakeholders have the opportunity to give feedback on the school’s indicators on what is reported on the evaluation tool.
   • Vice Chair Haynes feels that there needs to be an indication somewhere that shows the levels in order to show what is high quality.
   • Vice Chair Haynes asked the group if alignment of resources addresses fiscal responsibility.
   • Chair Sun recommends to have the language reflect that the metrics will be aligned to the Perkins state transition plan.

5. Public Comment
   Chair Sun asked for public comment.
   • Diane Walker – Antelope Valley High School District
   • Anna Fontes – Linked Learning Alliance
   • Kathy Kent – North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
   • Tracie Zerpoli – Tri Cities Regional Occupational Program
   • Louise Stymeist – Sacramento County Office of Education
   • Terri Giamarino – North Orange County Regional Occupational Program
6. Discussion and Next Steps
   Chair Sun mentioned that we will be adding a meeting date in December 2018.
   • Schedule of Future Meetings
     • Friday, January 11, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
     • Friday, March 15, 2019 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.

7. Adjournment
   Chair Sun adjourned the meeting reminding.