STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES (PDF)

Document Sample
STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES (PDF) Powered By Docstoc
					                               State of Washington
             STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

Olympic College-Poulsbo Campus                     Study Session:   Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Seminar Room – Room 221                                                1:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
1000 Olympic College Place NW                Regular Meeting:        Thursday, May 4, 2006
Poulsbo, Washington                                                   8:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.


                            State Board Study Session Agenda
   Time                                Description                              Attachment

 1:00 p.m.    1. Call to Order                                                      ----

              2. SBCTC Strategic Direction                                        TAB 1

 3:00 p.m.                               ~BREAK~

 3:10 p.m.    3. Student Athlete Operating Fee Waiver                             TAB 2

 3:40 p.m.    4. Transfer Successes and Concerns                                  TAB 3

 4:40 p.m.    5. 2007 New Programs Review                                         TAB 4
                 a) Opportunity Grants
                 b) Customized Training
                 c) High Demand Grants

 5:30 p.m.    6. Adjourn Study Session
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                              TAB 1


Subject

SBCTC Strategic Direction

Background

This is a continuation of the Board’s discussions at its previous two meetings. It is time
for the Board to get more specific with areas of emphasis for the 2007-09 budget request,
as well as the longer-term vision. By May 3, additional information will have been
developed by WACTC at its April 20 meeting and by the Operating Budget Task Force at
its April 26 meeting.

Chair Jim Garrison asked staff to prepare a summary of future directions, building upon
all the recent studies and the Board’s strategic discussions to date. That summary will be
shared at the study session on May 3.

Outcome

The Board will continue to discuss overall policy objectives for the system, the incentive
mechanisms that the Board can utilize, and accountability and measurement.


Prepared by Charles N. Earl
April 26, 2006
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                                        TAB 2


Subject (Information/Discussion)

Student Athlete Operating Fee Waiver

Purpose of this Information Item

Community college presidents with athletic programs have requested that the State Board
consider a new waiver for student athletes. The presidents believe the waiver is necessary to
increase the ability of community colleges to compete for quality athletes that might be
considering small four-year colleges, to increase parity with Oregon colleges (which can fund
grants-in-aid up to full tuition), to encourage students to stay in-state, and to increase the rate of
participation by women in athletics.

The State Board has statutory authority to establish operating fee waivers for community
colleges under RCW 23B.15.915:
“ . . . governing boards of the state universities, the regional universities, The Evergreen State
College, and the community colleges, subject to state board policy, may waive all or a portion of
the operating fees for any student. There shall be no state general fund support for waivers
granted under this section.”
The Board most recently exercised this authority by creating a waiver for individuals displaced
by Hurricane Katrina.

Background

Twenty-four community colleges have athletic programs and in 2004-05 supported over 2,500
student athletes on 181 teams in 15 sports. The numbers of teams on a campus varies from two to
15. On average, each college hosts approximately seven to eight sport teams with around 90
student athletes. 54 percent of these athletes are men, 46 percent are women. Financial
assistance for student athletes has decreased significantly since the inception of the community
college athletic association in the 1960s. Initially assistance covered 100 percent of tuition; in the
1970’s it covered over 80 percent; and now it is approximately 25 percent.

At the March 31, 2006, WACTC meeting, presidents at colleges with athletic programs voted to
recommend a proposal to increase student athletes’ grants-in-aid assistance by increasing the
allowable level of scholarships, introducing a student athlete waiver and tying the combination of
both forms of assistance to a fixed maximum percentage of tuition.

The WACTC North West Athletic Association of Community College (NWAACC) presidents
authorized the NWAACC to set the maximum scholarship at 40 percent of the 15 credit tuition
rate approved by the State Board, which would equate to $345 per quarter in 2006-07.
Currently, scholarships are limited to $200 per quarter. Scholarship funds are in general raised
by athletic departments, booster clubs and foundations.
                                                                                       TAB 2
                                                                                       Page 2
NWAACC presidents are requesting that the State Board of Community and Technical Colleges
approve a 25 percent operating fee waiver that may be used by the NWAACC colleges for grant-
in-aid eligible student athletes. This would be an operating fee waiver based on the 15 credit
State Board established rate of tuition, which would equate to $216 per quarter in 2006-07.

With the combined use of waivers and scholarships, athletic grants-in-aid will be fixed at a
maximum of 65 percent of tuition. (NWAACC bylaws limit the number of grants-in-aid student
athletes allowed.) Colleges will be able to phase-in the increases as funds become available.
There is no time restriction for phase-in.

NWAACC colleges would implement this new waiver for the fall quarter of the 2007-08
academic year.

Outcome

Following a brief staff presentation, the Board will hear from a panel representing NWAACC
presidents. The Board will be provided information and background material prior to requested
action at its June meeting on establishment of a 25 percent Student Athlete Operating Fee
Waiver.




Prepared by Deborah Frazier
April 21, 2006
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                                       TAB 3


Subject (Information)

Transfer Successes and Concerns

Background

Each year more than 14,000 students transfer from the community and technical colleges to the
public and independent baccalaureate institutions in the state of Washington. For most students,
the pathway to the baccalaureate is smooth, in fact, a well paved highway that serves more than
40 percent of those who earn a bachelor’s degree. This discussion focuses not on this high level
of success but rather on the two transfer issues raised at the April 2006 State Board meeting:
transfer of courses between technical colleges and community colleges and transfer from applied
associate degrees to the baccalaureate level.

Where Transfer Works Well

Given the benefit of the statewide Direct Transfer Agreement (DTA) and the more recent
statewide Associate in Science-Transfer (AS-T) agreement, most students transition to the
bachelor’s institutions without difficulty and enter the university at the junior level. About 70
percent of all transfer students have completed a degree that fits within one of these two
statewide agreements. Another 3,000 students transfer with some college but no degree. Most
take courses that mirror the requirements of the statewide agreements. If they simultaneously
understand and select courses as proscribed as meeting the lower division requirements of their
future university, they also
transfer without difficulty.

The benefit of the statewide
DTA or AS-T degrees is that
they mirror the course taking
pattern of freshmen and
sophomores on the path to the
Bachelor’s of Arts (BA) or
Bachelor’s of Science (BS)
degrees. That is, these degrees
require the same mix of core
English and math, broad liberal
arts, electives and prerequisites
for the major.
                                                                                    TAB 3, Page 2

While transfer is generally smooth for at least 80 percent of the 14,000 transfers, several years
ago the higher education system agreed that transfer could be more efficient – that is, students,
especially those heading toward majors such as business, education and engineering with highly
proscribed prerequisites in the first years of colleges, would be aided by clearer and more
consistent communication about those prerequisites. As a result, the higher education system has
agreed upon several statewide Major-Related Programs (MRP) that increase the efficiency of
transfer in elementary education, business, pre-nursing, engineering and several science and
math secondary education fields (see details of these agreements at
http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/transfer/TransferDegrees.asp ).

Challenges to Transfer

To universities: For about 1,500 transfers to universities, the current transfer system is a bumpy
road. Half of those on the bumpy road transfer short of any associate degree and are not
cognizant of the lower division requirements of their future university. A proposed statewide
advisory system providing, among other features, information on how a course taken outside the
statewide degree requirements transfers to all the universities holds the promise of reducing
bumps in the transfer pathway. It is likely that such a system will have benefits though not
eliminate all transfer problems for the students opting to move between systems without
completing an associate degree. Over the past three years, similar work in British Columbia
reduced the number of transfer students saying they did not know or understand transfer
requirements from 39 percent to 28 percent.

From technical degrees (Associate in Applied Science) to a Bachelor’s Degree: The other
half of the students with a bumpy
road to transfer are students who
completed a technical degree, not
the DTA or AS-T. Technical
degrees (often called the
Associate in Applied Science) are
formulated differently than the
DTA and AS-T degree as they
focus on the technical course
works specified by the industry as
necessary for job preparation.
Essentially these degrees focus on
a lower division major in the
technical field.

When these students are at a point
in their career where a bachelor’s
degree is needed, the lack of
broad liberal arts education presents a transfer issue for some students. Statewide or local
articulation agreements exist that take full advantage of the technical course work in the
specified bachelor’s degree by treating those “core in the major” courses as specialization
courses or electives in the specialized bachelor’s degrees. Transfer works well in these
                                                                                   TAB 3, Page 3

Bachelor’s of Applied Science or the ADN to BSN pathway (see Appendix A for information on
the existing pathways for transfer for applied associate degree graduates). Currently, however,
most technical degree graduates who transfer to the BA or BS degree must “start over” after
transfer. They must complete not only the required junior and senior level courses but also take
about 40-60 additional credits of the expected lower division broad liberal arts courses and
electives. This “start over” issue applies equally at the community and technical colleges, both
of which offer the Associate in Applied Science degree aimed at preparation for immediate
employment in the specified field.

The Bachelor’s of Applied
Science (BAS) degree is
differently structured from the BA
or BS degree in that it is designed
specifically to “top off” the
technical degree. The BAS
recognizes the ‘core in the major”
and specialization courses in the
technical associate degree as
fulfilling the requirements for the
specialization of the major and as
electives. In the BAS, students
complete additional broad liberal
arts credits at the upper division.
This rearrangement within the
BAS, both in terms of sequence
and scope of the major, is
specifically designed to maximize the applicability of the applied associate degrees to bachelor’s
degrees that fit the needs of industry.

Thus the key strategy for addressing transfer from the technical degrees to the bachelor’s degree
is to expand the number of BAS type degrees available across the state at public and independent
institutions. This strategy applies equally for the nearly 7,000 students completing technical
degrees at community colleges and 1,100 students completing technical degrees at technical
colleges.

Within the CTC system: In 2005, a task force of the Instruction Commission representing
technical colleges and nearby community colleges reviewed issues relating to transfer from
technical colleges to community colleges (see Appendix B for membership). They agreed that
students should transfer among community and technical colleges and those students reasonably
expect that similar courses will readily transfer among the colleges. They found issues of
comparability of course content. For example, colleges differ in their opinion about whether the
content is comparable for courses such as anatomy and physiology, a course offered at every
college in the system and specifically mentioned as a transfer issue at the April State Board
meeting. The task force issued the following findings and conclusions last fall:
                                                                                    TAB 3, Page 4



Findings and conclusions:
• Technical colleges have developed academic course transfer agreements with nearby
   community colleges.
• Technical colleges have developed academic course transfer agreements with universities.
• In May 2002, the Instruction Commission recommended that community and technical
   colleges accept transferable general education courses from technical colleges as equivalent
   to their general education courses. The task force recommended and the Instruction
   Commission and Student Services Commission approved the following revised and
   strengthened recommendation statement:

                                   Approved 2006 Resolution

        The Instruction Commission and the Washington State Student Services Commission
        expects that all colleges in the Washington community and technical college system
        accept transferable technical college general education courses as equivalent to their own
        similar general education courses in content and purpose, in transcript credit value, and as
        applied to degree requirements. The Instruction Commission and Washington State
        Student Services Commission members will communicate this position to those in their
        colleges responsible for accepting transfer courses, and that the Commissions send this
        resolution to the Education Services Committee of WACTC.

•   The Instruction Commission assigned the Articulation and Transfer Council responsibility
    for identifying issues related to course transfer between technical and community colleges
    and recommending appropriate strategies related to responding to these issues. No issues
    were raised at the fall 2005 or winter 2006 meetings. The spring 2006 meeting will again
    provide an opportunity for issues to be raised (April 27-28, 2006).
•   The college system’s common course numbering effort will identify similar courses across
    colleges – technical and community colleges alike - and simplify transfer of those courses
    among colleges. The initial commitment for the common course numbering system is to
    address all academic courses by next summer (2007). One such course is anatomy and
    physiology, an example of a transfer course problem mentioned at the April State Board
    meeting. The work on common numbering will provide a venue to address the multiple
    reasons colleges occasionally do not accept each other’s course as meeting the same
    requirements, including assessment of the anatomy and physiology course. That work will
    identify actions that could result in universal course acceptance.

Outcome

The State Board will be briefed on the system task force’s findings related to transfer issues and
have the opportunity to provide input and direction to the staff regarding strategies to address
these issues.


