top
Central Valley
Central Valley
Indybay
Indybay
Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
View events for the week of 3/16/2020
Speak-out At Community College Board of Governors Meeting Against Attacks
Date Monday March 16
Time 12:00 PM - 1:00 PM
Event Type Press Conference
Organizer/AuthorHEAT
Location Details
Community College Board Of Governors
1102 Q Street, 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA
There will be a speak-out at the Community College Board of Governors against the corporatization and attacks on community. colleges.
3/16 Speak-out At Community College Board of Governors Meeting in Sacramento Against Attacks On Community Colleges
& Against Corruption
Community College Board Of Governors
1102 Q Street, 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA

Press Conference
Monday, March 16, 2020
12:00 PM
Speak Out At Board
1:00 PM
1102 Q Street, 6th Floor
Sacramento, CA

Community Colleges are under attack and many classes are being canceled. This is part of corporatization of community colleges with a new funding proposal that
punishes our Community Colleges. This Board and California politicians have passed AB 705 which guarantees unprepared community college students will FAIL

Also we are against the corruption with the on-line community college that was funded with $120 million. This funding took place without proper oversight and high paid
administrators while faculty at community colleges are being layed off thousands of classes are being cut.

Sponsored by
Higher Education Task Force
https://ccsfheat.wordpress.com

Monday, March 16, 2020

Monday, 03-16-2020 from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.*

Members of the public may participate via Zoom videoconferencing using the this link (https://cccconfer.zoom.us/j/631704028) or by calling in to the meeting at (669) 900-6833 Webinar ID: 631 704 028.
Members of the public wishing to comment on an agenda item or another topic within the jurisdiction of the Board of Governors will be given the opportunity to ask questions via Zoom or may submit questions via email at: ccastro [at] cccco.edu.
*All times are approximate and subject to change. Order of items is subject to change.

Agenda Item Details
Meeting Mar 16, 2020 - Board of Governors Meeting Category Standing Orders of Business Subject Call to Order - Amended Type Procedural

All Board of Governors meetings are held in locations that are wheelchair accessible. Other disability-related accommodations, such as alternate media materials, sign language interpreters, or real time transcription, will be provided to persons with disabilities upon request. Persons requesting such accommodations should notify Christina N. Castro at 1102 Q Street, Sacramento, California, 95811 or ccastro [at] cccco.edu, (916) 323-5889, no less than five working days prior to the meeting. The Chancellor’s Office will make efforts to meet requests made after such date, if possible.

Public testimony will be invited in conjunction with board discussion on each item.
Persons wishing to make a statement to the board on a subject not on the agenda shall address the board during the time listed for public forum.

Mission Statement

“Empowering Community Colleges Through Leadership, Advocacy and Support.”

Vision For Success Goals

Increase by at least 20 percent the number of California Community Colleges (CCC) students annually who acquire associates degrees, credentials, certificates, or specific skill sets that prepare them for an in-demand job.
Increase by 35 percent the number of CCC students transferring annually to a University of California or California State University.
Decrease the average number of units accumulated by CCC students earning associate’s degrees, from approximately 87 total units (the most recent system-wide average) to 79 total units—the average among the quintile of colleges showing the strongest performance on this measure.
Increase the percent of exiting Career Technical Education (CTE) students who report being employed in their field of study, from the most recent statewide average of 60 percent to an improved rate of 69 percent—the average among the quintile of colleges showing the strongest performance on this measure.
Reduce equity gaps across all of the above measures through faster improvements among traditionally underrepresented student groups, with the goal of cutting achievement gaps by 40 percent within five years and fully closing those achievement gaps within ten years.
Reduce regional achievement gaps across all of the above measures through faster improvements among colleges located in regions with the lowest educational attainment of adults, with the ultimate goal of fully closing regional achievement gaps within ten years.
Vision For Success Core Commitments

Focus relentlessly on students’ end goals.
Always design and decide with the student in mind.
Pair high expectations with high support.
Foster the use of data, inquiry, and evidence.
Take ownership of goals and performance.
Enable action and thoughtful innovation.
Lead the work of partnering across systems.
About the Board

The Board of Governors of the California Community Colleges, by statute, provides leadership and policy direction in the continuing development of the California Community College System. Among its charges are establishing minimum academic and personnel standards; evaluating and reporting on the fiscal and educational effectiveness of the 73 districts; conducting research and providing appropriate information services; and administering fiscal support programs (both operational and capital outlay).

