The following links are to documents from the last OEIB meeting on May 8, 2012. The document on OEIB Projects Underway is really a strategy document and discusses among other things tying funding to performance either to the achievement compacts or from performance measures included in the statewide longitudinal educational database being developed called ALDER.
OEIB Ten Year Budget Process TImeline
I want to state up front that the following post contains a lot of informational content and that information is accurate to the best of my knowledge. There are parts of the post that contain my thoughts and recommendations and I want to make it clear that those reflect my thoughts and not necessarily those of other members of the OEA Community College Council or of OEA. With that said, I hope you find the information in this post useful.
Senate Bill 909 established the Oregon Education Investment Board (OEIB). The OEIB is charged with developing an education investment strategy to improve defined learning outcomes from early childhood through public schools, colleges and universities. Senate Bill 253 established the overarching goal for the OEIB. That goal is referred to as the “40/40/20″ goal. Simply, “40/40/20″ means that 40% of adult Oregonians will have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40% of adult Oregonians will have earned an associates degree or post-secondary credential, and the remaining 20% will have earned a high school diploma or its equivalent. This goal is supposed to be met by the year 2025 according to SB 253. The OEIB created a report to the legislature describing their education investment strategy called Oregon Learns. You can read the Oregon Learns report in a pdf document using the following link:
Oregon Learns Report to the Legislature from the Oregon Education Investment Board
In this report they made some recommendations for legislation to help implement their strategy. This resulted in Senate Bill 1581. This bill establishes a Chief Education Officer to oversee Oregon’s entire education system and establishes achievement compacts that school districts will be required to make each year with the OEIB. The terms for the achievement compacts are established by the OEIB and are delineated in SB 1581 and in the following document:
Temporary Achievement Compact Rules Draft
The following is the example achievement compact for community colleges that the OEIB approved in their 3/27/2012 meeting:
Community Colleges Achievement Compact Draft
The achievement compacts that a local school district or community college district form with the OEIB are meant to ensure that local boards create school budgets based upon the outcome measurements in the achievement compacts. The idea is that the state holds the school district to the measurements in the achievement compact and the local boards decide how best to achieve those measurements. Presumably this will ensure that funding at a local level will be based on educational outcomes. The exact wording of this is in the Temporary Achievement Compact Rules Draft and SB 1581 and is as follows:
(1) The Board shall establish the terms for achievement compacts, which may include:
(a) A description of goals for outcomes that are consistent with the high school and college completion goals identified as the mission of education in ORS 351.009 and the educational goals expressed in ORS 329.015 and ORS 351.003.
(b) A description of the outcomes and measures of progress that will allow each education entity to quantify:
(A) Completion rates for:
(i) Critical stages of learning and programs of study;
(ii) The attainment of diplomas, certificates and degrees; and
(iii) Achieving the high school and post-secondary education goals established in ORS 351.009 and a projection of the progress needed to achieve those goals by 2025;
(B) Validations of the quality of knowledge and skills acquired by students of the education entity; and
(C) The relevance of the knowledge and skills acquired by the students of the education entity and the means by which those skills and knowledge will contribute to the workforce, the economy and society as described in state policy.
(c) Local priorities as provided by OAR 705-010-0020.
A compilation of the ORS statutes referred to above can be read using the following link:
ORS Statutes that define Mission and Educational Goals for Higher Ed and K-12
The Community Colleges Achievement Compact that was approved in the 3/27 OEIB meeting is the model achievement compact that is expected to be used by the community colleges to develop their own achievement compacts with the OEIB. Colleges may propose additional measures for special projects, but those must be approved by the CEdO. One fundamental problem with the example achievement compact is that there is no clear correlation between the measurements in the achievement compact and the educational goals and mission in ORS 351.003, ORS 351.001, and ORS 351.009. In fact, for many of the goals there is no measurement at all in the achievement compact. Members of the OEA Community College Council Legislative Committee attempted to include an Outcomes column in the Achievement Compact template in order to provide this correlation, but were unsuccessful in getting that in the template. You will notice that the template does include an Outcome Measures column. This was originally labeled simply as Outcomes and not Outcome Measures. Even with the label as Outcome Measures you would assume that outcomes were considered and that the measures were based on the outcomes. This is not the case. The process has been totally focused on academic attainment and not on academic achievement despite all the rhetoric in the Oregon Learns document about learning outcomes.
