Search

The 2021-22 accreditation year continued to be impacted in significant ways by the ongoing nature of the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic. All accreditation activities, including site visits, were adjusted to reflect this new reality while maintaining full implementation of the system. This report presents information about the major activities of the accreditation system, the Committee on Accreditation (COA) decisions that were made, and some of the major areas of focus for academic year 2021-22.

In April 2021, New America's Open Technology Institute (OTI) and the Philanthropication thru Privatization Project (PtP) released a joint proposal that the federal government should invest a substantial portion of the windfall proceeds from future auctions of public airwaves (spectrum) to seed a new Digital Equity Foundation dedicated to addressing equity gaps in broadband adoption and affordability, education, telehealth, access to government services, and other critical areas. The next step in realizing this vision is now in the hands of Congress and other federal policymakers, as allocation of spectrum auction proceeds to support the creation of a Digital Equity Foundation requires legislation. Policymakers will also play a critical role in establishing the guidelines for the creation of an initial foundation board and mission. This paper serves to help flesh out the options for how that could be accomplished, drawing on a review of existing foundations created with public and nonprofit assets to identify best practices for how to start a foundation with public, quasi-public, or nonprofit funds. This paper is structured in five parts. Part I provides a brief overview of the proposed Digital Equity Foundation; Part II, examines some key examples of existing U.S. foundations that illustrate the use of public or quasi-public funds to support priority public needs; Part III, explores ways the proposed Digital Equity Foundation might be structured and organized to achieve its programmatic goals to advance digital equity and inclusion, while operating with appropriate transparency and public accountability; Part IV, considers additional legal considerations that surfaced in a review of foundations previously established under federal legislation; and Part V, provides a summary of concrete recommendations for the proposed foundation. [This report is a joint product of the Open Technology Institute at New America and the Philanthropication thru Privation Project.]

Increased attention to police brutality and violence against people of color has elevated scrutiny of campus police. Students have critiqued the inequitable treatment of students of color on their campuses by campus police. In doing so, the students are critiquing racial inequity in the campus climate. The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office (Chancellor's Office) issued a "Call to Action for the California Community Colleges" in summer 2020 to eradicate systemic racism across the programs and services at California's community colleges. This scrutiny includes campus police training, practices and campus culture. To address the first area of the Call to Action, which is focused on campus policing practices, a diverse Reimagining Campus Policing Task Force has been assembled. After nearly a year, the task force has drafted this set of substantive recommendations to enhance campus policing and campus climate as well as impact student success as part of this broad Call to Action to mitigate structural racism.

The move to online instruction and service delivery has created both a critical need and a unique opportunity to investigate the innovative uses of technologies and practices. In the fall of 2020, NASPA launched the Virtual Innovation Awards: Excellence in Delivering Virtual Student Services. Over 100 submissions were vetted by an advising committee network and narrowed to a group of 10 institutions. "Spotlighting Virtual Innovation: Award-Winning Strategies for Leveraging Technology to Support Students During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Beyond" synthesizes key themes common among the 10 award recipients, highlights each institution's approach to virtual student engagement in more detail, and concludes with recommendations about the future of virtual support offerings.

This report summarizes the deliberations and recommendations of the California Advisory Task Force on Alternative Schools (Task Force). The Task Force is a public service project of the John W. Gardner Center for Youth and their Communities at Stanford University and is convened in collaboration with the California Department of Education (CDE). A central Task Force objective is to provide independent advice to the CDE and the State Board of Education (SBE) as they develop an accountability system and performance data dashboard for alternative schools, known as the Dashboard Alternative School Status (DASS). The Task Force also aims to build system knowledge and consensus among policymakers, practitioners, and equity advocates about state and local accountability levers that would best incentivize instructional innovation and improve outcomes for students in alternative schools. Task Force leadership is distributed across three workgroups whose efforts are reflected in the organization of this report. One workgroup led deliberations over the approach policymakers should take regarding statewide accountability measures on the DASS. A second workgroup focused on developing additional recommendations for Local Education Agencies (LEAs) regarding alternative school performance measurement (local indicators). A third workgroup led Task Force deliberations on broader policy considerations that address system capacity for innovation and continuous learning and improvement on behalf of the more than 355,000 children and youth enrolled in California's alternative public schools.