The 17-member board, appointed by the governor, includes 12 public members (two of whom must be current or former elected members of local boards); one voting and one non-voting student member currently enrolled in a community college; two voting tenured faculty members; and one voting classified staff member.

The work of the board is supported by the staff of the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

Board of Governors Live Webinar

Use the following Zoom link to view a live feed of the Board of Governors Meeting:

https://cccconfer.zoom.us/j/631704028

Captions are provided during the webinar.

Chancellor's Office Administrators

Eloy Ortiz Oakley, Chancellor
Dr. Daisy Gonzales, Deputy Chancellor
Marty Alvarado, Executive Vice Chancellor of Educational Services & Support
Barney Gomez, Vice Chancellor of Digital Information & Infrastructure
Paul Feist, Vice Chancellor of Communications & Marketing
Marc LeForestier, General Counsel
Kelley Maddox, Vice Chancellor of Internal Operations
Rhonda Mohr, Vice Chancellor of Educational Services & Support
Lizette Navarette, Vice Chancellor of College Finance & Facilities Planning
Sheneui Weber, Vice Chancellor of Workforce & Economic Development
Vacant, Vice Chancellor of Educational Services & Support
Vacant, Vice Chancellor of Governmental Relations
Vacant, Vice Chancellor of Institutional Effectiveness & Innovation
request-to-address-the-board-of-governors-public-comment-a11y.pdf (148 KB)
PUBLIC COMMENT

Name: Address:

( Please provide a business card )

Affiliation:

Agenda item # : (or subject on which you wish to speak)

BOARD OF GOVERNORS CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Request to Address the Board of Governors

Speakers are limited to 3 minutes each

Public testimony will be invited after Committee discussion on each item.

Speakers are limited to 3 minutes each, subject to change by the Board President. Please keep within this time frame. If you have written materials to present to the Committee, please give the Board's staff 50 copies prior to addressing the Board.



With $120 million and few students, California’s new online community college faces audit after corruption scandal & Protest On March 16 At Board Meeting
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/With-120-million-and-few-students-15090852.php

Are Community Colleges Meant Mainly to Crank Out Workers for Business? CFT AFT Leadership Was Aware In 2011 Of ALEC Lumina In CA
AFT pair: "All of us know what the replacement of funding based on enrollment with funding based on completion would mean—cuts and scarcity and a 'streamlining' of the community college system that would limit access and eliminate programs and classes.” https://patch.com/california/lamesa/teachers-union-blasts


Accelerating Student Success Project is part of the Lumina Foundation’s efforts to champion and support the California Community Colleges Student Success Initiative
Amy Supinger Works For Lumina and The Community College Chancellor’s Office

https://foundationccc.org/News-Room/News-Archives/2012-Archive/CPEF-supports-student-success
Foundation expands support of student success initiatives
Attacks On Working Class Students & Corporatization of California Community Colleges With AB 705 and AB 1440 Backed By California Democrats Including SF Ting, Chiu and Weiner
http://www.capoliticalreview.com/capoliticalnewsandviews/ab-705-guarantees-unprepared-community-college-students-fail/

