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
Wednesday, September 19, 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
  • Man Phan
  • Pamela Haynes, Vice Chair
Ex-Officio Members
  • Gustavo Herrera, Young Invincibles
  • David Rattray, Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce
California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Members Absent
  • Valerie Shaw, Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors
  1. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee Meeting
    • Call to Order
      Chair Sun called the meeting to order at approximately 10:15 a.m.
    • Introductions
      Chair Sun had participants make introductions. Chair Sun announced a new member from the community colleges, Dr. Man Phan.
    • 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 purposes.
  2. Federal Perkins Reauthorization
    • Michael Brustein, Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC, Attorneys at Law, provided an overview of the new Perkins legislation, known as the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act.
  3. California Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee
    • 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.
    • Approval of Meeting Minutes
      Chair Sun asked for the approval of the May 11, 2018 meeting minutes. Motioned carried by Vice Chair Haynes and seconded by Member Rucker. Ex-Officio Member Herrera abstained. Minutes were approved without edits.
  4. California Initiatives
    • Career Technical Education Incentive Grant and Strong Workforce
      • Donna Wyatt and Matt Roberts, Dean, Workforce and Economic Development Division, California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, provided an overview of California’s ongoing investments and initiatives recently enacted through the 2019 Budget Act, including an implementation timeline plan.
        • Feedback from committee members
          • Member Ortiz-Licon shared concerns about the timeline, specifically around giving the committee the time to recommend metrics before a Request for Proposals (RFP) is developed. Member Ortiz-Licon believes that the metrics should shape the RFP. There will be one cohort who is doing something that is based on no metrics, a second cohort, if we revise the application, which will be based on metrics; we won’t be able to compare the two data points because we will be measuring different things.
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray cautioned the committee to not be frustrated with success, we wanted ongoing funds. It was good that the legislature and governor moved forward with funding for this work, that puts us right in the mix. The intensity is part of being successful in working through the elements.
          • Vice Chair Haynes agrees, stating that we are experiencing “disruptive contemplation”. Our systems are process driven and collaborative. Our world is moving quicker, we need to work through the discomfort as we move forward, it is a balancing act and we need to move expeditiously on behalf of our systems.
          • Member Rucker feels frustrated. She mentions that in slide two, the title is Policies Fostering Career Pathways, so how is a policy punctuated by a dollar sign. The reason that gives me pause is because for each of those funding streams, while there are similarities, there are also significant gaps in intentionality and accountability. At the bottom of the screen it says aligned metrics; my concern, along with Member Ortiz-Licon, is that we are going to have multiple cohorts with different levels and kinds of accountability. There is an opportunity, in the RFP, to link the accountability in the programs that are already funded and the programs that will be funded. I am also concerned we are sending out an RFP before having the conversation about aligning metrics. Not just aligning metrics between the K–12 system and the community college system, but also among all of these programs. Member Rucker believes that the flexibility under Perkins V will do more for us in California, I believe Perkins has been helpful for us. We need to have the conversation about aligning metrics, so that we are not treating cohorts differently, there has to be alignment between cohorts and we cannot keep granting funds to programs that are not doing the work. If accountability is changing we have to bring the cohorts along with those changes. Member Rucker agrees with Member Ortiz-Licon that we need to determine the metrics before the publication of the RFP. This is an opportunity for them [grantees] to describe how they are going to identify, report, and understand the metrics. Member Rucker does not want to see how they will negotiate the metrics so they can get a break because they didn’t know from the beginning how they were going to be held accountable.
          • Chair Sun feels the same anxiety as other board members, we need to solidify the metrics are before the publication of the RFP. Chair Sun does not think it will throw everything off kilter, the principles are founded in best practices. To better align the metrics to the principles will incentivize better programs. Chair Sun thinks we can still move forward, and that the committee needs more time to review these metrics. When she was asked to be chair of this committee she asked what happened to the committee before and was told that the K–12 and college systems came together to divide the money and went their separate ways. We are not going to do that here, we purposefully and intentionally developed these principles and they need to be front and center and be leading this work here. Chair Sun is not seeing that in these metrics and this presentation.