California's youth correctional institutions are failing young people and their communities. The system--currently known as the Division of Juvenile Justice (DJJ)--exposes youth to a violent, prison-like environment that should shock the consciences of California lawmakers, advocates, and residents. Since the 1890s, the state's youth correctional institutions have undergone numerous reorganizations, name changes, and renovations in a futile attempt to improve the treatment of youth under state care. Yet for as long as youth have been confined in California, the state has cycled continuously between reform and scandal, unable to overcome the cruel realities of its youth correctional model (Macallair, 2015). Young people, their families, and even staff describe DJJ as dangerous and ineffective--a finding that is supported by the agency's own statistics (CJCJ, 2019). Despite per capita expenditures of more than $300,000 per year, most youth return to the justice system within three years of their release from DJJ, a clear indicator of the state's failure to prepare young people for their transition back into the community (CDCR, 2019; CJCJ, 2020a). This research finds: (1) Fights, riots, and beatings are a part of daily life at DJJ; (2) Staff routinely use pepper spray, batons, and rubber bullets as methods of control; (3) Many youth contemplate or attempt suicide during their confinement; and (4) Young people are commonly placed more than 100 miles from their homes and loved ones. In early 2019, the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice (CJCJ) released "Unmet Promises: Continued Violence and Neglect in California's Division of Juvenile Justice," which uncovered appalling conditions and an overall climate of fear at DJJ (CJCJ, 2019). This publication is a companion to "Unmet Promises," offering a brief update on current conditions and outlining a set of policy recommendations that spring from CJCJ's years of research on youth confinement in California. This report also presents four key policy recommendations to address this historic failure. These are presented chronologically, beginning with those that offer immediate protections to youth in the facilities, followed by recommendations aimed at building up alternatives in local communities, and concluding with a proposal to close DJJ in favor of small, close-to-home programs and facilities. [For "Unmet Promises: Continued Violence and Neglect in California's Division of Juvenile Justice," see ED597307.]

In the first report in this exploratory study of efforts to improve advising, researchers at the Education Insights Center (EdInsights) interviewed administrators from five California State University (CSU) campuses and reported on the key strategies these campuses are implementing to integrate academic advising services across their colleges, divisions, and departments. This second report adds to this discussion by bringing in the voices of advisors and students at these five campuses, summarizing the perspectives of faculty advisors, professional staff advisors, and students in the context of campus efforts to improve advising. Based on the research with administrators, faculty advisors, professional staff advisors, and students at five CSU campuses, the broad strategies that the campuses are using to improve the integration and efficiency of advising appear to provide an important foundation for addressing most of the challenges found. At the same time, the perspectives of advisors and students brought to light several areas that may need more attention and targeted improvement efforts as campuses move forward. As acknowledged by the administrators, advisors, and students included in this study, students benefit from advising that responds to their needs in a holistic way, rather than placing the primary burden on them to find what they are seeking across a fragmented advising ecosystem. As campuses continue to pursue improvement strategies, the authors urge them to move beyond a narrow focus on coordinating academic planning and to consider ways to integrate the full range of academic planning and other student services to realize the vision of holistic advising to better support student success. The experiences and perspectives of students, advisors, and administrators about advising can help guide these efforts. [For the first report in this series, "Destination Integration: Strategies to Improve Academic Advising. Part 1 of a Series on Academic Advising from the CSU Student Success Network," see ED593453. For "Destination Integration: Perspectives of Students and Advisors about Improving Academic Advising. Technical Appendices," see ED607274.]