AB 705 and AB 1440

AB 705: Guarantees Unprepared Community College Students FAIL

September 19, 2017 By Stephen Frank 1 Comment
How do you guarantee failure for students and tens of millions in wasted tax dollars? You enroll students that received a “D” average in LAUSD (45% of 2016 “graduates” had a D average) then NOT give them or allow them remedial classes to bring them up to 8th or 9th grade level. So, as the functional illiterates fail their college classes and eventually leave school. Who wins? The Democrats that believe everyone is college material—and even those that need help are refused it.
“Assembly Bill 705 would prohibit them from placing a student in a remedial course “that lengthens their time to complete a degree,” unless the college can prove the student would fail. Remedial classes do not count toward an associate’s degree nor a university transfer.
In order to succeed under the new model, the bill essentially corners colleges into doing what Cuyamaca and Mesa have done — concurrently enroll students in college-level math and a remedial breakout course — though it doesn’t explicitly require them to.”
We already know that up to 80% of California High School graduates need remedial English and/or Math classes for the State Colleges. Imagine how many going to community college need it? This is why government has more than enough money—they know they are harming young people ans wasting tax dollars.

--
Check out the Save CCSF Webpage here:
http://www.saveccsf.org/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FightBack and SaveCCSF" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to fightbacksaveccsf13+unsubscribe [at] googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fightbacksaveccsf13/1C2B04A0-115A-476A-9561-0FDA44395986%40igc.org.

Bill Would Force Community Colleges’ Hands On Remediation Reforms
By Megan Burks, KPBS, 9/18/17

Cuyamaca College saw a seven-fold increase in the number of students passing college math last year. Instead of requiring underprepared students to catch up on high school math first, it put them in college math with extra help. Mesa College did the same for English and saw its pass rate double for students in the pilot program.
Now, state lawmakers want every community college to make the change.
Assembly Bill 705 would prohibit them from placing a student in a remedial course “that lengthens their time to complete a degree,” unless the college can prove the student would fail. Remedial classes do not count toward an associate’s degree nor a university transfer.
In order to succeed under the new model, the bill essentially corners colleges into doing what Cuyamaca and Mesa have done — concurrently enroll students in college-level math and a remedial breakout course — though it doesn’t explicitly require them to.
“The research behind these changes is so clear that it’s sort of hard to argue at this point,” said Katie Hern, co-founder and director to the California Acceleration Project, a statewide faculty workgroup that has been researching the model and supports the bill. “It’s hard to argue that community colleges should be able to keep doing what we’ve been doing when the results are so bad for traditional approaches and so much better when we reform our placement practices and implement corequisite models.”
The bill would also do away with the standardized placement tests community colleges give to incoming students. Instead, they’d use high school grades, which research has shown to be a more reliable indicator of whether a student needs remediation.
Grossmont College, and several other colleges in the state, have already moved away from placement tests with strong results. But Grossmont’s math department co-chair said she worries AB 705 goes too far in placing limits on remediation.
“The language in this bill is both strict and general at the same time. What does it mean? We cannot require a student to take a remedial course unless it is absolutely necessary, or that all community colleges will have to add support courses to all of their college-level courses?” said Shirley Pereira, referring to the section of the bill that prohibits remedial placement.
Pereira said she worries about limiting options for students, especially military veterans, former housewives and other nontraditional students who are far removed from high school coursework.
“The number of remedial courses should be minimized at all of our colleges,” she said. “We do this by placing students correctly, but it does not mean that we get rid of all of our remedial courses. Remember the community college charge: access is first and foremost.”
Hern said the bill would not limit options; it would simply require colleges to look deeply at whether the remedial option is best for students.
“It really sort of shifts the burden of proof away from students having to prove that they should have access to a college-level course, and it shifts to colleges having to prove that students should not have access to the course because they are highly unlikely to succeed there,” Hern said.
When Cuyamaca College allowed students who needed remediation to go straight into a college-level course, the pass rate soared. It went from 10 percent to 67 percent. At Mesa College, 75 percent of students enrolled in a pilot program that eliminated remedial English passed college-level English. That is compared to 38 percent of students not in the pilot.
Pereira pointed out change under the bill would not be swift, especially for larger colleges. In addition to shifting the class schedule, teachers must shift how they teach. With students coming in at various levels, they must be able to give individualized support.
It is not clear how quickly the changes would need to be implemented under the bill. First, the governor must sign it. He has until Sept. 30.
The California State University is currently implementing similar changes.