          • Amber Alexander and Mollie Quasebarth, Department of Finance (DOF), shared with committee members that there are metrics in the statute that largely came from the existing CTE Incentive Grant Program. We [DOF] know that they may not be the right metrics, so it is important that the Committee determine whether any of them are salvageable. This committee is being brought in to help look at the metrics that are in place and find meaningful metrics to put into statute so that we can actually capture outcomes for our ongoing CTE investments. We [DOF] understands that for this first year there is a condensed timeline, but hope that the conversation continues in the future to make further refinements. For this year, since there are metrics in place, we can use those metrics. If there are recommendations we can use them to make changes to the metrics through trailer bill language. We [DOF] does not intend that the recommendation needs to be approved by the SBE or the college’s Board of Governors, this committee makes the recommendation to the DOF and the Legislature to consider as changes are made going forward.
          • Member Phan highlighted that high school and college relationships are not equal throughout the state. Member Phan would like to see language added to the RFP reflecting the question, how are you [grantees] incentivized to work with your college partner.
          • Member Ortiz-Licon would like to see how the principles are represented in the recommendations and metrics. Experiences from the field, what worked and didn’t work, and how that is represented in the metrics.
          • Member Rucker I appreciate seeing the timeline, the timeline works well for the administration of the program by the people who have to administer the program. High schools are not going to have meaningful conversations until they see data from the Dashboard in November, conversations will not begin with other stakeholders about their Local Control Accountability Plan until the data is released to the public in December. If we are trying to add coherence, collaboration, and cooperation among all the stakeholders, who should be involved in the process, this timeline will not accomplish that. This timeline will work if we are trying to just implement the program as a subset of activities. If we want coherence, and add a connection and linkage with the high school program, and the accountability metrics, there is a gap in the consideration for the stakeholder engagement and review process that is supposed to be a part of the decision making at the high school. It takes longer, requires work from the school boards and the school site councils that have to do some of this work.
          • Chair Sun added that the Local Control Funding Formula built in additional funding for career technical education (CTE), so to be aligned with that process would help high schools utilize all the funds that are available to them.
    • Introducing Reporting Metrics for the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant and Strong Workforce Initiatives
      • Kathy Booth, WestEd, provided a deep-dive on metrics for the Career Technical Education Incentive Grant (CTEIG) and Strong Workforce initiatives, including questions that are aligned with proposed metrics, and identify metrics that cannot collected at this time.
        • Feedback from committee members:
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray wanted to have the committee keep in mind what was done with local indicators in the Dashboard so we are not limiting locals from collecting other metrics that could be added in the future.
          • Patricia de Cos wondered how we purposefully looked at the principles document as a starting point for this work, she heard about what was collected through official means like Perkins which is counter to the approach we want to take. We are not leading with what Perkins is requiring us what to do.
          • Chair Sun felt that we are starting with small rather than the bigger vision and then building backwards. The principles are our universe so this is what we will start with instead of starting with the big picture.
          • Member Rucker added that the committee spent a lot of time creating and crafting the principles that not only defines our program, but also to be an indicator of what we believe, and the quality of our collaboration and what we are getting from the system should be. She does not see how the proposed metrics are connected to the principles that this body has already adopted. We should have started with the principles.
    • Proposed Metrics
      • Kathy Booth introduced proposed metrics for the CTEIG and Strong Workforce initiatives.
        • Feedback from committee members:
          • Vice Chair Haynes likes that there will be an automated system from high school to college because for the colleges we have identified special populations like foster youth but we have to ask them [the student], it will be nice to have it identified so we can provide resources.
          • Member Ortiz-Licon pointed out that we need to keep an eye towards equity so there is not a hierarchy developing in schools. She wonders how to make these topics into a metric. We also know that Perkins is going to include homeless and active military, we should include these now.
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray suggests that we have a way to value an interdisciplinary course, like the University of California Curriculum Integration (UCCI) courses, and not discount them by focusing on the CTE concentrator definition. Ex-Officio Member Rattray also feels that performance assessments are more reliable than the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) tests, and suggests that the committee goes beyond the SBAC tests, which is particularly important for CTE. Ex-Officio Member Rattray continues by stating that other metrics could include other authentic assessments like senior portfolios. From the viewpoint of employers, the days of a skilled based economy are fading, the future of work is that people need to be life-long learners. Currently, this is a traditional skill based view but we need to include something that can say that they [students] have learning skills and positive learning dispositions because those students will be the most career ready, which is why alternative assessments is the way to go. We cannot depend on psychometricians, they will not get us there. Since grades and grade point average (GPA) are a better proxy for this, he hopes they have a role.
          • Member Ortiz-Licon mentioned that the SBE tried the GPA route and was told they are not good indicators. The College/Career Indicator has not yet been defined contains multiple measures and is still in development.