Prepared by Loretta Seppanen
April 20, 2006
                                                                  TAB 3, Appendix A, Page 1


        Transfer Options for CTC Applied Associate Degree Graduates
                                March 2006

   Applied Associate             Public Options                  Independent Options
     Degree Field(s)
All fields                 Upside Down Degree – TESC City U - Business and Management
                                                        Based on AAS-T
                           Proposed - Peninsula College De Vry - BS in Technical
                           - BAS: Applied Management Management Based on AAS-T
                                                        University of Phoenix - BS in
                                                        Management Based on AAS- T
                                                        SPU - BA in Professional Studies -
                                                        Organizational Behavior
                                                        Whitworth - Bachelors of Liberal
                                                        Studies with major in program
                                                        management
Associate Degree           BSN at UW B, UW T, WSU       BSN at Seattle U, PLU, Gonzaga,
Nursing                    (multiple sites)             Walla Walla College
                           Proposed – Olympic College
Dental Hygiene             BS in Dental Hygiene, EWU
                           at Clark, Shoreline, Pierce
Interior Design            BA in Interior Design from   Seattle Art Institute BFA in Interior
                           WSU Spokane                  Design
Industrial and Public      BAS in Safety and Health
Safety - Occupational      Management CWU -
Safety & Health Tech,      Lynnwood
Fire Science, EMT,
Environmental Tech
Information Technology     BAS in Information
                           Technology and
                           Administrative Management
                           CWU Ellensburg, fall 2006 at
                           Lynwood & Des Moines
Culinary Arts              BAS in Food Service
                           Management - CWU at Des
                           Moines fall 2007
                           Proposed - South Seattle
                           Community College - BAS:
                           Hospitality Management
All Engineering Tech       BAS in Industrial Technology Seattle Pacific University - BS in
and related fields,        – CWU Lynnwood – fall        Professional Studies - Electrical
Electrical and             2007                         Engineering or CS
Electronics Tech,
Hydraulics & Fluid
Power Tech,
Industrial/Manufacturing
                                                              TAB 3, Appendix A, Page 2


Tech, Instrumentation
Tech, Water Quality &
Wastewater Mgmt &
Recycling Tech

Networking, electronics   BS in Technology, Applied
technology,               Technology Option EWU at
manufacturing,            BCC and Clark
computer support,
software development

Childcare (meeting Head BA in Human Development –
Start bachelor’s        WSU (available on line or
requirements)           several campuses)
                          EWU - BA in Children’s
                          Studies

Social Services                                       Bachelors of Liberal Studies -
                                                      Chemical Dependency Professionals
                                                      – Whitworth

                                                      Bachelor of Arts – Applied
                                                      Psychology – City U

Multi Media / Digital                                 Digital Arts Henry Cogswell College
Arts
                                                      Based on AAS-T - Media Arts &
                                                      Animation Seattle Art Institute

Teaching certification                                Based on AAS-T BA in Professional
                                                      Studies with teacher certification at
                                                      SPU – competency based pathway
                                                      for ECE and Paraeducators

                                                      Based on AAS-T in ECE to Teacher
                                                      Certification at Heritage

Radiation and Imaging     Proposed - Bellevue
Sciences                  Community College – BAS:
                          Radiation and Imaging
                          Sciences
                                                            TAB 3, Appendix B, Page 1




2005 Technical College Articulation Issues Task Force Members

Sally Cofchin, Bates
Patty McKeown, Bellingham
Lee Paavola, Clover Park
Shirley Metcalf, Lake Washington
Marty Heilstedt, Renton
Ron Leatherbarrow, Bellevue
Sunny Burns, Pierce
Susan Tinker, Skagit Valley
Dick Fulton, Whatcom
SBCTC: Jan Yoshiwara, Suanne Carlson, Loretta Seppanen
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                                    TAB 4 (a)


Subject (Information)

2007 New Programs Review - Opportunity Grants

Background

During the 2006 session the Legislature appropriated $4 million to the State Board for
Community & Technical Colleges to create the Opportunity Grant Pilot Program. With this
funding comes a charge to the two-year colleges to implement pilot programs that get low-
income adults to the educational “tipping point” and beyond. Reaching the “tipping point”
allows the least prepared (individuals at or below 175 percent of poverty, with a high school
education or less, and individuals who are non-English speaking) to increase high wage job skills
and knowledge through college pathways.

Program Description

The pilots will be designed to move more people faster and further through the community and
technical college system. Significant progress must be made by providing multiple access points
for students. Students need to be clearly shown how they can progress through and beyond our
colleges. This will involve the use of certificate and degree programs that have been developed
with input from industry to train and place students in high demand jobs. It will also involve
providing student financial assistance designed to address the barriers to higher education
experienced by low-income adults, and a comprehensive study of the workforce education
delivery network to find better ways to serve students.

The $4 million general fund appropriation is provided to administer student grants, which may
be used for tuition, books, fees, and other expenses associated with attending a workforce
education program. Funds disbursed through the Opportunity Grant Program shall not supplant
federal grant or work-study forms of financial aid. The amounts of student aid awards will vary
depending on the types of students receiving awards (e.g., some students will be parents needing
aid for childcare costs, while others may not), their enrollment status (e.g., full-time, half-time,
less-than-half-time, etc.), and potentially program costs related to the educational programs in
which they are engaged (e.g., lab fees, materials costs). An average per student award amount
that has been discussed is around $9,300. Again, some students will receive a significantly
smaller award, while others will receive a larger award.

While the majority of the Opportunity Grant appropriation is intended for direct disbursement to
students in the form of financial assistance, legislators recognized that part of the funding is
needed to provide students with direct services to promote student retention and success. Early
conversations with legislative leaders targeted 10 percent of Opportunity Grant funds for this
purpose. State Board staff are currently working to negotiate a greater percentage. An
expectation remains, however, that funding for innovative instructional design and wrap-around
                                                                               TAB 4 (a), Page 2

retention and support services will come from leveraging a number of resources, such as existing
FTE allocations, high demand workforce development grants, in addition to monies received to
support provision of direct services through Opportunity Grant allocations.

This level of funding will support a range of funding for pilot programs from $300,000 to
$700,000. The pilot projects are intended as proof of concept, with projected 3-year funding
cycles. Continued funding will be based on program performance, available funding, and the
status of the industry skills gaps initially targeted. The intention is to grow the Opportunity
Grant program by successfully requesting additional appropriations, rather than moving funds
away from programs that are able to demonstrate success. The SBCTC and the Higher
Education Coordinating Board shall jointly conduct an evaluation and submit a report to the
Legislature and the Governor no later than November 15, 2008. Interim reports will be
submitted as well.

Process for Development

An Opportunity Grant Initiative task group, comprised of college student services, instruction,
and research experts, was convened for a full-day meeting with a charge to identify:

•   Target student populations;
•   Barriers to educational access;
•   Strategies that have been demonstrated to be successful in helping students to overcome
    barriers and achieve success;
•   Appropriate baseline, process and outcome measures necessary to evaluate the program’s
    effectiveness in increasing the educational attainment of students.

The goal for this group’s work was to inform the development of the Opportunity Grant
Initiative’s initial design. The task group also worked to develop criteria for colleges applying to
pilot the program, the format for Requests for Proposals (RFPs), and the scoring and selection
process.

Next Steps

The next steps will be:

•   To develop a draft design and proposed RFP process to be reviewed by WACTC during its
    April meeting.

•   To conduct a meeting to gather input from external stakeholders, including legislative
    leaders, HECB, WTECB and industry associations that will further refine the program’s
    design and the scope of skills standards pathways that will be targeted through the
    Opportunity Grant Initiative in late April.

•   To conduct a review of the program’s draft design and proposed RFP process by the State
    Board during its May meeting, being held on May 3rd and 4th.
                                                                              TAB 4 (a), Page 3

•   To issue the RFPs in early May, with a bidders’ conference projected for some time around
    May 11th. The target due date for submission of completed applications is June 20th. (The
    timeline is subject to change.)

Outcome

The Board will have the opportunity to discuss the opportunity grant initiative and provide staff
with feedback.


Prepared by Tina Bloomer and Nani Jackins Park
April 19, 2006
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                                    TAB 4 (b)


Subject

2007 New Programs Review – Customized Training

Background

The Washington Customized Employment Training Program (CT) was created by the 2006
Legislature to provide training assistance to employers locating or expanding in the state, giving
preference to employers with fewer than 50 employees. The SBCTC administers the program
and oversees the Employment Training Finance Account (ETFA) created by a one-time state
general fund allocation of $3.075 million.

The program consists of two components:
• It covers the up-front costs of customized contract training for participating businesses.
• It provides participating businesses with a tax credit of 50 percent of the value of the training
   while they are repaying their training expenses to the ETFA.

Effectively, participating businesses get 50 percent off the costs of customized contract training.

Most states have new hire and incumbent worker training programs, and some have multiple
programs ranging from cash grants to tax credits. Until now, of the states that fund customized
training, only one funded it at a lower level than Washington. The new Customized Training
Program nearly doubles Washington’s investment in employer-based training solutions and
places community and technical colleges at the center of the solution.

To qualify, a business must:
• be a state business and occupation taxpayer;
• enter into an agreement with a qualified training institution (community, technical, or private
   career college) for customized training;
• pay one-quarter of the training allowance upon completion of the training to the ETFA
   (administered by SBCTC);
• pay the remaining three-quarters of the allowance within 18 months;
• employ in-state in the calendar year after completing training at least the same number of
   employees plus 75 percent of the number of trainees as they did the calendar year preceding
   the start of training; and
• file an annual survey with the Department of Revenue.

No employer may receive more than $500,000 per calendar year, nor may they receive more
funds per employee than an amount determined by the SBCTC.

The Department of Revenue will provide an annual summary of data to the Legislature by
September 1. It will also study the tax credit's impact on job creation, job retention, company
growth, the movement of firms and other factors and report their findings to the Legislature by
December 1, 2011. The program expires July 1, 2012.
                                                                            TAB 4 (b), Page 2

In many circumstances, businesses may be able to take advantage of the Customized Training
Program and the Job Skills Program simultaneously or in succession. The Job Skills Program
provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants for community, technical and private career colleges
to deliver customized, short-term, and job-specific training to individual employers. The
business provides an in-kind or cash match to grant funds. Training can be for new hires or to
retrain or upgrade existing employees.

Progress

SBCTC staff are undertaking a number of program design and implementation activities,
including:
• Convening key internal and external stakeholders to ensure program design is accessible:
    o System task force – first meeting April 26, 2006 (representatives from the Continuing
        and Workforce Education Councils, Council on Basic Skills, and Instruction
        Commission).
    o External stakeholders forums – Meetings on May 10 (SeaTac), May 12 (Spokane)
        (economic and workforce development councils, city/county development offices, ports,
        Washington Community, Trade, and Economic Development Department, and related
        industry/development representatives).
    o Washington Economic Development Association Conference presentation – May 18
        (Tacoma).
• Consulting with other states on best practices (Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina).
• Developing policies and procedures.
• Developing marketing and informational materials in collaboration with the Department of
    Revenue, community and technical colleges and Department of Community, Trade and
    Economic Development.
• Orchestrating data and information sharing between SBCTC and the Department of Revenue.
• Developing standard three-party training contract and review by an Attorney General
    representative.
• Providing marketing, training and technical assistance to colleges and external partners.
• Conducting study sessions with the State Board and Presidents Association at regular
    intervals throughout the program development period.

Planning and design began in mid-March. The program officially begins June 7, 2006. From
that date, SBCTC will develop guidelines, applications, and marketing materials and issue them
as soon as possible after July 1, 2006.

State Board Agenda

At the May 2006 State Board meeting, Board members will discuss how this new program will
enhance the roll of community and technical colleges in economic development and the
expanding function of the continuing education/contract training mission area of the colleges.
                                                                           TAB 4 (b), Page 3


Outcomes

Successful implementation of this program will increase colleges’ involvement in local
economic development activities, will expand jobs in Washington, and will bolster smaller
businesses use of customized training.