Cultural heritage materials can offer rewarding learning opportunities and impactful experiences for students across a variety of disciplines, especially in the humanities and social sciences. However, the COVID-19 pandemic, and the attendant move to online instruction at many colleges and universities, disrupted pedagogical practices and the ways that instructors incorporate cultural heritage materials into their courses. In this study, the authors explore how cultural organizations and academic libraries responded to the pandemic, the challenges instructors faced in adapting their courses, and what steps were taken to alleviate educational inequity. This report shares the perspectives of instructors on their changing relationship to collections and evolving teaching practices, as well as their observations about how their institution's response to the pandemic had an impact on teaching with cultural heritage materials.

Many campuses across the California State University (CSU) system are seeking to improve academic advising as part of their efforts to increase student progress and graduation rates. In this exploratory study of efforts to improve academic advising at five CSU campuses, researchers at the Education Insights Center (EdInsights) working on behalf of the CSU Student Success Network identified a focus across the participating campuses on better coordinating advising services across colleges, divisions, and departments and improving their integration with other campus units, such as tutoring, career centers, and financial aid. Through their efforts, these campuses seek to better leverage their limited advising resources to improve student outcomes. This report, based on in-depth interviews with 36 administrators involved in improving advising, describes the campuses' efforts and the context in which they are occurring. Five primary improvement strategies were found across the CSU campuses studied: (1) the use of advising councils or committees; (2) the development and implementation of eAdvising tools; (3) the expansion of professional development opportunities for advisors; (4) the use of advisors in shared positions and teams; and (5) the creation of a new position on campus to coordinate advising across units. Most of these strategies are still in the early stages of implementation. This report describes the campuses' efforts and the context in which they are occurring.

In the coming years, California will need a growing supply of educated workers to meet the demands of a dynamic state economy, and this supply will must come from populations that have historically been underrepresented in higher education. The higher education sector will need strong state policy leadership focused on the long-term success of the state to overcome difficult demographic, economic, and political challenges on the horizon. The development of a new coordinating body given the proper authority and resources could provide the essential leadership necessary to confront these challenges and help secure the future prosperity of the state. The new coordinating body has the potential to maximize state investments by creating more efficient and effective higher education systems focused on achieving outcomes such as ensuring affordable access to postsecondary education, increasing educational attainment, closing equity gaps, and meeting workforce demands. Designating an entity with the responsibility to develop and provide leadership in implementing a long-term strategy to improve postsecondary education attainment and outcomes is a nationally recognized best practice in state higher education policy. [This publication is part of "Our California: A Call to Action and Blueprint to Increase College Graduates and Keep Our Economy Strong," which calls upon the Governor of California to make the necessary investments and implement bold reforms to California's higher education to ensure that our students and our state thrive.]

The purpose of this paper is to take a closer look at the states that have designed strong history standards and note what has made them exceptional so other states might do the same. They include Alabama, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York, and South Carolina. The report draws on interviews with individuals from each state who sat on advisory boards and panels, who shared details on their review process, and identified individuals consulted to design their standards, timetables and outcomes. Members of the state design committees included chairmen of high school history or social studies departments, elementary and middle school teachers, college history professors, members of historical societies and parents. The report also includes seven core recommendations related to process; non-partisanship; the importance of detail and clarity in standards; the need to focus on academic content; the value of civics-based content; encouraging the reading of history in each grade; and finally to promote historical writing in each grade. In all, the paper shows that states can create robust K-12 standards that are clear enough for teachers to employ effectively and that enrich students' understanding of U.S. history. [Preface by Daniel Walker Howe.]

Since states closed school buildings to protect students from COVID-19, schools have had to adapt quickly to keep students learning. Nearly all states put out guidance or resources to help districts and schools institute continuous learning and surmount the challenges faced by students in homes with limited or no internet access and those with disabilities. In states like Alabama, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, and West Virginia, much of this work took place with the help of a task force or advisory group quickly assembled and comprising educators and administrators from across the state. Resulting district plans for continuous learning encompass use of online platforms to conduct classes, streaming and TV-based content, teaching assistance online or by phone, assigning and mailing resources and lesson plans, and even in-person interactions for students with disabilities in homes or classrooms.