Vote of No confidence due to the lack of participatory governance by the State Chancellor of the California Community Colleges

http://lrcft.org/vote-of-no-confidence/

Whereas, the principle of participatory governance in the California Community Colleges has been established and codified in law (AB1725); Whereas, participatory governance only functions when it is practiced at all levels of the administration and faculty governing bodies; Whereas, confidence in the leadership of the chief executive of a college system is integral to the effective administration of the California Community College mission; Whereas, the faculty of the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers (LRCFT) AFT 2279 recognizes that participatory governance has ceased to function at the state level where the State Chancellor’s Office has closed the normal channels of communication with the faculty organizations such as the Academic Senate (ASCCC), the Community College Council of the California Federation of Teachers, the Community College Association of the California Teachers Association, the California Community College Independents, and the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges; Whereas, the State Chancellor’s Office has demonstrated a lack of transparency and collegial consultations which includes, but is not limited to;
• Introducing legislation and state budget for Guided Pathways;
• Introducing language into AB 19 that requires districts’ and colleges’ participate in Guided Pathways in order to receive funding;
• Reducing the meetings to consult with stakeholders on the budget change proposal and legislation to a single meeting;
• Making Consultation Council a reporting of State Chancellor’s Office activities rather than a forum where consensus can be achieved on critical issues facing community colleges;
• Failing to engage in consultation and consensus building with stakeholders concerning AB 705. There was a lack of discussion and preparation of the college districts for the changes required in AB 705. There was a lack of funding for the workload required for the mandated activity for AB 705 and none has been planned in the future. There has been no discussion on the unintended consequences of AB705 implementation. The State Chancellor’s Office has announced that reading programs will be eliminated based on AB 705 even though the bill contains no language to that effect;
• Failing to consult with any stakeholders before the introduction of the online college in the Governor’s budget in January 2018. Alterations In the online college proposal have been made when testifying before the budget and higher education committees without consultation with faculty. New programs such as medical coding have been proposed by the State Chancellor without a functioning local Academic Senate (no faculty have been hired yet) and as a consequence no participatory governance. In addition, an online medical coding program will directly compete with the current program at Cosumnes River College. The online college will be subscription based and competency-based without discussion with a local Academic Senate and another example of a lack of participatory governance. These academic and professional matters could have been at least discussed and possibly resolved with the State Academic Senate, but that did not occur. The new faculty for the online college will not be represented by a union, will not have a collectively bargained contract, and will be on a meet and confer basis. The State Chancellor has not engaged with the faculty unions about the parameters of contract for the online college faculty;
• Failing to consult with any stakeholders before the introduction of the new funding formula in the Governor’s budget in January 2018. There were virtually no simulations run to test the viability of such a funding formula or to determine unintended consequences. The Chancellor’s Office convened a task force of Chief Executive Officers to seek alternative proposals from which faculty were excluded; Whereas, these and other examples have illustrated that the State Chancellor has demonstrated a lack of transparency and collegial consultation with the faculty organizations, has actively blocked faculty leadership access to meetings in which decisions have been made, and exhibits a general lack of acknowledgement of the concerns of faculty;
Therefore, be it resolved, that the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers affirms a vote of no confidence for the California Community College Chancellor, Eloy Ortiz Oakley and transmit said resolution to the Board of Governors; Be if further resolved, that the Los Rios College Federation of Teachers send this resolution to the Community College Council President, Jim Mahler, and request that a similar vote of no confidence resolution be introduced and passed by the Community College Council of the California Federation of Teachers.

Union Busting Corporate Controlled California Community College Board of Governors Pushed AB 705
https://assessment.cccco.edu/ab-705-implementation
https://ccsfheat.wordpress.com

With $120 million and few students, California’s new online community college faces audit after corruption scandal

Nanette Asimov Feb. 27, 2020
https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/With-120-million-and-few-students-15090852.php


Derek Gordon, chief operating officer of Calbright, is the college’s highest paid employee at $295,000 a year.
Photo: Paul Kuroda / Special to The Chronicle
The California state auditor will take a deep look at the state’s unaccredited new online community college, Calbright, to learn whether it’s offering students what it promised — and whether its $120 million cost to taxpayers so far is money well spent, lawmakers said this week.

