Community College Study
contact: Helene Lecar
Background: Our local college, Vista, is a branch of the Peralta Community College District, one of 72 such districts around the state, serving about 1.6 million students. Peralta, with a headcount of about 28,000 students, has four sites: College of Alameda, Laney College (Oakland), Merritt College (Oakland) and Vista Community College (Berkeley).
Of these, only Vista has never had a permanent campus, and, indeed, breaking the Vista impasse was a prime motive for taking up the League study in the first place, back in the spring of 1999.
Positions emerging from our Vista study, adopted in September 2000, have allowed us to speak vigorously on behalf of the college, advocating for a fair share of District resources and pressing for the construction of a new campus worthy of the Vista community. The passage of a $153 million bond measure, Measure E, in November, 2000, has brought our dream within reach (For more about the Vista-to-be, come to the Speakers Series meeting Oct. 11 at the Albany Library, 12-2pm).
Our study also informed us about a series of problems in the management and financing of the Peralta District as a whole, but many of these were not of the District’s own making. These would require legislative and administrative changes at the State level to correct. As a result, we were led to ask the State league to undertake a study of the entire community college system. Much to our delight, the May, 2001, State convention agreed, and we will undoubtedly be reporting back on what we find in the months to come.
Peralta District Consensus: In the meantime, we have looked at operations and priorities that the Peralta District can act on without State intervention. Some of the problems we saw are already under review by the Trustees and Administrators of the District. Our discussion and consensus will allow us to support the reform efforts currently under way and also to encourage change in those areas where the District has been slow to act.
Consensus Question #1: How could the Peralta Community College District supplement the funding it receives from State sources to accomplish its mission?
You are probably aware that, six weeks before the fall term began, Governor Davis cut $126 million from the community college allocation in the 2001-2002 budget. This move, announced just 6 weeks before the fall term began, will take about $3 million from the Peralta District.
Community colleges have been strapped for cash for years. Most of their funding, like that of the K-12 system, is based on student enrollment and attendance. In addition to this base funding, community colleges are supposed to receive 11% of Prop 98 funds the State collects. This money was originally to be a supplement, but now comprises around 75% of funding and has rarely amounted to the full 11% written into law.
As a result, even without the recent cuts, community colleges throughout the state are always looking elsewhere for money. Peralta’s search has led to staff training agreements with private companies and ongoing partnerships with public agencies, such as the Oakland Fire and Police Academies. Like many other districts, Peralta has also recruited out of state and international students, who pay higher tuition, because the State does not subsidize them.
Consensus question #2 :How could the Peralta Community College District improve its fiscal management?
Peralta’s finances today are not as precarious as they were in the l980s, when they required a State appointed overseer to restore fiscal health. The state requires a 3% reserve, and the District’s budget shows a 7% reserve even after some poaching to make up for the Governor’s last-minute cuts.
The trustees’ money management style, however, remains a source of sharp criticism from the press and the faculty. A state audit of the 1999-2000 budget found the District out of compliance with the “50% rule,” which requires that at least half of State funds be spent for classroom expenses (largely faculty salaries). An audit of year 2000-2001 has been requested by Assemblywoman Dion Aroner to certify the legitimacy of trustee travel expenses.
Newspaper stories in the spring of 2001 highlighted expensive Board trips to far-off places (China, South Africa) in quest of increased enrollment of foreign students. These students pay $150 a credit, rather than $11 that residents pay, but their tuition moneys are not subject to the 50% rule. These added funds are supposed to cover the real cost of classroom space, labs, library books, faculty and student support personnel. Since the extra costs do not show up as a separate budget item, there is no way to verify that the added students make money for the District. The indirect costs to the District of having its chief administrative officer and members of the Board unavailable to tend to immediate District concerns for weeks at a time are not identified either.
The trustees are also being questioned about their oversight of contracts between the District and external suppliers. In the spring of 2001, for example, a $4 million no-bid contract with a computer installation firm came before the Board with very skimpy notice and no hard numbers in the contract. Under criticism, the
Board rolled over an existing contract with the firm for a much smaller sum, but their casual attitude about spelling out contracts limits continues.
One area of money management that the District has recently addressed is improving the clarity and accessibility of budget documents, and the tying of budget categories to program goals. This effort, although incomplete, has already made financial information much easier to grasp for members of the Peralta community as well as the cities they serve.
Consensus question #3: How could the Peralta Community College District expand its outreach into the community and publicize its mission and the quality of its programs more effectively?
Perhaps one reason the expenses of Board travel generates so much criticism is that the District has only just begun to reach out to the communities that support it. In the last two years it has mailed invitations to every graduating high school senior in the District, and created an “Ambassador’s Corps” of currently enrolled Peralta students who go to District high schools to talk about their own personal experiences and the programs available in the colleges. Representatives of the colleges are beginning to work with high school college counselors and with high school faculty to coordinate academic programs and standards.
For young students straight out of high school, there are, nevertheless, some drawbacks to Peralta’s offerings. The current cramped quarters at Vista, the difficulty of reaching Merritt or Alameda by public transportation, and the skimpy campus life seem a high price to pay for the cheap tuition. Peralta’s present student body is older, close to the statewide average of 32. Busy adults, with lives and responsibilities beyond school, they tend not to stay on campus after class. They do not partake of the kind of student life attractive
to the 18 or 19 year olds who enter most 4-year institutions as freshmen straight out of high school.