Consistently and unmistakably, data show a persistent gap separating Latinos and Black males from other student groups on measures of academic progress and college completion. These gaps exist across higher education. They are undeniable and unacceptable. Men of color have high aspirations when they begin higher education. Why are these aspirations not matched by similarly high outcomes? Until higher education institutions fully embrace the charge of eliminating this disparity, we cannot effectively serve our students, our communities, our national economy, or our democracy. There are two reasons that community colleges can--and should--take the lead in this work. First, community colleges open their doors to all students, and they are the higher education institutions most likely to serve men of color. Second, open access is just the first step toward attaining the equity ingrained in the mission of community colleges. The more significant work is ensuring that every student has the support he or she needs to succeed. If community colleges can make this experience the norm for every student, the gaps will close. The Center for Community College Student Engagement has spent the past two years exploring data related to men of color in community colleges. Center staff members have worked with experts in the field, listened systematically to students, and conducted new analyses of Center data. The result is actionable, practical information that colleges can use to create the conditions for success. The issues discussed in this report can be deeply personal and emotionally difficult. Moreover, they play out against the backdrop of both the nation's history and the continuing reality of inequity across American social systems, including health, child welfare, employment, criminal justice, and education at all levels. These larger societal issues provide important context, but this report has a narrower focus. Directed to community college educators, it adds to a body of work by respected scholars and practitioners. It seeks to build understanding of the experiences of Latinos and Black males in community colleges--and offers strategies colleges should consider as they work to strengthen those experiences so they lead to better outcomes.

This white paper was prepared at the request of the Advisory Committee to the Athletic Study Center as a result of their concern over poor graduation rates in football as released by the NCAA in 2012. The paper received extensive review by the members of that committee as well as several other knowledgeable faculty and senior administrators before it was forwarded to the University Athletics Board in late May, 2013. It is based on a larger project being conducted with the Regional Oral History Office at the Bancroft Library. The purpose of the research is to explore the history of the management of Intercollegiate Athletics at UC Berkeley from the 1960s to the present. The project began in 2009 and will include, when completed, approximately 70 oral history interviews of individuals who played key roles in the management of intercollegiate athletics over that period of time--Chancellors, Athletic Directors, senior administrators, Faculty Athletic Representatives, other key faculty members, directors of the Recreational Sports Program, alumni/donors, administrators in the Athletic Study Center and others. The interviews were conducted by John Cummins, Associate Chancellor-Chief of Staff, Emeritus who worked under Chancellors Heyman, Tien, Berdahl and Birgeneau from 1984-2008. Intercollegiate Athletics reported to him from 2004-2006. A publication of the results is underway and will be co-authored by Cummins and Kirsten Hextrum, a PhD student in the Graduate School of Education, a member and two-time national champion of Cal Women's Crew from 2003-2007, and a tutor/adviser in the Athletic Study Center since 2009. This paper addresses administrative and management issues that typically concern those responsible for the conduct of a Division I-A intercollegiate athletics program. It assumes that such a program will continue for many years to come and that it provides important benefits for the Cal community. Its focus is principally with the market driven, multi-billion dollar phenomenon of the big-time sports of Men's football and basketball, their development over time and their intersection with the academic world. The Olympic or non-revenue sports at UC Berkeley more closely resemble the amateur intercollegiate ideal with high graduation rates and successful programs. Even these sports programs, however, are gradually being pulled into the more highly commercialized model. Appended are: (1) Federal Graduation Rates for the Entering Cohorts 1999-2005; (2) Timeline of the History of Intercollegiate Athletics; and (3) Executive Summary.