Prepared by Carolyn Cummins
April 20, 2006
STATE BOARD STUDY SESSION AGENDA ITEM                                                 TAB 4 (c)


Subject

2007 New Programs Review - High Demand Grants

Background

The High Demand program began in 1999 as a specially funded program by the Legislature to
assist community and technical colleges in immediately increasing educational capacity in high
wage, high skill, high demand, high cost programs that support critical industries in Washington
State. In 2005, the Legislature asked the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
(SBCTC) to distribute 10 percent of new enrollment to high demand program areas, removing
the formal legislative oversight on the funding. Since the inception of the program, the SBCTC
has directed over $13 million dollars to support High Demand programs: $7,330,027, or 54
percent of the funding devoted to increased capacity in healthcare programs; $4,539,913, or 34
percent of funding devoted to increased capacity in information technology; and $1,610,951, or
12 percent of funding devoted to other high demand program areas

Today

In 2006, the Legislature provided 187 FTES for high demand/ high wage programs with an
emphasis on “programs where enrollment access is limited and employers are experiencing
difficulty finding qualified graduates to fill job openings.”

Value of High-Demand Funding:
• Programmatic Value:
   o Allows colleges to engage in new programs.
   o Provides adequate funds to develop high-cost programs.
   o Provides permanent money and avoids the “cliff” after start-up.
   o Allows immediate response to industries experiencing significant shortages of skilled
       workers.
• Political Value:
   o Displays a responsiveness that is expected and unique to our sector.
   o Increases overall funding per FTE for colleges.
   o Allows colleges to showcase their connection to the immediate needs of business and
       industry.

Outcomes

2004-05 Task Force Recommendations

In 2004-05, the SBCTC convened a system-wide task force to review the high demand grant
selection process (a list of task force members is included as Appendix A). The task force
recommended the following:
                                                                            TAB 4 (c), Page 2


•   Develop written criteria for the RFP that establishes minimum standards for “fundable
    projects.” This is intended to provide a more objective review of proposals.
•   Use a biennium process so that the same colleges do not continue to obtain high demand
    funds every year.
•   Prioritize proposals that meet minimum standards on a two-year (biennium) list and fund
    projects as money is available.
•   Modify the in-person program demonstrations with a telephone conference call that focuses
    on selection panel questions to the proposing college.
•   Open the competitive process each biennium to establish a new list of prioritized projects.

Recommendations were implemented in the high demand selection process for 2005-06.

WACTC Request

In March, WACTC requested options for dispersing high demand FTES that included but were
not limited to the recommendations made by the 2004-05 task force. Those options included the
following:

Option 1. Restricted Competitive Process (following the intention of the task force)
• Fund five projects remaining on the biennium list as planned ($9,000 per FTE).
• Use a competitive process to distribute the remaining 2006-07 125 FTES and the
  supplemental 2006-07 187 FTES (total of 312 FTES) at $8,400 per FTE. This will complete
  a list of projects to be funded in this biennium.
• Allow only those colleges not on the biennium list to apply for the high demand FTES
  currently available.

Option 2. Open Competitive Process
• Current - Fund five projects remaining on the biennium list as planned ($9,000 per FTE).
• Carryover - Use a competitive process to distribute the remaining 2006-07 125 FTES at
  $9,000 per FTE. Allow only those colleges not on the biennium list to apply for those funds.
• New - Allow all colleges to compete for the supplemental 2006-07 187 FTES at $8,000 per
  FTE. * Note: This allows colleges not currently on the biennium list to submit an
  application for the “carryover” and “new” funding pools.

Option 3. Non-Competitive Process
• Fund five projects remaining on the biennium list as planned ($9,000 per FTE).
• Allocate 312 FTES (remaining 125 FTES for 2006-07 and supplemental 187 FTES for 2006-
  07) to all 34 community and technical colleges at $8,400 per FTE. This equates to
  approximately 9.2 FTE per college (roughly $77,280 per college).
• Require colleges to submit a plan for use of high demand funding that meets the intention of
  the Legislature.
                                                                             TAB 4 (c), Page 3


For all options mentioned above, grant criteria would be modified to match the findings of
the economic development study:

1. Change in integrated language to describe how the proposed program is part of an
   educational pathway, linked to a career pathway, which begins with adult basic education
   (ABE/ESL) and continues to an Associate Degree or beyond.
2. Add specific language in the student recruitment and retention section of the criteria that
   speaks to educational achievement for students of color, students with disabilities, and non-
   traditional (gender) students.
3. Add specific language that asks how the curriculum prepares program completers to be
   multi-culturally competent.
4. Add criterion that addresses fiscal note language defining high demand as “programs where
   enrollment access is limited and employers are experiencing difficulty finding qualified
   graduates to fill job openings.”
5. Adding “benefits” to the wage criteria was considered but it is too difficult to quantify.

On April 20, 2006, the WACTC membership unanimously elected to implement Option 2:
Open Competitive Process with one modification to the “carryover” section. In the event that
there are remaining 2006-07 125 FTES at $9,000 per FTE after the competition is completed,
those remaining FTES will be added to the supplemental 2006-07 187 FTES at $8,000 per FTE
open to all colleges for competition.


Prepared by Michelle Andreas
April 20, 2006
                                     TAB 4 (c), Appendix A, Page 1


                  COMPETITIVE GRANTS

                TASK FORCE MEMBERSHIP


Presidents
 Ed Brewster –Grays Harbor
 David Mitchell – Olympic

VPIs
 Anne Temte – Wenatchee
 Susan Tinker – Skagit

VP Business
 Laura Saunders – Highline

Workforce
Paula Boyum – Bellevue
 Dave Cunningham - Lake Washington

Adult Education
 Kara Garrett- Big Bend
                                 State of Washington
               STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

Olympic College – Poulsbo Campus                            *Study Session:        Wednesday, May 3, 2006
Seminar Room – Room 221                                                               1:00 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.
1000 Olympic College Place NW                             Regular Meeting:          Thursday, May 4, 2006
Poulsbo, Washington                                                                  8:15 a.m. – 12:15 p.m.


                                  State Board Regular Meeting Agenda
    Time                                      Description                                         Attachment

  8:15 a.m.       1. Call to Order                                                                      ----

                  2. Adoption of Consent Agenda (Action)                                              TAB 5
                     • Approval of Minutes – April 5, 2006

  8:20 a.m.       3. Director’s Report                                                                TAB 6

  8:40 a.m.       4. Board Member Notes                                                                 ----

  9:00 a.m.       5. Host College Presentation:                                                         ----
                     Olympic College-Poulsbo Campus (Information)

  9:30 a.m.                                       ~ BREAK ~

  9:45 a.m.       6. Preview Adult Basic Education Awards and Allocations                             TAB 7
                     (Information)

 10:30 a.m.       7. 2007-09 Budget Requests (Information)                                            TAB 8

 11:15 a.m.       8. Discussion with Denny Heck, Chair, Washington Learns                             TAB 9
                     Higher Education Advisory Committee (Information)

 12:00 p.m.       9. Chair’s Report (Information)                                                     TAB 10
                     • Trustees’ Association Report

                  10. Staff Reports Requested by the Board (Information)                              TAB 11
                      • WorkFirst Update
                      • Professional Technical Faculty Certification Update

 12:15 p.m.       11. Adjournment/Next Meeting


*Study Session: The State Board will hold a Study Session on May 3, 2006, to discuss the following items: 1) SBCTC
Strategic Direction, 2) Student Athlete Operating Fee Waiver, 3) 2007 New Programs Review, and 4) Transfer Successes
and Concerns.
Executive Session: Under RCW 42.30.110, an Executive Session may be held. Action may be taken, if necessary, as a
result of items discussed in the Executive Session.
Please Note: Reasonable accommodations will be made for persons with disabilities if requests are made at least seven
days in advance. Efforts will be made to accommodate late requests. Please contact the Executive Director’s Office at
360-704-4309.
                                                                           TAB 5




              REGULAR MEETING OF THE STATE BOARD

                                   FOR

              COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES




                    MINUTES OF MEETING

                               April 5, 2006




                           State Board Members

                     Jim Garrison (Chair), Mt. Vernon
                         Jim Bricker, Coupeville
                          Reuven Carlyle, Seattle
                        Sharon Fairchild, Spokane
                       Tom Koenninger, Vancouver
                            Al Link, Silverdale
                         Erin Mundinger, Omak
                           Jane Nishita, Seattle
                          Lyle Quasim, Puyallup




Statutory Authority: Laws of 1967, Chapter 28B.50 Revised Code of Washington
                     State of Washington
   STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
                           Olympia

                           ACTION INDEX
                             April 5, 2006

Resolution                                                  Page in
Number                      Description                     Minutes

             Adoption of Consent Agenda:                       1
 ----        - Approval of Minutes/March 9, 2006               1
06-04-06     - Clark College Local Capital Project             1
06-04-07     - Skagit Valley College Property Acquisition      1

06-04-08     Approval of Applied Bachelors Degree Pilots       2

06-04-09     Approval of University Contract Pilots            3

06-04-10     Approval of 2007 Operating & Capital Budget       4
             Allocations

06-04-11     Approval of 2006-07 Tuition Rates                5
                          STATE OF WASHINGTON
           STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES
                                 Olympia

                                   Regular Meeting Minutes
                                        April 5, 2006
                                   Renton Technical College

The State Board held a special meeting/work session on April 4 from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at the
Renton Holiday Inn Select to discuss the overall system direction. The Board also held an
informal breakfast meeting on April 5 from 7:45 a.m. to 8:45 a.m. at Renton Technical College.
No action was taken at these meetings.

State Board Members Present: Jim Garrison (Chair), Jim Bricker, Reuven Carlyle, Sharon
Fairchild, Tom Koenninger, Al Link, Erin Mundinger, Jane Nishita, Lyle Quasim

CALL TO ORDER

Chair Jim Garrison called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and welcomed those present. He
thanked President Don Bressler for hosting the meeting at Renton Technical College.

ADOPTION OF CONSENT AGENDA

MOTION: Moved by Tom Koenninger and seconded by Jane Nishita that the State Board adopt
the consent agenda for its April 5, 2006 regular meeting as presented:

   a) Approval of March 9, 2006 State Board regular meeting minutes
   b) Resolution 06-04-06 (ATTACHMENT #1) - approval of Clark College local capital
      project
   c) Resolution 06-04-07 (ATTACHMENT #2) - approval of Skagit Valley College property
      acquisition

MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF APPLIED BACHELOR’S DEGREE PILOTS (Resolution 06-04-08)

Jan Yoshiwara gave a general overview and introduced a panel of three members of the Applied
Bachelor’s Degree Evaluation Committee: David Borofsky, president of Bates Technical College;
Bryan Wilson, associate director with the Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board;
and Loretta Seppanen from the State Board staff. The panel reviewed the evaluation process used
to assess the six college proposals submitted for consideration. These proposals responded to the
criteria and were evaluated according to the process approved by the State Board at its October
2005 meeting. Based on the review of criteria and given the legislative limitation of four pilots,
State Board Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2006
Page 2

the evaluation committee unanimously identified four proposals as the strongest among the six
submitted. The committee recommended the following four pilot projects for approval:

   •   Bellevue Community College – Bachelor’s of Applied Science Radiology and Imaging
       Sciences
   •   Peninsula College – Bachelor’s of Applied Science Management
   •   Olympic College – Bachelor’s of Science Nursing
   •   South Seattle Community College – Bachelor’s of Applied Science Hospitality
       Management

Discussion followed the panel presentation. The Board received comments from technical and
community college presidents; trustees; students; staff; business, industry and labor
representatives; legislators; and community members who spoke in support of the Lake
Washington Technical College and Everett Community College proposals that were not among the
four pilots recommended for approval. They asked the Board to consider broadening the pilot
program to move all six proposals forward.

The Board thanked the staff, task force and evaluation committee members, and the six colleges
that submitted proposals for their work. The next steps in the approval process are for the four
colleges recommended to seek authority from the Higher Education Coordinating Board (the
agency that approves all bachelor’s degrees in the state) and the Northwest Commission on
Colleges and Universities (the regional accrediting association).

MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Al Link that the State Board adopt
Resolution 06-04-08 (ATTACHMENT #3) approving four applied bachelor’s degree pilot
projects submitted by Bellevue, Peninsula, Olympic and South Seattle Community Colleges and
recommended by the Community and Technical College Applied Bachelor’s Degree Evaluation
Committee and authorizing the selected pilot colleges to move forward with the next steps in the
approval process and receive the appropriate 2006-07 funding to begin detailed planning.

MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF UNIVERSITY CONTRACT PILOTS (Resolution 06-04-09)

Jan Yoshiwara gave a general overview and introduced a panel of three members of the University
Contract Evaluation Committee: Ken Minnaert, president of South Puget Sound Community
College; Sandra Fowler Hill, executive dean for student learning at Cascadia Community College;
and Loretta Seppanen from the State Board Staff. The panel reviewed the selection process used
to evaluate the four college proposals submitted for the three pilot university contracts authorized
by legislation. Specifically, the Legislature authorized three pilots that will partially address the
current gap in upper-division capacity by bringing bachelor’s degrees to the community or
technical college campus in underserved areas of the state.

The evaluation committee composed of representatives from community and technical colleges,
four-year universities, and a member of the State Board staff met in late March to hear from the
colleges and to make a determination as to their recommendation to the State Board. The
State Board Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2006
Page 3

evaluation committee reviewed the proposals in terms of their responsiveness to the criteria and
their likelihood of expanding bachelor’s degree access in the state. The committee unanimously
recommended the following three college proposals as the strongest of the four presented:

   •   Clark College in partnership with Eastern Washington University – Bachelor of Arts in
       Social Work
   •   Edmonds Community College in partnership with Central Washington University –
       Bachelor of Applied Science-Information Technology and Administrative Management
   •   Pierce College-Fort Steilacoom in partnership with Central Washington University –
       Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education (minor in reading)

Staff summarized each of the recommended pilot projects and discussed next steps in the approval
process.

The Board thanked the staff, evaluation committee members, and the four colleges that submitted
proposals for their work.

MOTION: Moved by Jim Bricker and seconded by Al Link that the State Board adopt
Resolution 06-04-09 (ATTACHMENT #4) approving the university contract pilot colleges
recommended by the University Contract Evaluation Committee and authorizing the selected
pilot colleges to move forward with the steps required to gain approval from the Higher
Education Coordinating Board and the Northwest Association of Colleges and Universities and
receive the appropriate 2006-07 funding to commence the contract for instruction.

MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF 2007 OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET ALLOCATIONS (Revised
Resolution 06-04-10)

Mary Alice Grobins presented the fiscal year 2007 operating budget allocation recommendation
for the Board’s consideration. Approval is recommended for an allocation of $573,049,269 to
community and technical college districts, the Center for Information Services, and the State Board
office. She noted that State Board approval is also sought for delegated authority to the executive
director for unallocated funds totaling $45,885,731.

The staff recommends that funds be allocated to colleges in generally the same manner as the
previous year. Allocations would be based upon colleges’ existing base budgets (including one-
time and variable fund adjustments), with legislative funding changes added to or subtracted from
base budgets. The staff also recommends that FY2007 growth enrollments be allocated after the
2005-06 academic year is completed and final enrollment data for each college is known. A
notable change in allocation practice results from legislative action related to funding faculty
increment pay.

Mary Alice summarized four items in the operating budget related to the community and technical
college system that were vetoed by the Governor.
State Board Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2006
Page 4

Mary Alice presented the fiscal year 2007 capital budget allocation recommendation for the
Board’s consideration. Approval is recommended for an allocation of $9,739,000 from the
Gardner-Evans Higher Education Construction Account (bonds) for six community college
projects. She noted a correction to page 2 of the proposed resolution, where the Everett
Community College capital project was incorrectly listed as Edmonds. In addition, authority is
also sought to spend local funds for a new alternative financing project at Edmonds Community
College.

Nancy Kennedy, AFT-Washington, expressed concern about how faculty salaries are funded and
asked that the Board consider a new method for determining faculty compensation. She offered to
work with the State Board and staff to craft such a proposal. The Board suggested that the
Operating Budget Task Force address this issue at its next meeting and report back with
recommendations.

The Board requested periodic updates from staff as to how the funds delegated to the executive
director for allocation are distributed, particularly when there are differences of opinion.

MOTION: Moved by Jane Nishita and seconded by Erin Mundinger that the State Board adopt
Revised Resolution 06-04-10 (ATTACHMENT #5) approving the operating and capital budget
allocations for fiscal year 2007 as described in the resolution and attachments.

MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVAL OF 2006-07 TUITION RATES (Revised Resolution 06-04-11)

Mary Alice Grobins presented a recommendation for 2006-07 tuition and fee rates for the Board’s
consideration. At its March meeting, the Board reviewed tuition-related materials in preparation
for action. As part of that preparation, the Board and a panel of community and technical college
presidents discussed a variety of considerations related to the tuition decision, including issues of
student affordability and access, as well as colleges’ ability to deal with inflationary pressures that
do not receive legislative funding. The presidents provided the Board with the substance of the
tuition discussion that WACTC engaged in at its January meeting. The panel’s discussion was
summarized and distributed to Board members.

At its March meeting, the Board had also asked staff to research the practices of other states with
regard to differential tuition. Mary Alice explained that differential tuition is defined as charging
different tuition rates based on factors such as time of day, mode of delivery, and college location.
The State Board has the authority to establish differential tuition. Mary Alice reported that nearly
20 states were surveyed, many with comparable community college governance structures, and
none except Texas had tried using differential tuition. The research findings for Texas were
summarized and provided to Board members.

Discussion of the tuition recommendation followed, and the Board agreed to revise the proposed
resolution to reflect its desire for a long-term, comprehensive tuition and financial aid policy in
order to better understand its options prior to the development of the community and technical
college system’s 2007-09 budget request.
State Board Meeting Minutes
April 5, 2006
Page 5


MOTION: Moved by Erin Mundinger and seconded by Jim Bricker that the State Board adopt
Revised Resolution 06-04-11 (ATTACHMENT #6) setting 2007 tuition and fees for resident and
non-resident students, encouraging community and technical colleges to set aside a portion of
tuition collections for needy students, establishing tuition for specific ungraded courses,
authorizing the technical colleges to increase tuition and fees by no more than five percent,
authorizing community colleges to increase services and activities fees up to the maximum levels
as outlined in the attachments, and calling for a follow-up survey and report to the Board on the
colleges’ plans to provide waivers to needy students in the 2006-07 academic year.

MOTION CARRIED.

DIRECTOR’S REPORT

Executive Director Charlie Earl reported on recent meetings and activities of the Governor’s
Executive Cabinet. Jim Garrison and he are scheduled to meet with the Governor on April 7.
Charlie also reported on recent system task force meetings and meetings of the Prosperity
Partnership and its higher education work group on which he serves. Charlie provided an update
on the Economic Development Study and noted that a meeting is being scheduled with business
leaders to get their input on the study. He also briefed the Board on the Governor’s request to
study the workforce development system. The study is being framed by the Workforce Training
and Education Coordinating Board. Copies of the 2006 legislative bill summary produced by the
State Board staff were distributed to Board members. Charlie also requested and received
feedback from Board members following their April 4 strategic planning work session. The Board
plans to continue this discussion at its May meeting.

ADJOURNMENT/NEXT MEETING

There being no further business, the State Board adjourned its regular meeting of April 5, 2006, at
12:55 p.m. The next regular meeting of the State Board will be held May 3-4, 2006, at Olympic
College Poulsbo Campus.


                                                    ______________________________
                                                    Jim Garrison, Chair



ATTEST:



______________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary
                                                                               ATTACHMENT #1



                                   STATE OF WASHINGTON

           STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                     RESOLUTION 06-04-06

A resolution relating to use of local funds at Clark College.

       WHEREAS, Clark College is in a position to take ownership of the Triangle Property; and

       WHEREAS, the Triangle property is part of the expansion of the campus and is clearly
delineated in the June 20, 2001 Facilities Master Plan; and

       WHEREAS, the Clark College Board of Trustees has recommended approval of $5
million in local funds to initiate improvements on this property; and

        WHEREAS, these improvements are important to meet the long term instructional needs
of the college,

      NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges authorizes Clark College to use up to $5 million in local funds to initiate
improvements on the Triangle Property.

       APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006.



                                                      _____________________________
                                                      Jim Garrison, Chair

ATTEST:



________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary
                                                                           ATTACHMENT #2



                                  STATE OF WASHINGTON

           STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                     RESOLUTION 06-04-07

A resolution relating to property acquisition at Skagit Valley College.

       WHEREAS, Skagit Valley College has identified acquisition of this property within its
master plan boundary; and

       WHEREAS, the college recognizes this acquisition is extremely valuable for its future
development; and

       WHEREAS, the college has sufficient local reserves to acquire the property; and

       WHEREAS, the college is using the services of General Administration Real Estate
Services to manage the acquisition,

       NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges authorizes Skagit Valley College to enter into an agreement to purchase
property using up to $1,300,000 in local funds, and

        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Skagit Valley College be authorized to enter into an
option to purchase all or a portion of the property should the agreement to purchase require
extending the acquisition date.

       APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006.



                                                     _____________________________
                                                     Jim Garrison, Chair

ATTEST:



________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary
                                                                             ATTACHMENT #3



                                   STATE OF WASHINGTON

          STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                    RESOLUTION 06-04-08

A resolution to approve the pilot colleges recommended by the Community and Technical
College Applied Bachelor’s Degree Evaluation Committee and authorizing the selected pilot
colleges to:
    • Move forward with the steps required to gain approval from the Higher Education
       Coordinating Board and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities
    • Receive the appropriate 2006-07 funding to begin detailed planning.

        WHEREAS consistent with the Washington State Legislature’s requirement of the State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges, the State Board developed objective criteria
related to selection of the Community and Technical College Applied Bachelor’s degree pilots;
and

       WHEREAS the Community and Technical College Applied Bachelor’s Degree
Evaluation Committee found the colleges identified below provided evidence of meeting or
exceeding these criteria and that these colleges presented proposals that will expand the
bachelor’s degree capacity in the state;

        THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges approves the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee to select the following
pilot colleges, authorizes these colleges to pursue approval of their proposal by the Higher
Education Coordinating Board and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities, and
directs staff to include funding for the pilots in the FY07 allocation proposal due for
consideration at the May 2006 State Board meeting:

   •   Bellevue Community College – Bachelor’s of Applied Science Radiology and Imagining
       Sciences
   •   Peninsula College – Bachelor’s of Applied Science Management
   •   Olympic College – Bachelor’s of Science Nursing
   •   South Seattle Community College – Bachelor’s Applied Science Hospitality
       Management

         BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges commends the six colleges that developed proposals for the Community and Technical
College Applied Bachelor’s Degree for their extensive work required to prepare proposals
consistent with the criteria and for the institution’s vision for expanding bachelor’s degree access
in their community.
                                                               Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                            Page 2

       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges commends the members of the Community and Technical College Applied
Bachelor’s Degree Evaluation Committee for their thoughtful and thorough work in
evaluating the proposals for these pilot programs.

      APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006.