“We have some concerns regarding Calbright College,” Assemblyman Jose Medina, D-Riverside, told the state’s Joint Legislative Audit Committee Wednesday. He and two other lawmakers, Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, and Assemblywoman Sharon Quirk-Silva, D-Fullerton (Orange County), asked for the audit at the request of community college faculty leaders.

The idea behind the fully online public college has been to help teach more people faster and cheaper than at traditional community colleges. But to critics, Calbright has appeared slow to enroll students and hire instructors, and expensive to run. Faculty leaders from other schools have long complained that the 115th community college duplicates the offerings of campuses across the state — prohibited in the legislation authorizing Calbright — and that its executives set up the college without consulting instructors. Meanwhile, Calbright employees have felt squeezed by the mandated legislative timeline of less than a year to establish the college from scratch.

The 7-month audit, to begin in July, will focus mainly on three areas. Auditors will look at whether Calbright’s three courses — cybersecurity, information technology and medical coding — improperly duplicate courses already offered at other community colleges. They will assess its efforts to become accredited and judge whether it’s overspending on everything from salaries and consulting contracts to equipment and office space.

State Auditor Elaine Howle told the committee that she’ll also look at measures of quality, including whether students are satisfied and progressing, and will determine whether Calbright has complied with employment and procurement laws. Typically, state audits come with a set of recommendations to fix the problems, and years of monitoring.

Calbright opened on Oct. 1 and has stumbled often since 2018, when then-Gov. Jerry Brown, a fan of the possibilities for online education, conceived of it.

Most recently, its $385,000-a-year president and chief executive, Heather Hiles mysteriously quit last month after a year on the job as Calbright’s most vigorous cheerleader.

California’s community college Board of Governors doubles as Calbright’s Board of Trustees.

The vision for the college has been to train low-wage workers in their 20s and 30s for better jobs at little or no cost to them. Hiles had said the school would not only find jobs for every student, but would provide on-the-job coaching. In July, college officials said they expected to enroll only 300 to 400 students in their first year, giving themselves a better chance of success before opening the doors wide open.

Calbright today says it enrolls 38 students: eight in cybersecurity, 12 in medical coding, and 18 in information technology. Another 510 are enrolled in basic math skills and reading comprehension courses.

The state Legislature allocated $100 million in startup funding for Calbright and promised another $20 million a year.

“They’re being funded at a rate 1,000 times higher than our traditional community colleges,” Jim Mahler, who heads the California Federation of Teachers’ community college council, told the audit committee.

Calbright’s spokesman, Taylor Huckaby, later called Mahler’s figures an exaggeration, given that the money is intended to fund the college over many years, and that enrollment is expected to rise.

Yet this isn’t the first time Calbright has been accused of financial excess.

A year ago, Hiles pushed the trustees to approve a no-bid, $552,00 contractfor a friend and politically connected executive recruiter. Troubled by their own actions, the trustees reduced the contract to $376,000 three weeks later.

A Chronicle review of Calbright records shows that the college is spending nearly $5.6 million on 36 employees, paying them an average of $154,764 each. The highest paid employee is its chief operating officer, Derek Gordon, at $295,000 a year.

Of the 36, eight earn more than $200,000 a year.

Calbright also has 22 contracts totaling more than $1.5 million, including one at $23,750 a month — annually, $285,000 — for its interim president and chief executive, Ajita Talwalker Menon, brought on this month. Menon was a special assistant of higher education to President Obama.

“We feel an audit is premature, and its scope covers areas Calbright is still testing,” said Tom Epstein, president of the Board of Trustees.

Even so, he said, “we welcome and share the desire of Assemblmember Media to ensure that Calbright is operating in an effective and transparent manner.”

Nanette Asimov is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: nasimov [at] sfchronicle.com Twitter: @NanetteAsimov
ccsf_city_college_not_for_sale_.jpg

Added to the calendar on Friday Mar 13th, 2020 5:18 PM
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 147.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network