During a four-week period (May 23, 2011-June 21, 2011), the Western Regional Advisory Committee (RAC) held a series of public meetings to solicit input and deliberate on key educational needs facing the four states in the region--Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. A two-day, face-to-face, public meeting was held May 23-24, 2011 in Arlington, Virginia. This was followed by webinars on June 14, 2011 and June 21, 2011. Through these face-to-face and virtual meetings, the Western RAC identified six priority educational needs facing the region and outlined a series of 37 strategies that could be used to meet those needs. The region's six educational needs, as identified by the Western RAC, are: (1) Closing the Achievement Gap; (2) Promoting Effective Instruction; (3) Implementing Common Core State Standards; (4) Building Collaborative Governance and Restructuring Financial Formulas; (5) Improving School Safety, Culture, and Climate; and (6) Preparing for College and Career Readiness. To solicit feedback regarding these needs, the Western RAC developed an outreach plan whereby each committee member sent a standard e-mail to key constituents, directing them to the Western RAC website to post comments regarding the region's education needs. Attached to the e-mail was a one-page needs summary. The outreach plan elicited 38 comments on the RAC website. These comments were used by the committee as it worked to refine the needs and identify strategies for meeting them. This report represents the regional needs assessment of the Regional Advisory Committee for the Western region, which includes Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah. Appended are: (1) Western Region Educational Profile; (2) Summary of Identified Needs; and (3) Western RAC Website Comments. (Contains 4 figures, 24 tables and 2 footnotes.)

The California Postsecondary Education Commission is directed by state law to review and comment on new academic program proposals from the University of California (UC), the California State University (CSU) and the community colleges. Program review is one of the CPEC's primary responsibilities--it coordinates the systems' long-range plans, monitors efficient use of state resources, and avoids unnecessary program duplication. This annual report includes a list of programs reviewed by CPEC staff, a summary of agreements made by the Program Review Advisory Committee, and the systems' long-range plans for new programs. It also discusses general trends in new programs and how they address workforce needs. This report provides, in a single source, a summary of the long-range academic and vocational program plans of all three public systems. This information can be used to assess the extent to which plans respond to emerging workforce and societal needs. The operational and capital costs for new programs may be assessed through cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses. Also, workforce and societal needs can be prioritized and compared to plans for new programs to help ensure the effective use of state funding.

Among its planning and coordinating responsibilities, the California Postsecondary Education Commission is required by state law to assess the ongoing effectiveness of postsecondary education in meeting societal, educational, and workforce needs. At its September 28-29 meeting, the Commission supported staff's proposed work plan to transition from enrollment demand analyses to a broader range of policy issues pertaining to student success and state workforce needs. Student success is the research topic being addressed first. Staff formed an advisory committee and held two meetings in November. This paper outlines a more refined and focused student success work plan, based in part on the suggestions and recommendations provided by advisory committee members.

Access and equity for all students in California colleges and universities is a high priority of the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Over the past year, CPEC staff have reviewed research, collected data, convened an advisory committee, and hosted a panel of experts, students, and advocates on the issues faced by lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) students. LGBT students face many challenges that require additional campus services and resources for them to be successful in college, according to research and experts in the field. Compared to heterosexual students, LGBT students face higher rates of mental health problems, sexual health risks, substance abuse, and family issues leading to negative health outcomes. Another significant issue is the lack of data and limitations in collecting that data. Data comes only from optional student surveys. Without consistent longitudinal data, it is impossible to track and assess LGBT student persistence and degree completion. This paper outlines policy recommendations supported by research and by individuals working in advocacy for LGBT students in higher education. Because many campuses face similar challenges in creating supportive campus climates, and some have already adopted practices and policies, CPEC recommends that campuses share best practices on policies, professional development, training materials, and other resources. This repository of information can enhance the efforts of systems and individual campuses and reduce planning and implementation costs.