                                                ______________________________
                                                Jim Garrison, Chair

ATTEST:



______________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary
                                                                  Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                  Appendix A, Page 1

                CTC Bachelor’s Degree Evaluation Committee Members

President
   • David Borofsky, Bates Technical College

Instruction
    • Anthony Beebe, Yakima Valley Community College
    • Paula Norby, Tacoma Community College

Student Services
   • Terri McKenzie, Spokane Community College

Business
   • Ken Turner, Big Bend Community College

State Workforce Needs
    • Bryan Wilson, Workforce Training and Education Coordinating Board

Baccalaureate Institution Offering Applied Bachelor’s Degrees
   • Linda Beath, Central Washington University

State Board staff (sharing a single vote)
    • Loretta Seppanen and Jim Crabbe
                                                                                  Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                  Appendix B, Page 1


                          CTC Applied Bachelor’s Degree Pilots

                          Proposed Principles, Criteria, and Standards

Principles              Criteria                         Standards
Service to              Program fills a gap in options   Requirement: Provide evidence that no public
Placebound              available for students           baccalaureate institution offers or has submitted
Students: Locally       because it is not offered by a   a pending Notice of Intent (NOI) to offer this
offered applied         public four-year institution     degree or related degrees serving the
bachelor’s degrees      of higher education in the       placebound graduates of relevant applied
are intended            college's geographic area        associate degree programs in the college’s
primarily to serve                                       geographic area.
students from the                                        For a stronger proposal: Additionally,
college’s catchment-                                     provide evidence that no public baccalaureate
area not otherwise                                       institution offers degrees serving the graduates
served by existing                                       of relevant applied associate degrees programs
public baccalaureate                                     in the region (broader than college’s
degree programs due                                      catchment-area) or state.
to factors such as      Demonstrate demand for the       Requirement: Provide evidence that the
distance, cost,         proposed program from a          number of students graduating from relevant
enrollment              sufficient number of students    applied associate degree graduates in the
limitations or major.   within its service area to       catchment-area result in sufficient students
                        make the program cost-           going on for the BAS each year to match the
                        effective and feasible to        planned junior year FTE request. Currently
                        operate                          about 10% of applied associate degree
                                                         graduates transfer (with considerable variation
                                                         by field of study). National data indicate that
                                                         the transfer rate could be as high as 30% if
                                                         pathways were available to match student
                                                         interests.
                                                         For a stronger proposal: Additionally,
                                                         provide evidence of student demand from
                                                         multiple sources. Examples of other evidence
                                                         include transfer trends for similar applied
                                                         associate degree programs elsewhere; demand
                                                         in excess of opportunity to enroll in related
                                                         traditional bachelor’s programs; changes in
                                                         industry requirements such that upgrading the
                                                         bachelor’s will be necessary.
                        If applicable, has a plan for    Requirement: Indicate why articulation is or
                        program articulation with        is not applicable. If applicable, describe
                        nearby colleges                  articulation plans and the number of student
                                                         expected from nearby colleges.
                                                                                     Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                     Appendix B, Page 2

Part of Workforce              The college can demonstrate        Requirement: Based on the data sources
Mission: Applied               that employers demand the          described 1 , document either that state-
bachelor’s degrees are an      level of technical training        wide demand in the proposed
extension of the workforce     proposed within the                occupational area substantially exceeds
education mission of           program, making it cost-           current state-wide supply, or local
community and technical        effective for students to seek     demand substantially exceeds local
colleges, and a response to    the degree                         supply.
the increasing skill                                              For a stronger proposal: Document a
requirements of employers                                         supply-demand gap at both the state level
in occupations for which                                          and in the local region.
community and technical        Has a plan for development of      Requirement: Describe both the
colleges have traditionally    the curriculum that represents a   technical curriculum for the BAS and the
provided education and         level of rigor and knowledge       general education component of the
training.                      above the level of the related     bachelor’s degree (both the portion
                               applied associate degree           expected from the applied associate level
                                                                  and the portions at the upper division
                                                                  level).

Capacity & Sustainability:     Demonstrates the capacity to       Requirement: Provide a financial plan
Colleges selected as pilots    make a long-term                   for the degree program proposal,
have a record of good use of   commitment of resources to         including a three year projections of all
human and financial            build and sustain a high           costs, expenditures and revenue streams
resources suggesting the       quality program                    to support the proposal (differentiating
likelihood of successful                                          revenue from the new pilot FTE funding,
development and                                                   employer contributions and any
continuation of new                                               anticipated redistribution from existing
curricular offerings.                                             funding) and a description of adequacy of
                                                                  facilities, equipment and other
                                                                  instructional resources required by the
                                                                  bachelor’s program. Also, document a
                                                                  history of financial stability that
                                                                  demonstrates the capacity to undertake
                                                                  and to sustain new instructional
                                                                  initiatives.
                               Had analyzed the faculty/staff     Requirement: Describe the number and
                               needed, the education and          characteristics of staff and faculty needed
                               professional experience            for the components of the program (the
                               qualification of faculty           major, general education courses and
                               members relative to teaching       electives). For faculty identify the highest
                               assignments, and anticipated       level of education needed and describe
                               sources of qualified faculty and   other experience expectations.
                               staff
                                                                                  Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                  Appendix B, Page 3

                               Has or can readily engage       Requirement: Document that by fall
                               faculty appropriately           2007, the current faculty reassigned to the
                               qualified to develop and        program plus the faculty hired using the
                               deliver a high quality          new FTE funding will have the
                               curriculum at the               background consistent with the above
                               baccalaureate level             analysis plus recent work experience in
                                                               the field (minimum of two years at a job
                                                               appropriate for those with at least the
                                                               bachelor’s degree). Faculty and
                                                               administrators responsible for technical
                                                               courses must meet certification
                                                               requirements for professional-technical
                                                               administrators and instructors
                                                               http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/workforce/docs/
                                                               FinalCertificationWACs2004.doc
                                                               For a stronger proposal: Additionally,
                                                               document that faculty assigned to the
                                                               program will have teaching experience in
                                                               the field.
Maintain 2-Year Focus:         Has an adequate and             Requirement: Describe the services that
Community and technical        appropriate student services    will be needed by the students admitted to
colleges will remain           plan                            the applied bachelor’s degree program,
predominantly lower                                            and plans for providing those services.
division institutions. The                                     Include a description of the following
applied bachelor’s degree                                      items in the plan:
will be an additional degree                                   • provision of student financial aid
offered by community and                                           services for students admitted to the
technical colleges, and is                                         program
not viewed as the first step                                   • effective academic advising that
to a progressive conversion                                        engages disciplinary expertise
to a comprehensive                                             • retention strategies to enhance
baccalaureate institution.                                         success of students in the program
                                                               • how to assist program graduates with
                                                                   placement
                               Has a plan for the assessment   Requirement: Describe methods for
                               of student achievement and      assessment of student achievement and
                               program assessment at the       program assessment for the related
                               bachelor’s level built upon a   applied associate degrees and provide
                               track record of effective       examples of how those assessments have
                               assessment of the associate     been used to improve the program.
                               degrees                         Describe which parts of that assessment
                                                               will be applied at the bachelor’s levels
                                                               and the plans for other assessments at that
                                                               level.
                                                                                  Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                  Appendix B, Page 4

Open Door: Maintaining         Has a plan for selective        Requirement: Describe the program
the open door mission of       admissions processes, if used   selection and admissions process (how
community and technical        for the bachelor’s program,     this process relates to and supports the
colleges is an important       consistent with an open door    open door.) Also, describe efforts to
value and context for adding   institution                     assure that the CTC bachelor’s serves as
applied bachelor’s degree                                      diverse a population as enrolled in the
programs at some colleges.                                     relevant associate degree programs in
                                                               terms aspects of diversity important to the
                                                               college community.


Items in bold represent language drawn directly from E2SHB 1794.
                                                                                               Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                               Appendix C, Page 1

                                APPLIED BACHELOR’S DEGREE PILOT
                                EVALUATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY

Principle: Service to Place bound Students
Criteria 1.A                                                  Standards
Program fills a gap in options available for students         Requirement: No public baccalaureate institution offers
because it is not offered by a public four-year institution   degrees like this one serving the placebound graduates of
of higher education in the college's geographic area.         relevant applied associate degree programs in the
                                                              college’s geographic area.


Bellevue: Good – no degree in area or state
Everett: Concern - some concern about possibly responding to a need that might be addressed by
business degrees
Lake Washington: Good – closest degrees in Lynnwood and Highline – transforms “terminal”
degrees to pathway to bachelors
Olympic: Good – no degree in area for placebound students
Peninsula: Good – no degree in area for placebound students
South Seattle: Good – no degree in area, WSU far away

Principle: Service to Placebound Students:
Criteria 1.B                                                  Standards
Demonstrate demand for the proposed program from a            Requirement: Provide evidence that the number of
sufficient number of students within its service area to      students graduating from relevant applied associate
make the program cost-effective and feasible to operate.      degree programs in the catchment-area result in sufficient
                                                              students going on for the BAS each year to match the
                                                              planned junior year FTE request


Bellevue: Good – considerable student demand
Everett: OK – Need to add in demand from three colleges and from workers in addition to own
associate degrees together sufficient demand
Lake Washington: OK – fine student demand from the combination of all technical colleges, not
sure if demand equally high from the immediate catchment area, though survey data suggests it is.
Olympic: Good – enough student demand
Peninsula: Good – focus on Port Angeles & Sequim first – good approach
South Seattle: Mixed – Student interest well demonstrated. Need further thought on the pathway
for incumbent workers to the AAS-T and then this degree. Prior Learning assessment good.
                                                                                              Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                              Appendix C, Page 2


Principle: Service to Placebound Students
Criteria 1.C                                                Standards
If applicable, has a plan for program articulation with     Requirement: Indicate why articulation is or is not
nearby colleges.                                            applicable. If applicable, describe articulation plans and
                                                            the number of student expected from nearby colleges.


Bellevue: Okay – many other programs do not currently include the same general education
classes (college-level math for example). This articulation issue could be better addressed. The
lack of general education courses will extend the credits needed to the degree.
Everett: Good – articulation with Skagit and Edmonds
Lake Washington: Good – much articulation in the works
Olympic: Okay – Peninsula and Grays Harbor
Peninsula: NA
South Seattle: Good – 7 CTCS

Principle: Part of Workforce Mission
Criteria 2.A                                                Standards
                                                            Requirement: Based on the data sources described
The college can demonstrate that employers demand the       document either that statewide demand in the proposed
level of technical training proposed within the program,    occupational area substantially exceeds current statewide
making it cost-effective for students to seek the degree.   supply, or local demand substantially exceeds local
                                                            supply.


Bellevue: Good – significant job gap in region and state, some concern regarding the two options
in the degree and whether the industry demand is equal for both.
Everett: Concerns – job gap for computer area exist, but many of the other areas are filled by 2
year and 4 year degrees both, the discounting method for those with those degrees was not well
justified. There are as many business management degrees awarded in Washington than demand
for such workers. A more focused analysis and thus curriculum may better meet this standard.
Lake Washington: Concerns – job gap for computer area, but industrial technologies area jobs
and most business services management jobs (exclusive of accounting) are filled by 2 year and 4
year degrees both – the analysis looked only at 4 year degrees, Fitness instruction management is
not a degree area (may have mistaken for fitness instructor). A more focused analysis and thus
curriculum may better meet this standard.
Olympic: Good – significant job gap in region and state
Peninsula: Good – local demand exceeds local supply
South Seattle: Good – while only 4% of this industry needs this level of degree – a demand gap
currently exists and with industry changes may grow larger without this program.
                                                                                      Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                      Appendix C, Page 3

Principle: Part of Workforce Mission
Criteria 2.B                                          Standards
                                                      Requirement: Describe the curriculum (both the
Has a plan for development of the curriculum that
                                                      portion expected from the applied associate level
represents a level of rigor and knowledge above the
                                                      and the portions at the upper division level)
level of the related applied associate degree.
                                                      substantially exceeds local supply.

Bellevue: Mixed fit curriculum well to industry focus group results. Need to think through the
general education courses that are specific to the field of study – e.g. Medical Ethics – may or may
not meet accreditation requirements, need to address general education from an educational
outcomes perspective, some concern if the management option is sufficiently comprehensive.
Everett: Mixed some found program unique and innovative, some found program similar to
others or if unique adding another risk element in addition to the bachelor’s at a CTC. Raised the
possibility that a college could add entrepreneurship to the Applied Associate degrees and thus
meet the goal without adding a bachelor’s degree? The integrated studies approach needs to be
stated in general education learning outcomes terms to meet accreditation requirements. Not clear
how students who completed ATA programs (few or no transferable general education courses)
would transition into the program.
Lake Washington: Good – responsive to feedback from experts
Olympic: Good – UWT relationship, good general education program
Peninsula: Okay – positive response to Evaluation Committee feedback about possibility that
general education not sufficient depth in the natural sciences. Need to recognize the problem for
credits to the degree for those with ATA rather than AAS-T degrees.
South Seattle: Okay – may need additional work in human resources and marketing

Principle: Capacity & Sustainability
Criteria 3.A                                          Standards
                                                      Requirement: Provide a financial plan (costs,
Demonstrates the capacity to make a long-term         expenditures and revenue streams to support the proposal)
commitment of resources to build and sustain a high   and a description of adequacy of facilities, equipment and
quality program.                                      other instructional resources required by the bachelor’s
                                                      program.