Funding at the state level to the individual community colleges is currently not tied to the achievement compacts or a community college’s performance in meeting the terms of the achievement compacts. At some point, however, it probably will be and at that point the total focus on achieving “40/40/20″ will be problematic for faculty in community colleges.
Funding for community colleges has in the past been based on a formula with FTE as the major factor in the formula. The more full time equivalent students a college had, the more money they received from the state. All faculty in Oregon’s community colleges are aware of the creative ways in which FTE were counted by the colleges in order to increase that FTE count and get more money from the state. At my college we counted FTE for staff who attended in-service and at one time counted students who used the open lab times in our computer labs even if all they were doing was playing computer games. That practice did have to stop, but you can see that there were indeed creative ways to increase FTE to get more funding and this kind of creativity occurred at all of the community colleges.
If we have a system where funding is based on completions of certificates and associate degrees resulting from a total focus on “40/40/20″ then you can imagine the creative ways in which completions will be counted. Services that the community colleges provide that don’t contribute to the completion numbers will find themselves with reduced funding or elimination. Faculty may be coerced into dumbing down their programs in order get more completers. Programs may be created that are popular with students, but don’t have enough jobs for the graduates. The following statement from the Oregon Learns Report on page 10 of that document is also a bit worrisome.
A significant share of Oregonians (26 percent by one measure) has completed some college but did not earn a certificate or degree. Depending on the credits or coursework they have completed, the state might offer those individuals a way to apply for and receive a certificate or degree that matches the work completed, or to earn additional credits to take them the final step toward graduation.
I’m not sure what this statement is suggesting. If they are referring to existing certificates and degrees that the coursework a student has completed matches then that is probably a legitimate thing to do. I worry that this may encourage the creating and awarding of meaningless certificates in order to increase the completion count.
Each community college will be forming committees to develop their local Achievement Compacts. SB 1581 includes language that states that faculty will be a part of those committees at the local level. It is imperative that faculty at each college commit themselves to this process. These faculty should be committed to ensuring that the process is focused on academic achievement rather than academic attainment. Academic attainment will follow academic achievement.
Make sure the process is outcomes first and then decide on what the measurements should be. When we develop outcomes for a program, course, or lesson we usually ask the question, “What should our students be able to do as a result of completing this program, course, or lesson?” For purposes of achievement compacts you might ask, “What should our college be able to do in order to achieve ’40/40/20′ and be consistent with the goals and mission of ORS 351.001, ORS 351.003, and ORS 351.009?” An example outcome might be:
The college should admit any student with an ability to learn and with a high school diploma or equivalent.
This probably needs some refinement so don’t beat me up too badly over this example, but you can see how this might be a useful outcome. Some measurements that might be important for this outcome are:
Tuition – In order to achieve “40/40/20″ tuition needs to be affordable for all adult Oregonians.
Number of students who take the placement test that do not have an ability to learn. – The OEIB doesn’t seem to realize that some Oregonians do not have an ability to learn.
Tuition is one of the interesting measurements left off of the Community College Achievement Compact draft. It is a measurement that is included as part of the Community College Key Performance Measures, but is not included in the Achievement Compact draft. This is a measure that should be included as it is an indicator of how well the state is funding community colleges. The achievement compacts should include measures that indicate how well the state is performing in supporting community colleges as well as how well the community colleges are performing in achieving “40/40/20.” That is what a compact is; an agreement between two parties. Each party has a responsibility to ensure the terms of the compact are met. It should not be a one-sided arrangement.
In meetings with the OCCA, OEIB, and some of its subcommittees I heard a lot about what could be measured currently and not about what needed to be measured. Focusing on outcomes first and then identifying the measurements will no doubt create measurements that cannot currently be measured. This should not deter you from identifying and recognizing them as valuable measurements. SB 909 includes provisions for creating a statewide longitudinal database. Recognizing what measurements are needed is an important step in creating this database. In some cases funding may need to be provided to some colleges to improve their own database systems and hire the necessary personnel in order to record the data needed for these measurements.