Access and equity for all students in higher education continues to be a high priority for the California Postsecondary Education Commission. Recent work in this area has focused on students with disabilities as well as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) students. The Commission formed an Access and Equity for All Students Advisory Committee in spring 2008 to discuss challenges faced by these students, the data available, and recommendations to expand opportunities and improve outcomes. At the Commission's March 2009 meeting, a panel of advocates and students discussed issues faced by students with disabilities, similar to a panel for LGBT experts presented in December. This report summarizes the status of research on students with disabilities and introduces the panel. At the June 2009 meeting, Commission staff and the advisory committee will offer policy recommendations on improving access and equity in higher education for both groups of students.

This study examined California's efforts to foster preservice preparation of early intervention assistants through a certificate program offered by community colleges, the Community College Personnel Preparation Project. Community colleges enrolled in the project must meet a series of requirements, including infusing early intervention assistant competencies into coursework, adding early intervention field experiences, and drawing on the experience of community partners and advisory committee members. The study examined data from the inception of the project in 1998 through 2006. Forty community colleges participated during this time, representing 37 percent of the community colleges in the state. Data were gathered from the quarterly reports required of the participating colleges, faculty mentor monthly reports, and administrative annual reports. Reported findings include: (1) Colleges could develop preservice training programs for early intervention assistants that meet requirements such as those for awarding a Chancellor's certificate, although not all colleges that participated in the project were successful despite receiving state funding for startup expenses: (2) Participating colleges implemented many common features, though not all took the same approach; and (3) Some of the approaches colleges took to meet the project requirements differed by project outcome. The study provides an overview of data on the evolving national picture and the West Region states. Specific early intervention training is valuable preparation for a workforce that can serve infants and toddlers with special needs. Those seeking to promote a cadre of early intervention assistants and paraprofessionals prepared at the community college level may find value in examining California's efforts. Three appendixes are included: (1) Methodology; (2) Demographics of Colleges that Participated in the Community College Personnel Preparation Project; and (3) College Expectations and Proposed Timelines for the Chancellor's Certificate. (Contains 6 notes, 8 boxes, and 7 tables.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd.]

This annual report provides a summary of program planning and review activities conducted by the Commission during the 2007-08 academic year. Recommendations that will enable the Commission to better meet and respond to its statewide statutes and obligations regarding academic and vocational program review include: (1) The Program Review Advisory Committee assist staff in developing a methodology that connects institutional program planning across higher education systems to emerging societal and workforce educational needs, and prioritizes identified needs; and (2) Starting in 2009, and annually thereafter, Commission staff convene a panel of faculty and academic planning administrators to identify and discuss issues pertaining to emerging workforce and societal program needs, innovation and scientific discovery, and instructional and pedagogical practices that enhance student learning, training, and knowledge acquisition. Four appendices are included: (1) The Commission's Program Review Principles and Guidelines, June 2006; (2) University of California's Long-Range Program Plans; (3) Commission Assignment of Degree Programs to Discipline Area; and (4) California State University Proposed Programs, 2008-09 through 2017-18. (Contains 5 displays.)

In March 2008, the California Postsecondary Education Commission raised the concern that the needs of students with disabilities, and Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) students have not been sufficiently addressed. While facing different issues, these groups constitute sizable proportions of the general population and of postsecondary student bodies, and the focus on their needs has generally been less than on non-White or socioeconomically disadvantaged students. This report summarizes some of the situations and issues facing these groups of students; the data that the Commission and other sources have on their performance in higher education; programs that exist to assist these students; and future actions that can be taken. Initial next steps identified include: (1) Schedule a follow-up meeting with the Access and Equity for All Students Advisory Committee as soon as possible after the September 2008 Commission meeting to consider a more refined set of goals for future work; (2) Add student representatives to the Advisory Committee to help in identifying issues and solutions and reaching out to student populations; and (3) Develop a plan of action for further research and reports that the Commission will pursue to the extent possible within limited resources. Three appendices are included: (1) Agreements between the Systems and the California Department of Rehabilitation; (2) California State University--LGBT and Pride Centers; and (3) University of California--LGBT Services Council of UC LGBT Resource Directors.