Bellevue: OK – have equipment, good partnership support from industry
Everett: OK – one concern about whether $88,000 would pay for 2.5 FTE faculty
Lake Washington: Good – strong work on library resources, industry partnerships
Olympic: OK – still concern that the $54,000 a year is less than needed in the budget for tenure
track faculty positions
Peninsula: Good – community support $
South Seattle: Good – industry commitment
                                                                                             Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                             Appendix C, Page 4


Principle: Capacity & Sustainability
Criteria 3.B                                                Standards
Has analyzed the faculty/staff needed, the education and
professional experience qualification of faculty members
                                                            Requirement: What kind of staff needed
relative to teaching assignments and anticipated sources
of qualified faculty and staff.


Bellevue: OK – analyzed staff needs carefully
Everett: Concern – No evidence of broad faculty buy-in for the entrepreneurial approach
Lake Washington: Concern – Can a program be sustained with significant reliance on part-time
faculty in the management courses
Olympic: OK – better to explain more about the Poulsbo site and breadth of faculty in that
location
Pensinsula: OK
South Seattle: Good – WSU mentor role is helpful

Principle: Capacity & Sustainability

Criteria 3.C                                                Standards

                                                            Requirement: by fall 2007, the current faculty
                                                            reassigned to the program, plus the faculty hired using the
Has or can readily engage faculty appropriately qualified
                                                            new FTE funding, will have the background consistent
to develop and deliver a high quality curriculum at the
                                                            with the above analysis plus recent work experience in the
baccalaureate level.
                                                            field (minimum of two years at a job appropriate for those
                                                            with at least the bachelor’s degree).


Bellevue: Good – have strong faculty and plans for additional faculty
Everett: Concern – are the current business faculty ready to embrace the interdisciplinary
approach implied by the proposal?
Lake Washington: Mixed - Good hiring plan, strong part-time faculty, concern that faculty who
have not done team teaching and not worked together in the past can do so as a way of using one
full-time social science faculty member to provide breadth in the social sciences.
Olympic: Good – strong faculty development plan. One concern about ability to keep nursing
faculty long-term.
                                                                                        Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                        Appendix C, Page 5

Peninsula: Good – strong local faculty pool for courses due to hires in alignment with the
community’s economic clusters
South Seattle: OK

Principle: Maintain 2-Year Focus
Criteria 4.A                                               Standards
Has an adequate and appropriate student services plan.     Requirement: Describe plan


Bellevue: Good plan
Everett: Good plan
Lake Washington: Good plan
Olympic: Good plan
Peninsula: Good plan
South Seattle: Good plan

Principle: Maintain 2-Year Focus
Criteria 4.B                                               Standards
Has a plan for the assessment of student achievement and
program assessment at the bachelor’s level built upon a
                                                           Requirement: Describe plan
track record of effective assessment of the associate
degrees.


Bellevue: Good – pre-post approach well regarded
Everett: Concern – How will the college assess the entrepreneurial gains? Student assessment
needs to be closely linked to the program goals.
Lake Washington: Mixed - Good use of Baldridge. Depending on the LWTC global outcomes
for assessment, but transfer in students will have operated under a different frame work - how will
this work?
Olympic: Good - assessment plan related to program goals
Peninsula: Good - multiple ways to track students, graduate follow-up
South Seattle: OK - strong lower division track record to build upon
                                                                                          Resolution 06-04-08
                                                                                          Appendix C, Page 6


Principle: Open Door
Criteria 5.A                                                 Standards
Has a plan for selective admissions processes, if used for
the bachelor’s program, consistent with an open door         Requirement: Describe admissions approach
institution.


Bellevue: Good – asking the right questions, the plan is still clearly in process of being developed,
clear requirements and plan for transfers from other institutions.
Everett: Concern – Not clear how admission process will work for Edmonds and Skagit students
or for those who will enter will skills from the workplace rather than an applied associate degree.
Lake Washington: Mixed – Good process for own students, not clear how admission process will
work for those who transfer in.
Olympic: Good–Clear approach, should result in diversity similar to ADN
Peninsula: Good–have identified issue related to work with Tribes, clear criteria
South Seattle: OK – clear criteria for with the AAS-T – without needs more thought for the
incumbent worker
                                                                         ATTACHMENT # 4



                                 STATE OF WASHINGTON

          STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                   RESOLUTION 06-04-09

A resolution to approve the pilot colleges recommended by the University Contract Evaluation
Committee and authorizing the selected pilot colleges:
   • Move forward with the steps required to gain approval from the Higher Education
       Coordinating Board and the Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities.
   • Receive the appropriate 2006-07 funding to commence the contract for instruction.

         WHEREAS the State Board for Community and Technical Colleges developed selection
criteria for the University Contract Pilots; and

       WHEREAS the University Contract Evaluation Committee found the colleges identified
below provided evidence of meeting or exceeding these criteria, and evidence that their proposed
plans will add to the bachelor’s capacity in the state;

        THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges approves the recommendations of the Evaluation Committee to select the following
pilot colleges, authorizes these colleges to pursue approval of their proposal by the Higher
Education Coordinating Board and the Northwest Association of Colleges and Universities and
directs staff to include funding for the pilots in the FY07 allocation proposal due for
consideration at the May 2006 State Board meeting:

   •   Clark College in partnership with Eastern Washington University: Bachelor’s of Arts in
       Social Work,
   •   Edmonds Community College in partnership with Central Washington University:
       Bachelor’s of Applied Science-Information Technology and Administrative Management
   •   Pierce College, Fort Steilacoom in partnership with Central Washington University:
       Bachelor of Arts in Elementary Education (minor in reading)

         BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges commends the colleges that developed proposals for the University Contract pilots for
their extensive work required to prepare proposals consistent with the criteria and with the
institution’s vision for expanding bachelor’s degree access in their community.
                                                                         Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                      Page 2
       BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges commends the members of the University Contract Evaluation Committee for their
thoughtful and thorough work in evaluating the proposals for these pilot programs.

       APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006.




                                                    _________________________________
                                                    Jim Garrison, Chair
ATTEST:



_________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary
                                                                       Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                       Appendix A, Page 1
                   University Contract Evaluation Committee Members


President
   • Ken Minnaert, South Puget Sound Community College

Instruction
    • Laurel Williamson, Lower Columbia College
    • Sandra Fowler Hill, Cascadia Community College
    • Mary Ann Goodwin, Spokane Falls Community College

Student Services
   • Tomas Ybarra, Yakima Valley Community College

Business
   • Carol Werner, Renton Technical College

Baccalaureate Institution with University Contract
   • Sandra Bloomberg, Dean of the College of Professional Studies at New Jersey City
       University

State Board staff
    • Loretta Seppanen
                                                                                     Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                     Appendix B, Page 1

                                         University Contracts
                                   Principles, Criteria, and Standards

Principles                       Criteria                         Standards
Service to Placebound            Bachelor’s degree(s) offered     Requirement: Provide evidence that no
Students: Serving the            fill gaps in service delivery    public baccalaureate institution offers
further education needs of       options available for            sufficient local capacity to meet the needs of
placebound community and         students because it is not       placebound transfer students in the degree
technical college graduates      offered by a public four-        area(s).
is an important value.           year institution of higher       For a stronger proposal: Additionally,
Bachelor’s degrees through       education in the college's       provide evidence that public institutions do
the University Contract are      geographic area                  not provide sufficient capacity statewide to
intended primarily to serve                                       meet the needs of transfer students in the
students from the college’s                                       degree area(s).
geographic area not              Demonstrate sufficient           Requirement: Provide evidence of
otherwise served by existing     student demand for the           sufficient number of associate degree
public baccalaureate degree      proposed degree(s) offered       graduates in the catchment-area that those
programs due to factors          locally to make the program      going on to the partner’s bachelor’s degree
such as distance, cost,          cost-effective and feasible to   each year match in number the planned
enrollment limitations or        operate for both the             junior year FTE request.
major.                           university partner(s) and        For a stronger proposal: Additionally,
                                 the hosting college              Provide of evidence of student demand from
                                                                  multiple sources. Examples of other
                                                                  evidence include data from the HECB’s
                                                                  needs assessment regarding low access to
                                                                  bachelor’s degrees for students in the area,
                                                                  or demand in excess of opportunity to enroll
                                                                  in similar bachelor’s programs elsewhere.
Serving Community                Demonstrate community need       Requirement: Describe results of surveys
Includes Responding to           for the proposed bachelor’s      or other community input that documents a
Bachelor’s Needs of the          degree(s)                        community interest in offering degrees in the
Community: Providing                                              community.
bachelor’s education             The college can                  Requirement: Provide evidence from the
(traditional degrees and         demonstrate that employers       HECB needs assessment, review of
applied bachelor’s degrees)      demand the bachelor’s            employer data sources to demonstrate a
for students irrespective of     degrees proposed, making it      statewide or local employer demand for a
location in the state is an      cost-effective for students to   bachelor’s degree(s) in the field(s) of study,
important value. The             seek the degree(s)               or local employer assessments that
selected community or                                             demonstrate a unique local need despite
technical college will serve                                      oversupply at the state level.
community needs by                                                For a stronger proposal: Provide evidence
contracting with university                                       of both statewide and local employer needs
partners to bring bachelor’s                                      for more workers with the proposed
degree programs to the                                            bachelor’s degree(s).
community.
Explore Alternative              Has an agreement with the        Requirement: Describe your past and
Models: University               university partner(s)            current relationship with the University
contracting provides the         regarding the partnership        Partner. Describe the alternative(s)
opportunity to explore           arrangement that tests           arrangement and the portion of funding that
alternatives to the university   alternatives not currently in    would be used for the alternative to current
                                                                                    Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                    Appendix B, Page 2
center models already in      place in Washington                practices. Also, provide evidence of the
place in Washington.                                             partner’s willingness to explore the
                                                                 alternative for sufficient time to learn from
                                                                 the pilot.
Maintain 2-Year Focus:        Partner has the ability to offer   Requirement: Provide information from
Community and technical       a bachelor’s degree in the         the partner with an overview of the proposed
colleges will remain          same or similar field              bachelor’s offering(s) and relationship to
predominantly lower                                              their other degree offerings.
division institutions. The    Has a plan for sustaining the      Requirement: Provide evidence of the
addition of a funding flow    relationship with the              partner’s commitment to a long-term
to contract for upper         university partner(s)              relationship via an institutional letter
division course work will                                        documenting the proposed agreement.
bring additional degree       Has a plan for program             Requirement: Describe articulation plans
offerings to the community    articulation with nearby           and number of students expected from
without a change in college   colleges                           nearby colleges. Also provide evidence that
mission, and is not viewed                                       the partner has and admission plan that
as the first step to a                                           recognizes the diversity of transfer students
progressive conversion to a                                      (part-time enrollment, working status, and
comprehensive                                                    other aspects of diversity important to the
baccalaureate institution.                                       college’s community.)
                                                                                              Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                              Appendix C, Page 1
                                UNIVERSITY CONTRACT PILOTS
                              EVALUATION COMMITTEE SUMMARY

Principle: Service to Placebound Students: Serving the further education needs of placebound
community and technical college graduates is an important value. Bachelor’s degrees through the
University Contract are intended primarily to serve students from the college’s geographic area
not otherwise served by existing public baccalaureate degree programs due to factors such as
distance, cost, enrollment limitations or major.
Criteria 1.A                                                  Standards
Bachelor’s degree(s) offered fill gaps in service delivery    Requirement: Provide evidence that no public
options available for students because it is not offered by   baccalaureate institution offers sufficient local capacity
a public four-year institution of higher education in the     to meet the needs of placebound transfer students in the
college's geographic area.                                    degree area(s).
                                                              For a stronger proposal: Additionally, provide
                                                              evidence that public institutions do not provide sufficient
                                                              capacity statewide to meet the needs of transfer students
                                                              in the degree area(s).