I heard over and over how the achievement compacts are a work in progress. As faculty we need to ensure that the process for ultimately creating achievement compacts that are indeed achievement compacts and not attainment compacts. I do not believe that this can be done unless we address outcomes first. I cannot state this more adamantly.
Bottom line, regardless of the achievement compacts, faculty are responsible for the curriculum and for grading. All faculty need to keep this in mind when faced with pressures to create superfluous programs, certificates, and easier courses, and to pass students who do not meet the outcomes of a course in order to increase the attainment measures. Faculty will also be pressured more than they currently are to waive course prerequisites. I would actually recommend that faculty tighten up on prerequisites in order to create environments where a student has a better chance of succeeding. Waive prerequisites based on merit not on circumstance and fewer students will fail. Once again, this is in my humble opinion only.
Finally, as mentioned before, currently colleges will not be penalized for not meeting the goals of the achievement compacts by the OEIB. Presumably the new CEdO may come to a college board meeting and encourage the school to do better, but for now no penalties for not meeting the outcome measures of the achievement compacts. Many of us do not believe that will remain the case and that funding will eventually be tied to the achievement compacts. Faculty should be prepared to assist OEA in fighting that battle when the time comes. So long as these remain attainment compacts and not really achievement compacts then we must make sure that funding is never tied to them.
Please feel free to comment on this post. I welcome any and all opinions and comments on this matter.
A number of bills were passed in this year’s legislative session that affect higher education. Representative Michael Dembrow provided the council with the following summary.
Of particular interest are SB 242, SB 909, SB 253, and HB 3418. The intent of these bills is to create a more seamless and efficient public education system with a goal of achieving 40/40/20 by 2025, i.e., 40% of adult Oregonians will have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40% of adult Oregonians will have an Associate’s degree, or post secondary credential, and 20% of adult Oregonians will have a high school diploma, or equivalent. As of 2010 Oregon is at 30/18/42 with an additional 10% of adults who are dropouts. As you can see from the current percentages, community colleges will play a vital role in achieving 40/40/20. SB 242 creates an Higher Education Coordinating Commission and SB 909 creates an Oregon Education Investment Board. SB 242 encompasses all of higher education and SB 909 encompasses all public education including early childhood development. At this point it is unclear how the responsibilities of the Higher Education Coordinating Commission and the Oregon Education Investment Board will work themselves out, but it is clear that funding for education will be based on outcomes and not based on FTE.
Leading up to the passage of SB 909 and the creation of the Oregon Education Investment Board, the governor created the Oregon Education Investment Team by Executive Order. The Oregon Education Investment Team was charged with developing strategies to create a seamless zero to 20 education system that is integrated, efficient and accountable. The team has provided the governor with a preliminary progress report.
OEA’s response to that report is mostly K12 focused, but does include some points that apply to community colleges as well.
The Oregon Education Investment Team also generated a report on their strategy for achieving 40/40/20.
Oregon Learns: The Strategy to Get to 40/40/20
Now that SB 909 has been passed, the Oregon Education Investment Board will continue the work of the Oregon Education Investment Team. Community colleges have two representatives on that board. They are Mary Spilde, president of Lane Community College and David Rives, president of AFT-Oregon. Johanna “Hanna” Vaandering, OEA vice president is also a member of the board.
The passage of the above bills does mean that outcome-based funding will be a reality in Oregon and it is therefore imperative that educators have a voice in what those outcomes are. Appropriate outcomes must be developed for K12, Community Colleges, and OUS individually, as each system has unique measures of success. For community colleges this is especially true. As OEA points out in its response, graduation rates cannot be the sole measure of success and that outcomes without funding to achieve those outcomes will only lead to failure.
The following is some additional material that will give you an idea of some of the ideas related to this topic that are floating about out there. Your administrators and business leaders are reading this material and so the council is providing it to you so that you can be prepared when these topics come up.