The California Postsecondary Education Commission recently adopted three reports dealing with postsecondary education and the economy, as part of its Higher Education Performance and Accountability Framework. The reports examined three specific measures: (1) Educational attainment of the population; (2) Links between degree attainment and earnings; and (3) Match between degrees awarded and labor market demand. These papers were discussed by the Commission, its staff, and the Commission's Statutory Advisory Committee representing all the postsecondary education segments. The purpose of this paper is to suggest policy options worthy of further exploration based on previous papers and ensuing discussions. This item reviews what the Commission has learned about the alignment between degree production and California's demand for an educated workforce. It offers a series of options for state colleges and universities to increase enrollment and degree production. It also offers an option for policymakers to consider encouraging increased degree production in specific fields of high state priority but for which there are shortages of qualified workers.

This annual report provides a summary of program planning and review activities conducted by the Commission during the 2006-2007 academic year. During this reporting period, Commission staff: (1) Conducted an extensive review of a University of California (UC) law school proposal; (2) Reviewed seven California State University (CSU) proposals for doctoral programs in educational leadership; (3) Reviewed six additional UC graduate proposals; and (4) Convened an advisory committee to consider recommendations for enhancing the Commission's program review guidelines, principles, and procedures. Other program review activities are also summarized. Five appendixes are included: (1) Summary of the Commission's Program Review Principles and Guidelines; (2) University of California Proposed Degree Programs; (3) Commission's Doctoral Letter to the CSU; (4) Illustrative Example of Connecting Doctorate Instructional Goals to Societal Needs; and (5) California State University Campus Academic Plans: 2007-08 to 2016-17. (Contains 5 displays.)

The Commission has expressed concerns about the preparation of University of California and California State University executive compensation and faculty salary studies. In response to the Commission's direction, a Compensation Study Advisory Committee was convened to explore the utility of salary and compensation studies and suggest improvements. This report summarizes the work of the advisory committee and updates the Commission on plans for a 2007 faculty salary report. The contents of this report are arranged as follows: (1) Background; (2) January 2007 Compensation Study Advisory; (3) Committee Meeting; and (4) Next Steps.

This report provides an update on the work of the California Postsecondary Education Commission's Program Review Committee that periodically makes recommendations for enhancing the Commission's program review procedures. In adopting the report, the Commission concurred with the following recommendations: (1) criteria related to social need should be described more fully in the guidelines, (2) greater consideration should be given to the development of a statewide and regional long-range program plan that will be beneficial to the legislature and to California's public and private higher education systems, and (3) specific procedures should be established for assessing the extent to which adult continuing education needs are being met. Appendix A contains: (1) Summary of the Commission's Program Review Principles and Guidelines.

This report provides an update on the California Postsecondary Education Commission's advisory committee that is examining community college services in rural and remote areas. Three initial challenges have been identified and are discussed. These challenges are related to (1) student needs, (2) community college funding, and (3) administrative procedures and policies. The following questions guided the Commission's initial discussion, which involved a panel of educators and administrators: What are some of the most difficult challenges confronting local districts in serving rural and remote areas? What specific types of strategies and institutional arrangements do community college districts use to enhance educational services in rural and remote area? What proposals are currently under consideration by lawmakers and educators to address community college access issues in rural and remote areas? Should certain aspects of program-based funding and the Commission's facility review guidelines be modified to better reflect the service delivery and enrollment constraints faced by districts in serving rural and remote areas? Appendix A lists the Commission Advisory Committee on Community College Service in Rural and Remote Areas. Appendix B lists California Counties with Significant Rural Communities.