          • Chair Sun feels that the metrics needs context which our principles provide and leaves room to explore future metrics. Looking at the chart, include the principles on the left then the metrics and how they align with K–12 and college. She suggested a few months back to start with the principles, otherwise how do we ensure equity and cohesion.
          • Vice Chair Haynes shared that the colleges approved a strategic plan so that anything that goes out, we link everything to the goals that are in strategic plan. She thinks that this exercise would be helpful and to help the field understand why we want each of these metrics.
          • Member Rucker wonders about the student experience, how do the metrics hold institutions accountable for multiple entry points to support student success, we have a principle to hold institutions to identify the institutional barriers and seeing how they are removing barriers. We have a specific principle holding institutions accountable. Member Rucker doesn’t see how our principles are being addressed by the accountability measures that are being proposed.
          • Member Phan believes that we need to be mindful that when we do accountability and collect data and metrics that it has to be measurable, data collected needs to be counted and measured. We can look at equity and access by further disaggregating the data. When institutions are meeting equity and access goals we give them more points.
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray doesn’t think we should be mutually exclusive of other qualitative data that can be collected, for example the data being used in the School Climate Indicator in the Dashboard.
          • Member Rucker believes that improving practices is done through program monitoring, which is what these principles are trying to do. It needs to be in the program accountability guidance.
          • Member Ortiz-Licon wonders what is realistic, we have a deadline and a short timeline, what will the change be for this year. The application is going out before our next meeting.
          • Patricia de Cos appreciates the conversation and work that went into today’s presentation and feels that it is a good start. We need to fill out these metrics to see if anything that we collect was missed that could address our principles. There are different types of metrics, which principles are considered either as an outcome, process, or input metric. We need to ask, what it would take for these metrics to be developed, what is the timeline for some of these pieces, and where would we house this information.
          • Chair Sun states that we developed these principles of where we want to be, but we don’t have the background to see how the metrics will meet the principles.
          • Member Rucker suggested that moving forward we need to look at the timeline to see what we can massage to better accommodate the local planning time, second as it relates to the recommendations. The recommendations need to say that moving forward the accountability system will include a list of interim metrics that we are intending to make institutions accountable for. This incorporates the concerns that have been shared today.
          • Member Phan suggests that a chart, like the one presented, might be included in the application.
          • Member Rucker mentioned that some parts of the timeline we cannot control and some we can, and that we need to adjust the timeline for local decision making processes. We also need to put a placeholder about the continued development of the metrics.
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray agrees with Member Rucker, let’s maximize what we can get done, ask staff to take the ideas and elements and put them into a discussion formation and let us know of the possibilities to get closer to our goals. Help us understand how feasible and costly what we want could be. Then in November we can agree what the future priorities will be.
          • Chair Sun and the committee agreed that they would be comfortable to receive information through a memo before November’s meeting which will incorporate the concerns that were shared throughout the day.
          • Ex-Officio Member Rattray is happy with the principles because we endorsed The California Way which highlights Michael Fullen’s work about drivers. Michael Fullen states that the wrong driver is accountability and the right driver is building professional capacity, coherence, and supporting the field. He wants to keep talking about building the field and the metrics are a part of that, to build the field.
          • Member Rucker reminds the committee that the right driver is a balance of process inputs and outcomes. The only elements that are in these metrics are outcome metrics and does not currently follow the California Way.
  5. Public Comment
    • Chair Sun asked for public comment.
      • Kit Alvarez – San Bernardino County Superintendent of Schoo
      • Mollie Quasebarth – DOF
      • Anna Fontes – Linked Learning Alliance
  6. Discussion and Next Steps
    • Schedule of Future Meetings
      • Monday, November 26, 2018 from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
      • Proposed meeting dates for 2019 are yet to be determined.
  7. Update – Joint Advisory Committee’s Guiding Policy Principles
    • Chair Sun will provided an update on the Guiding Policy Principles to Support K-14+ Pathways.
  8. Adjournment
    • Chair Sun adjourned the meeting.
Questions:   Lisa Reimers | lreimers@cde.ca.gov | 916-322-1762
Last Reviewed: Friday, January 18, 2019
Recently Posted in Career Technical Education
  • California Workforce Pathways Minutes (added 18-Mar-2019)
    The Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee plans to address workforce pathways to address California’s regional economies.
  • California Workforce Pathways Minutes (added 14-Mar-2019)
    The Workforce Pathways Joint Advisory Committee plans to address workforce pathways to address California’s regional economies.