The District has started to devote more attention to the quality of student life, but it is only beginning to resolve the question of student input into college decision-making. As of academic year 2000-2001, two student trustees were seated on the Board, rather than the previous single one.
While their votes are only advisory, they do act as a conduit for issues that affect student life. Students also address the Board in their own voice, directly, both as individuals and through the representatives of their student government organizations. But finding the appropriate balance to serve the differing needs of widely varied student populations requires ongoing feedback from students and support service providers and has not been done on a regular basis.
Consensus question 4: How could the District increase accountability to the community?
The Board provides ample information about enrollment, course offerings and student services , but news about the way it transacts its own business has been much harder to come by. California’s “Sunshine laws” (the Brown Act and its amendments) require 72 hours notice before public meetings are held.
While the Board usually obeys the letter of the law, notices for a special Monday night meeting may appear only the previous Friday afternoon and only in central administrative locations that community members are unlikely to see. Agendas for important decisions are sometimes skimpy in the extreme. The Board’s regular bi-weekly Tuesday meetings are public and televised, but by the time a Board decision comes up for a vote, the public’s opportunity to affect policy is minimal.
The District also has a web site, but it is not kept up-to-date. As of September 5, two weeks into the new term, the web site still featured student trustees from the last academic year. Board meeting announcements are routinely out of date and offer no agendas. The most current Board minutes date back to June. Board members are pictured and identified by Trustee area, but no District area map is available, either on the web or in the public relations office. Community members must call in and ask which trustee represents them.
The difficulty of tracking Board actions is compounded by a wrinkle in the State Education Code. Under this proviso, an incumbent for a K-14 school board position (including Community College Boards and County Boards of Education) need not appear on the ballot at all, if no formal opponent has filed for candidacy. The incumbent is considered to have been appointed and not elected. In the November 2000 election, when four trustee seats were up for renewal, three seats were not listed on the ballot. Under the present regulation, trustees may continue to serve indefinitely, with no voter validation.
There have been repeated requests over the last two years, from students and community members, for the establishment of community Advisory Committees at each campus, to keep communication open and on-going between the colleges and the wider community. Especially now that Measure E construction projects will affect every site, it is important to share news, discuss potential problems, negotiate disruptions of service, and ensure that the contracted repairs or construction are designed with the interests of the users in mind. To date, no such committees have been put in place.
Consensus question 5: How could the Peralta Community College District improve student access to college courses and services?
Peralta is an urban district, but not all its campuses are equally accessible. Laney and Vista are on BART lines, but Alameda and Merritt require a car or a good deal of time on the infrequent buses.
During the summer of 2001, when Laney College was closed for repairs, a very successful shuttle bus ferried students from one campus to another. Everyone would like to continue the bus service even though Laney has reopened, but it is one of many “extras” made vulnerable by the Governor’s budget cuts.
About two-thirds of Peralta students take class outside the 9-5 time frame, in the evenings and on Saturdays. The District has begun to staff necessary student services — libraries, counselors, employment and financial aid offices — to serve these students appropriately, but the upcoming budget struggles put them at risk.
Consensus question 6: How could the District better assist entering high school graduates in need of remedial classes to increase their success rate at Peralta?
The demand for greater rigor and accountability from every level of public education has led to much more frequent testing and a high school exit exam required for graduation beginning with the class of 2004. In the meantime, 60% of entering freshmen at Cal State Hayward cannot pass entering placement exams in college-level reading, writing and math skills, although they are admitted automatically because they are in the top 20% of their high-school graduating class.
Legislators no longer allow the 4-year State universities to offer remedial courses, so under-prepared students can only turn to the community colleges to learn the necessary skills. Peralta, like districts throughout the state, has bridge programs on every campus to help students find their way. It is just beginning to work with high school counselors to develop better study habits.
Peralta’s outreach programs are designed to attract younger students, but the retention rate for all students, which is of great interest to State evaluators, is not encouraging. Only 52% of all students enrolling in the fall semesters from 1993 to 1999 as new students continued on into the spring semester.
The District is just instituting a new Student Success Project , but it is too soon to track results. This year, Vista has begun offering concurrent enrollment courses for serious students who can take college-level courses (and earn college credit) while they are still in high school.
Consensus question 7: How can the District maintain its commitment to provide strong programs for lifelong learning at each campus?
Community Colleges, by charter, have a three-fold mission: (1) to provide basic lower-division college courses to those students who will transfer to 4 year institutions; (2) to provide education and AA degrees for students in a variety of technical and licensed fields (such as auto mechanics, international business, cosmetology); (3) to create opportunities for personal enrichment and lifelong learning to all members of the community. Many university graduates have first come to grips with the challenges of the “information age” in community college computer labs.
Most of the Governor’s budget cuts will postpone the purchase of modern computer equipment and eliminate money for major repair and maintenance of buildings and grounds. Measure E will disrupt ordinary class scheduling at every campus. Clearly the colleges will need to relocate and revise schedules. But people who prefer not to drive at night, or cannot navigate broken sidewalks easily, have to be accommodated wherever and whenever the classes are held.