In the fall of 2005, CPEC staff convened an Accountability Technical Advisory Committee (ATAC) with representatives from the public and private university systems, the community college system, the Department of Education, and education researchers. The purpose of this committee was to obtain feedback regarding the Commission's online data resources and the use of these resources in forming a statewide accountability framework for public higher education. Many of the ATAC members had participated in the writing of Senate Bill 1331 (Alpert), which proposed a statewide framework for higher education accountability. Although the bill was not signed into law, the research and discussions emanating from the effort led to the Commission's current efforts. This update summarizes the development of an accountability framework for higher education. It sets forth goals, performance measures, and a research outline generally agreed upon by the Accountability Advisory Committee.

In 2005 many California Public Library staff members attended focus groups on the status of California Library Services Act (CLSA) cooperative system services, which were held throughout the state in late November and early December and focused on four general questions: (1) What works well now in cooperative library services? (2) What does not work well now? (3) What is of most value to you and your members? and (4) What desired changes can you identify? This report is a summary of the results from these focus groups, which indicates that while some CLSA programs and services are still highly regarded and valued, there is much room for improvement and change. [Report produced with assistance from Susan Hildreth.]

"Space and utilization standards" are budgetary planning tools that measure the need for space in California public higher education systems and are common in other areas of State facilities planning. California's higher education space standards were researched and developed between 1948 and 1966, first by consultants and researchers dealing with the post World War II enrollment surge, then by planners working towards the State's eventual adoption of a higher education Masterplan, and finally as research done by the Commission's predecessor, the Coordinating Council for Higher Education. In response to legislative directives in 1985 and 1987, the California Postsecondary Education Commission worked with national consultants MGT and Associates and an advisory committee to evaluate California's higher education planning standards and guidelines. The Committee met 22 times between 1985 and 1990 and its work led to the 1990 Commission report "A Capacity for Learning." (Contains 4 tables.)

Annually, in accordance with Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 51 of the 1965 General Legislative Session, the California State University and the University of California submit to the California Postsecondary Education Commission information on faculty salaries for their respective institutions and for a set of comparison colleges and universities located primarily outside of California. Commission staff develops estimates of the percentage changes in faculty salaries in California public universities that will enable them to attain parity with their respective comparison groups in the forthcoming fiscal year. These final parity figures for both systems are based on final data from five of the eight University of California comparison institutions, and 19 of the 20 California State University comparison institutions. A preliminary estimate of faculty salary parity was reported to the Department of Finance and the Office of the Legislative Analyst last December. This report contains a brief description of the methodology employed to calculate the parity percentages, and the faculty salary increase trends over the past 23 years. Supplemental Budget Language adopted by the Legislature in 1998 precludes changes in the methodology prior to the 2002-03 budget cycle. Because of the lengthy lead times required to develop the Governor's Budget, if any changes in the methodology are contemplated for the 2005-06 cycle, discussions among the members of the Commission's Faculty Salary Advisory Committee should begin no later than the of 2004. (Contains 7 displays.)

California's school-to-career (STC) efforts were examined in a statewide evaluation study that was initiated in December 2000 and scheduled for completion by June 2002. The study's first phase was assessed in an interim report that focused on the following major activities: (1) development of a white paper describing the STC's national and state status; (2) development of a statewide evaluation plan; (3) implementation of a statewide survey of employers and labor organizations involved in local STC activities; (4) establishment of working relationships with existing STC statewide committees and formation of a practitioners' panel to advise the statewide evaluation effort; and (5) provision of assistance to the state in developing the local partnership (LP) case studies request for proposals and evaluation of the case studies proposals submitted by LPs. The highlights and lessons learned from each activity were summarized, and the insights gained during the interim evaluation were used to shape thinking about the final evaluation report's structure and format and the following issues related to the methodology to be used in phase 2 of the study: (1) maximizing and documenting response rates; (2) applying common definitions to variables of interest; (3) implications of sampling for analysis across LPs, and (4) identifying the appropriate unit of analysis and reporting. (MN)