Clark: BASW: Good – only other BASW offered by UW Seattle. Other regional institutions
offer a social services degree, but not a Bachelor of Art in Social Work. BST: Does not meet
requirement – EWU already offers the Bachelors of Science in Technology degree at Clark on a
self support basis. EWU did not provide sufficient evidence to assure the committee that the
needs could not be met by expanding the self-support model or using EWU’s existing FTE.
Proposal did not provide evidence that new funds, if awarded, would not supplant the existing
offerings.
Edmonds: Good – Only BAS in Information Technology & Administrative Management in
state
Everett: Good – No similar program in north part of Snohomish County or in Island and Skagit
Counties
Pierce: Good – No bachelor’s level option in Pierce or Thurston Counties – all options are
either private or post-baccalaureate
                                                                                            Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                            Appendix C, Page 2


Principle: Service to Placebound Students
Criteria 1.B                                                Standards
Demonstrate sufficient student demand for the proposed      Requirement: Provide evidence of sufficient number of
degree(s) offered locally to make the program cost-         associate degree graduates in the catchment-area that
effective and feasible to operate for both the university   those going on to the partner’s bachelor’s degree each
partner(s) and the hosting college                          year match in number the planned junior year FTE
                                                            request.
                                                            For a stronger proposal: Additionally, Provide of
                                                            evidence of student demand from multiple sources.
                                                            Examples of other evidence include data from the
                                                            HECB’s needs assessment regarding low access to
                                                            bachelor’s degrees for students in the area, or demand in
                                                            excess of opportunity to enroll in similar bachelor’s
                                                            programs elsewhere.


Clark: BASW: Good – Student interest from survey results. BST: Mixed – Given the number
of graduates from related AAS degrees and the industry mix of the community, the demand
should be high. There is no evidence that students are being turned away from the current
program or that student demand exceeds the capacity of the current program.
Edmonds: Good – Large interest from the student surveys
Everett: Mixed – Clear demand for more bachelor’s degrees and clear student interest in more
bachelor’s degrees including those in the liberal arts from survey results, but evidence that the
demand for this particular degree is more circumstantial.
Pierce: Good – Evidence that students well prepared for transfer are not continuing on because
options are not available locally. Paraeducator options especially relevant for placebound
working adults.

Principle: Serving Community Includes Responding to Bachelor’s Needs of the
Community: Providing bachelor’s education (traditional degrees and applied bachelor’s
degrees) for students irrespective of location in the state is an important value. The selected
community or technical college will serve community needs by contracting with university
partners to bring bachelor’s degree programs to the community.
Criteria 2.A                                                Standards
Demonstrate community need for the proposed                 Requirement: Describe results of surveys or other
bachelor’s degree(s)                                        community input that documents a community interest in
                                                            offering degrees in the community.


Clark: Good – Overall need for more bachelor’s degrees is clear from multiple sources of
information. Support letters provided for both programs
Edmonds: Good – Rotary and Chamber support, connected to Workforce Development
Partnership in the county
                                                                                             Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                             Appendix C, Page 3
Everett: Good – Overall need for more bachelor’s degrees is clear from multiple sources of
information
Pierce: Good – Letters from community groups and school districts

Principle: Serving Community Includes Responding to Bachelor’s Needs of the
Community
Criteria 2.B                                                Standards
The college can demonstrate that employers demand the       Requirement: Provide evidence from the HECB needs
bachelor’s degrees proposed, making it cost-effective for   assessment, review of employer data sources to
students to seek the degree(s)                              demonstrate a statewide or local employer demand for a
                                                            bachelor’s degree(s) in the field(s) of study, or local
                                                            employer assessments that demonstrate a unique local
                                                            need despite oversupply at the state level.
                                                            For a stronger proposal: Provide evidence of both
                                                            statewide and local employer needs for more workers
                                                            with the proposed bachelor’s degree(s).


Clark: Good – Employer demand shown in support letters and in analysis of job demand
information
Edmonds: Mixed – Multiple sources of evidence for employer need. One source (chart on page
8) includes some fields that may not fit well with this BAS degree – software engineering for
example.
Everett: Mixed – Employer demand analysis provided. It is indirect as might be expected for a
liberal arts program. No employer support letters speaking to this specific degree were provided.
Pierce: Good – Letters of support from school districts

Principle: Explore Alternative Models: University contracting provides the opportunity to
explore alternatives to the university center models already in place in Washington.
Criteria 3.A                                                Standards
Has an agreement with the university partner(s)             Requirement: Describe your past and current
regarding the partnership arrangement that tests            relationship with the University Partner. Describe the
alternatives not currently in place in Washington.          alternative(s) arrangement and the portion of funding
                                                            that would be used for the alternative to current
                                                            practices. Also, provide evidence of the partner’s
                                                            willingness to explore the alternative for sufficient time
                                                            to learn from the pilot.


Clark: Okay – The alternative arrangements related to the library and offering the BASW to
MSW at Clark should be useful pilot studies
Edmonds: Good – Interesting proposal to work on team teaching and hiring Edmonds faculty
Everett: Concern – The UW B letter expressed only a cautious commitment to the degree
offering rather than a strong commitment to the students who would begin their studies at UWB
at Everett.
                                                                                             Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                             Appendix C, Page 4
Pierce: Good – Evening and weekend approach for working adults, local inclusive advisory
committee, analysis of impact of new Elementary Education DTA/MRP, paraeducator pathway

Principle: Maintain 2-Year Focus: Community and technical colleges will remain
predominantly lower division institutions. The addition of a funding flow to contract for upper
division course work will bring additional degree offerings to the community without a change in
college mission, and is not viewed as the first step to a progressive conversion to a
comprehensive baccalaureate institution.
Criteria 4.A                                                  Standards
Partner has the ability to offer a bachelor’s degree in the   Requirement: Provide information from the partner
same or similar field.                                        with an overview of the proposed bachelor’s offering(s)
                                                              and relationship to their other degree offerings.


Clark: Good – High quality EWU programs in both area and experience offering off campus
Edmonds: OK – New program but being taught now at Ellensburg and related to long-standing
high quality CWU program in same department
Everett: Good – High quality UW-B program that is central to their offerings in Bothell
Pierce: Good – High quality CWU program already being offered at a distance

Principle:Maintain 2-Year Focus
Criteria 4.B                                                  Standards
Has a plan for sustaining the relationship with the           Requirement: Provide evidence of the partner’s
university partner(s)                                         commitment to a long-term relationship via an
                                                              institutional letter documenting the proposed agreement.


Clark: Good – Commitment in letter of support representing programs, provost and president at
EWU
Edmonds: Mixed – Long-standing, strong partnership. The committee was pleased to hear that
Edmonds would address the issue of greater collaboration related to library instruction and
resources during the upcoming negotiations. Consider providing Edmonds library staff access to
the CWU library resources for purposes of better serving students.
Everett: Concern – The level of UW-B’s long–term commitment to offering the proposed
degree in Everett is unclear
Pierce: Good – Letter of commitment
                                                                                          Resolution 06-04-09
                                                                                          Appendix C, Page 5


Principle:Maintain 2-Year Focus
Criteria 4.C                                               Standards
Has a plan for program articulation with nearby colleges. Requirement: Describe articulation plans and number of
                                                          students expected from nearby colleges. Also provide
                                                          evidence that the partner has an admission plan that
                                                          recognizes the diversity of transfer students (part-time
                                                          enrollment, working status, and other aspects of diversity
                                                          important to the college’s community.)


Clark: Mixed with Significant Concerns – Evidence of addressing diverse students based on
services for students with disabilities, focus on women in BST, offering BASW to serving
working adults (evening program). BASW: Concern – Articulation presented as being
addressed by requirement of the DTA. Committee is concerned that more specific course
requirements may be needed and not yet addressed. BST: Does not meet requirement – Stated
the intent to articulate the LCC programs, but provided no evidence of a plan to achieve such
articulations. No letter or other evidence of commitment was provided related to articulation
from the relevant CC programs.
Edmonds: Good – Letters showing interest and involvement of a number of nearby colleges.
Everett: Good – The liberal arts nature of the program offers straight forward articulation from
the DTA where ever offered. Evidence of common ground on commitment to serving a diversity
of students.

Pierce: Good – The new statewide agreement smooth articulation. Paraeducator articulation
addressed. Evidence of common ground on commitment to serving a diversity of students who
will become the teachers of tomorrow.
                                                                            ATTACHMENT #5



                                 STATE OF WASHINGTON

          STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                   RESOLUTION 06-04-10
                                       (REVISED)

A resolution allocating state funds to community and technical colleges.

      WHEREAS, the State Board has the authority to award and allocate state general funds,
Administrative Contingency Account funds, Education Legacy Trust Account funds, Pension
Funding Stabilization Account funds, and Gardner-Evans Higher Education Construction
Account funds, and

      NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges allocate operating funds as listed below:

   1. Approves the FY 2006-07 community and technical college district, Center for
      Information Services (CIS) and State Board program and office state general fund
      operating allocation of $587,085,000, Administrative Contingency Account allocation of
      $1,475,000, Education Legacy Trust Account allocation of $29,099,000 and Pension
      Funding Stabilization Account allocation of $1,276,000 as displayed on the Attachment
      Three - Use of Funds Statement; and
   2. The total initial allocation includes state funds totaling $573,049,269 found on
      Attachment Three – Section 3.
   3. Authorizes the director to allocate an additional $45,885,731 of state funds throughout
      the year for Enrollments, Worker Retraining, Revolving Funds, Facilities Maintenance
      and Operations, Opportunity Grants, Workforce/Rural Development Projects,
      Apprenticeship, High Demand Enrollments, Applied Baccalaureate and University
      Contracts, Part-time Faculty Health Benefits, Quarterly Disability Reserves, NSIS
      University Contracts, Firefighter Apprenticeship, Nursing Faculty Salary Pilot, UWT
      Technology Institute Pipeline, Childcare Match, and Reserves found on Attachment
      Three – Section 4.
   4. Approves the operating funds allocation methodology as displayed in Attachment Two.
   5. Approves the enrollment FTES distribution as displayed in Attachment Six.
   6. Authorizes the director to adjust districts’ enrollment allocations based on the enrollment
      rules in Attachment Seven.
   7. Approves the rules for faculty increments and turnover savings included as Attachment
      Eight.
   8. Requires allocations for Outcomes Assessment, Workforce Development base funding,
      Workbased Learning Tuition, Childcare Programs, Students of Color, and Disability
      Accommodations to be spent only for those efforts.
                                                                  Resolution 06-04-10 (Revised)
                                                                                        Page 2
   BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges allocate capital funds as listed below:

   1. Everett Community College - Undergraduate Education Center                  $3,844,000
   2. Skagit Valley College - Science Replacement                                 $ 325,000
   3. Highline Community College - Primary Power Feed                             $1,717,000
   4. Skagit Valley College - Campus Fire Loop                                    $1,634,000
   5. Green River Community College - Campus Water System                         $1,951,000
   6. Seattle Central Community College - Bulkhead, Pier & Dredging               $ 268,000
   7. Authorization to spend local funds for alternative financing project at Edmonds
   Community College - Bookstore and Student Center                               $8,500,000

        BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges authorizes the Executive Director to make adjustments, as necessary, for actions taken
by the governor, computational errors, data corrections, externally imposed restrictions or
guidelines, legislative appropriation provisos, restrictions, guidelines, uniform accounting and
reporting requirements, and unanticipated changes due to state or federal funding.

       APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006



                                             ______________________________
                                             Jim Garrison, Chair



ATTEST:


______________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary




(Note: Attachments are on file at the State Board Office and are available upon request.)
                                                                                ATTACHMENT #6


                                   STATE OF WASHINGTON

          STATE BOARD FOR COMMUNITY AND TECHNICAL COLLEGES

                                     RESOLUTION 06-04-11
                                         (REVISED)

A resolution relating to 2006-07 Tuition and Fees.