Freedom to Fail? The Board’s Role in Reducing College Dropout Rates
Completion by Design
Rebalancing the Mission: The Community College Completion Challenge
Voluntary Framework of Accountability
The council encourages your comments on any or all of the above bills and topics.
Oregonlive has a Web site that allows users to look up legislators by address, lookup and view a specific bill’s history and detailed vote results, search for bills by keyword, tally of vote records for a specific legislator, and more. Visit http://www.gov.oregonlive.com
Mt Hood Community College faculty have been working without a contract since August 31, 2010. A year of negotiations (some with the assistance of a State Employment Board mediator) have resulted in many financial concessions from the faculty bargaining team that have fallen on deaf-eared, college-hired, union-busting monkeys.
Thank you for coming.
It is with regret that we invite you to hear our announcement today. The MHCCFA has sent notice to the College that the full time faculty will strike beginning on Thursday, May 12.
The Faculty Association has offered more financial concessions during this bargaining cycle that at any other time in our history. We have met the Board’s demands on medical contributions and the salary schedule. We continue to provide ideas to settle the remaining economic issues on the table.
In return for these significant economic concessions, the faculty have requested two improvements in contract language. The first guarantees that faculty work will be protected for faculty members by disallowing “subcontracting” to outside entities. MHCC is proud to have some of the best graduation and persistence rates for Community Colleges in this state. It is essential that we maintain our educational quality by ensuring the continued presence of full time faculty at this institution. Faculty provide face-to-face and distance learning instruction, serve as resource librarians, and provide much needed counseling services. This work should be provided by faculty members.
The second language improvement concerns faculty rights. Our proposal says simply that when the administration makes a decision, that they will get faculty input prior to the decision being made. Many decisions in a college effect instruction, and faculty are often the individuals most knowledgeable about instruction. Therefore, the Board should want faculty input into these decisions. To be clear, we are not questioning the administration’s right to make the decisions. We believe that our input into those decisions is critical to the health of the college and maintaining high academic standards.
The Board’s recent threats to permanently replace faculty demonstrates the apparent lack of respect the Board has for faculty. This fight is fundamentally about respect for the faculty’s work, the faculty’s voice, and the faculty’s input.
The Board’s stated plan to implement their final offer in June contributes to the faculty’s decision to announce a strike date today. We consider this statement a response to the Board’s lack of interest in negotiating a contract. The faculty simply cannot understand the Board’s refusal to protect the students, the faculty, and the institution by working and compromising to find a reasonable settlement.
We, the faculty, invest our careers, our time, and our passion in building and maintaining MHCC as a strong community college for East County residents. We reiterate our dedication to the College, our students, our careers, and our families in this difficult time. We don’t want to strike, but we will.
The MHCC Faculty Association request the help and support from all of our OEA brothers and sisters and other union organizations in our fight to hold back the tyrannical, repressive, and destructive tactics on the teachers, counselors, and librarians. This and other attacks on organized, middle class public workers cannot be allowed to continue. Information is being shared through http://be-informed.net as well as the Face Book page linked to from this Web site.
In the fall Oregon Community College Council meeting there was a discussion about the misinformation circulating in the media regarding public employee compensation. The following is a study by Jeffrey Keefe
an associate professor in the School of Management and Labor Relations, Rutgers University which debunks the myth of the overly compensated public employee.
Debunking the Myth of the Overcompensated Public Employee The Evidence
Also, here is an article from the Health Professionals and Allied Employees that summarizes the study.
http://www.hpae.org/newsroom/articles/20100517_publicsalaries
Section 3 of HB 2557 (2009) requires Oregon’s community colleges to provide annual data to the State Board of Education for purposes of establishing a baseline related to full-time and part-time faculty employed by the colleges. This report outlines the three areas: 1) the ratio of college level courses taught by full-time faculty and part-time faculty, 2) the pay differential between full-time and part-time faculty, and 3) the benefits that are provided for each faculty category. The following is the report for 2009.
Information and issues regarding Oregon state funding for community colleges will be posted here.
