GROUP FINDINGS: POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Statement of the
Issues
The Group agreed that the
governance of postsecondary education requires fewer overall improvements than
that of K-12 education, but that those improvements are essential for both
continued success as well as betterment of the California postsecondary
education system.
California Community
Colleges
California Postsecondary Education Commission
Recommendations
and Rationale
The following
recommendations are intended to be accomplished by the most direct mechanisms
possible. Each recommendation is supported by a statement of
rationale.
California Community
Colleges
Rationale: There are multiple missions for the California Community College system; the Group decided that these were the three most prominent. These main missions may be concerns at every level, but the respective levels listed are the ones with the best ability and greatest responsibility to fulfill the missions. Efficient and accurate academic preparation for transfer to other postsecondary institutions requires massive coordination and is best fostered—if students’ needs are preeminent—by a state-level approach. Workforce preparation varies widely depending on the work demand in the region and local community of the college. Remediation involves intense focus on individuals locally.
Board of Governors:
- Exercise general supervision over, and coordination of, the local community college districts.
- Provide leadership and direction through research and planning.
- Establish minimum conditions and standards to be required for all districts to receive state support and to function within the system.
- Establish specific accountability measures and assure evaluation of district performance based on those measures.
- Approve courses of instruction and educational programs that meet local, regional, and state needs.
- Administer state operational and capital outlay support programs.
- Adopt a proposed system budget and allocation process.
- Ensure system-wide articulation with other segments of education.
- Represent the districts before state and national legislative and executive agencies.
Local Boards:
- Establish, maintain, and oversee the colleges within each district.
- Assure the district meets the minimum conditions and standards established by the Board of Governors.
- Establish policies for local academic, operations, and facilities planning to assure accomplishment of the statutory mission within conditions and standards established by the Board of Governors:
- Adopt local district budgets.
- Oversee the procurement and management of property.
- Establish policies governing student conduct.
- Establish policies to guide new course development, course revision/deletion, and curricular quality.
- Establish policies to guide new course development, course revision/deletion, and curricular quality.
Rationale: The community
college system, to be effective, needs a clear statement of functions and
authority for the Board of Governors and the local boards of trustees. This
assignment of respective functions would clarify that it is the responsibility
of the Board of Governors to ensure the performance of such duties as
establishing statewide policy, negotiating funding, managing, and setting
accountability standards for all the colleges
collectively.
The Group decided early on and
consistently restated throughout its meetings that focus in the postsecondary
realm was needed most on the community college system. Group discussions ran
the gamut of potential solutions to the community college governance challenges.
Associating the system more with K-12 education versus the postsecondary
segment; abolishing local boards; or abolishing the Board of Governors were
points of discussion across the meetings. Ultimately, however, most members of
the Group expressed the opinion that community colleges provide education that
is, for the most part, post—K-12 education and that what plagues the
system, in part, is its lingering semi-association in structure with the K-12
system. Assigning clear functions to the Board of Governors and local boards
was agreed to be the best course of action at this time.
Rationale: Some
type of restructuring of the local district system is necessary from the point
of view of both efficiency and effectiveness, but will be effective only if
local boards are engaged and supportive. Size and scope of authority are the
two main considerations with respect to the local board structure in the CCC
system.
More focused discussion of community
college local boards prompted the Group to conclude that the high number of
districts and their overwhelming scope of responsibility limit the state
system’s ability to satisfy its missions. But local boards were decided
to be too ingrained in the structure of the system to be sweepingly
eliminated.
Rationale: With regard
to administration, the Group easily achieved consensus that the central office
structure of both the California State University system and the University of
California is highly functional. The Group further concluded that the
flexibility and authority allowed by this structure would benefit the CCC
central office. The authority to appoint/approve senior staff will help
empower the CCC system to fulfill its missions by providing the Board of
Governors the ability to choose competent, capable staff with expertise in
specialized areas and offer competitive salaries rather than being confined to
state salary schedules, which frequently fall below even district salary
schedules.
California Postsecondary
Education Commission
Rationale: Staggered terms would
foster continuity on the commission, and the executive director’s being
appointed by the commission would enhance collaboration by insulating the
executive director from any affiliation with existing systems of postsecondary
education in the provision of advice to the Legislature, Governor, or system
leadership. CPEC would benefit from the civil service exemption for the
purposes of hiring employees who meet specific needs, as has been the experience
of the CSU and UC systems.
The priorities of
CPEC should be those interests that fit together to form a cohesive mission, and
should not include those that put CPEC into a role conflict. Most members
agreed that CPEC currently has competing missions of (1) subjectively
approaching the postsecondary segments in order to coordinate them, while (2)
objectively approaching the segments to negotiate among them. After discussing
possible elimination of CPEC, the Group chose instead to recommend its
redefinition, with its data collection responsibility re-assigned to an
independent agency (see K-16 Education).
The
Group did not progress far enough in its conversation about redefining the
responsibilities and composition of CPEC to reach consensus on either additional
authority that CPEC would require to enhance its effectiveness or whether the
recommended gubernatorial appointments to the commission would be accompanied by
a reduction in the overall size of the
commission.
| Table of Contents | |||
| Summary | Introduction | K-12 | PS |
| K-16 | Conclusion | Background | Members |