       WHEREAS, the Legislature has adopted a biennial operating budget in which it
delegates tuition setting authority for resident students and flexibility to the State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges; and

        WHEREAS, the Legislature has enacted RCW 28B.15.067 delegating authority to set
tuition and fees for nonresident students to the State Board for Community and Technical
Colleges; and

       WHEREAS, the Legislature’s biennial budget provides that resident student tuition and
fees may be increased by a maximum of an average of five percent by the State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges; and

        WHEREAS, the Legislature has limited increases in technical college tuition and S&A
fees to the same increases as community college operating fees; and

        WHEREAS, the Board recognizes that the community and technical college system
needs a long-term, comprehensive tuition and financial aid policy and recognizes that the trend
of deceasing state support being replaced with increasing tuition is not compatible with an open
access, low tuition system; the State Board needs to better understand tuition policy options prior
to development of the community and technical college system’s 2007-09 biennial budget
request in August.

      NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the State Board for Community and
Technical Colleges:

Adopts the community college tuition and fee schedule and rates for 2006-07 as set forth in
Attachment One;

Encourages the community and technical colleges to set aside up to two percentage points of the
increased tuition revenue collected in order to provide tuition waivers for needy students;

Requires a report of colleges’ plans to provide tuition waivers for needy students;
                                                                    Resolution 06-04-11 (Revised)
                                                                                          Page 2

Establishes apprenticeship tuition at $37 per credit, parent education tuition at $11 per credit, and
tuition for other ungraded courses as the option of the colleges, as set forth in Attachment Two;

Limits the maximum increase in technical college tuition and S&A fees for 2006-07 to five
percent;


       APPROVED AND ADOPTED on April 5, 2006.



                                                      _____________________________
                                                      Jim Garrison, Chair


ATTEST:

________________________
Charles N. Earl, Secretary




(Note: Attachments are on file at the State Board Office and are available upon request.)
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                           TAB 6


Subject (Information)

Director’s Report for May 4, 2006

Background

Materials for the Director’s Report will be distributed during the State Board’s regular
meeting of May 4, 2006.
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                                      TAB 7


Subject (Information)

Preview Adult Basic Education Awards and Allocations

Background

Community and technical colleges provide 90 percent of Washington State’s adult basic
education services. Almost 20 community based organizations (CBOs) funded through the State
Board for Community and Technical Colleges provide another five percent. For the one in six
adults who lack critical skills and knowledge, this network of providers offers a pathway to
living-wage jobs. For our state’s economy, these providers are the key to building Washington’s
emerging workforce.

A year ago, the State Board approved a new plan to guide this state’s adult basic education
(ABE) system. The plan focused on three goals:
1. Increase access by serving more students, providing instruction in flexible locations
   and times, and using multiple methods for teaching and learning.
2. Increase student outcomes, prioritizing those that help students and the state meet its
   economic and workforce goals.
3. Increase public awareness and understanding about adult basic education and the
   way it assists Washington State to meet its economic and workforce goals.

By adopting this plan, the Board provided a foundation for policy, program and funding
decisions for the next five years. The ABE funding package, which the Board will consider
at its June meeting, will allocate about $10 million in federal funds and several small
streams of state funding toward meeting the plan goals and priorities. These dollars will
provide adult basic education services to an estimated 60,000 adult learners across the state
in 2006-07.

Progress in Year One

The adult basic education system has made progress in all three goals areas, despite federal
parameters that constrict the state’s ability to issue a new RFP for funds – one lever to
maintain high quality and stimulate change.

The ABE system has made progress in increasing access, both in the number of students
served and in providing more flexible services. Utilizing the additional funding support
provided by the Legislature in this biennium for the purpose of maintaining adult basic
education services, ABE providers began to turn around a pattern of declining numbers.
Based on fall and winter data alone, more than 80 percent of colleges have maintained or
increased their levels of service. In addition, the system has made progress in using online
resources to provide GED instruction. Beginning last fall, the state purchased a license for
                                                                                    TAB 7, Page 2

use of the computer-based GED Illinois curriculum that was developed with input from ten
demonstration sites in Washington State. Twenty-two colleges and seven CBOs received
training this year and began to use the new resource. The first 100 students have completed
their GED testing and another 130 have taken at least one test.

The ABE system has made progress in increasing student outcomes that lead to better-
paying jobs and support our growing economy. After almost three years of concentrated
work among ten demonstration sites, a successful model is in place for integrating adult
basic education and vocational/technical skills development. The I-BEST (Integrated Basic
and Skills Training) model requires that:

•   ABE and workforce leaders work to develop shared curriculum and student supports;
•   at least 50 percent of the time, two teachers are working with students in the same
    classroom at the same time, and
•   instruction results in good-paying, entry-level jobs that are part of a well-defined
    pathway leading to high wage - high demand jobs.

Initial data from the demonstration projects indicate that I-BEST instruction results in
outcomes that are not only many times better than those for most ABE students, but are also
sometimes better than those experienced by students enrolled in regular classes.

Beginning in winter quarter, the I-BEST model moved into this system’s instructional
mainstream. Fifteen new programs at 13 colleges have been instituted in the first four
months, bringing the number of colleges participating in I-BEST to 21.

The ABE system has made progress in increasing public understanding and support.
Great strides were taken last November during the Adult Literacy Week declared and
supported by Governor Chris Gregoire. Thirty-two colleges and 13 CBOs collaborated on
events and media campaigns. Their efforts resulted in:

•   coverage in at least 17 newspapers, as well as on radio and television stations across the
    state;
•   participation of state and civic leaders that included the Governor, legislators and
    congressional staff, mayors and city councils, county commissioners, college trustees,
    and members of civic organizations like Rotary Clubs, and
•   engagement of more that 1000 employers.

Since Adult Literacy Week, ABE has continued to be featured in the media at a higher level.
Most notable, however, has been the continued repetition of the key message about the link
between increased skills and knowledge and better jobs and lives. Not only are colleges and
CBOs using that message, but it continues to be voiced by others including the media, the
Governor, and members of our congressional delegation.
                                                                                 TAB 7, Page 3


Next Steps

State Board staff has been working with the Adult Education Advisory Council and the
Council for Basic Skills to determine how best to accelerate progress in meeting the vision
and goals of the new state plan within the parameters of another federal extension year.
Staff, the Advisory Council, and providers agreed to raise the bar on performance and move
forward in the areas of access, outcomes, and building public understanding and support.

At the June meeting of the State Board, staff will ask the Board to approve awards based on
a review of extension requests from providers that describe the new, different and/or
enhanced activities that will lead to progress.


Prepared by Israel David Mendoza
April 21, 2006
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                               TAB 8


Subject (Information/Discussion)

2007-09 Budget Requests

Background

Operating Budget

The 2007-09 budget request development process is proceeding through work done in individual
groups (the Board and its staff, WACTC and TACTC), and through collaborative task forces
comprising representatives from each of these groups, plus faculty union representation on the
salary task force (Attachment One).

WACTC held an academy focusing on five potential system investment strategies:
    • Expand capacity consistent with the state’s strategic industries
    • Serve more adults
    • Create educational building blocks with multiple entry, re-entry and exit points
    • Improved student success
    • Identify the knowledge and skills needed for the future.
In general, the colleges support these strategies, with the caveat that implementation resources
would be needed. The colleges also articulated tactics they would use to implement the
strategies.

The presidents generally concluded that the 2007-09 budget request should be organized around
three broad themes – seamless education, building the state’s economy and individual incomes,
and making students successful. They also recommended that the request be made in the context
of the two-year college role in the work of Washington Learns, the Economic Development
Study, Opportunity Grants, and the Tipping Point Research, and, that the request be stated in
terms of the outcomes that would be achieved with the requested funding. Attachment Two is a
summary of the WACTC discussion.

The Operating Budget Task Force began its work in March with a context setting discussion,
reviewing historical data and comparisons, and discussing the legislative response to previous
budget requests as well as potential strategies for the 2007-09 budget request. The task force
will hold its second meeting on April 26, 2006, and will meet again on June 2 to formulate
recommendations to the Board for consideration at its June 21-22 meeting.

The Salary Task Force has met twice and concluded its work. The task force reviewed historical
salary data and comparisons, and discussed the legislative response to previous compensation
requests. Task force members emphasized that compensation requests must be principle-based,
and focused much of their deliberations on part-time salaries at the college districts. The task
force recommends that the 2007-09 budget request:
    • Support full funding for all COLAs;
                                                                                            TAB 8
                                                                                            Page 2

   •   Include a request to fully fund faculty increments using the methodology currently in
       place, which combines turnover savings with general fund monies to fully fund annually
       earned increments for full- and part-time faculty; and,
   •   Include a request for part-time salary improvement. The task force recommends a budget
       request that will address the disparity between each college’s full- and part-time faculty
       salaries. New monies would be used to reduce the gap at each district, with those
       districts with the largest gaps receiving the largest percentage increase in funding
       (Attachment Three).

Enrollment Planning

Growth enrollments are part of the biennial operating budget request. The SBCTC has
historically based its growth enrollment request on its estimate of future student demand, which
in turn is based in large part on projected population growth in the state. Population growth is
the primary driver of future demand for two-year colleges. Other factors have also been taken
into consideration, such as increasing college-going rates by high school graduates.

This year, we project that our academic year enrollments will be extremely close to our state
enrollment target (130,905) FTES. This represents a marked change from our history of
consistent enrollment over our state target.

Attachment Four depicts the system’s actual vs. budgeted enrollments starting in 1995, and
projected to 2015. This is an early and incomplete look at potential future student demand, and
is provided as a starting point for the Board’s discussion. It illustrates future enrollment demand
if population growth were to be the sole driver for future enrollment needs. It assumes that
today’s “participation rate”, or college-going behavior of the population, remains unchanged.

A number of factors other than population growth can affect future student demand, such as:
   • Changing composition of our state’s population. As our population becomes more
      diverse, it is very likely that overall participation rates will change.
   • Economic cycles. The effects of the state’s most recent economic downturn and recovery
      are shown in Attachment Four. When the economy is down, the colleges experience
      increased demand, due primarily to training for laid-off workers. When the economy is
      healthy, enrollments drop.
   • The projection does not take into account any effects that may result from programs such
      as the Opportunity Grants, I-BEST, Running Start, or distance learning.
   • Policy changes. New programs and priorities can affect student demand.

Capital Budget

Detailed capital budget requests were submitted by colleges on April 19, 2006. These
documents include the total preservation and program request for both ongoing projects from last
biennium (pipeline) and new projects whose initiation will be requested in the 2007-09
biennium.
                                                                                            TAB 8
                                                                                            Page 3

The next Capital Budget Task Force meeting is scheduled for May 16th and will focus on sizing
the budget and providing recommendations on sequencing the request. The priority order within
each category (matching, renovation, replacement and growth) will follow the ranking that was
established during the selection process; however, the overall placement of categories is not yet
determined. In addition, as capital projects are phased from two to six years (predesign, design,
and construction) it is important to understand the long term strategy to assure that the system
communicates its needs, but allows enough capacity for selecting new projects each biennium.
Following the next task force meeting the budget recommendations will be formalized for
presentation to the State Board at its June meeting.

Outcome

This agenda item will provide an opportunity for the Board to follow up their study session
Strategic Initiative discussion with a more specific conversation on potential discrete budget
requests. The Board is asked to provide four to seven themes that it wants to emphasize in the
2007-09 budget request. It is not necessary at this meeting for the themes to be developed in
detail. However, they should be stated clearly enough so staff and other parties can build detail
to return to the Board in June. In addition, enrollment growth will be discussed with the Board.
Staff will also provide an update to the Board on budget preparation activities that will take place
between the writing of this agenda item and the Board meeting. The major activity to be
reported will be the second meeting of the Operating Budget Task Force, scheduled for April 26.




Prepared by Mary Alice Grobins, Deborah Frazier and Tom Henderson
April 24, 2006
                                                                          TAB 8
                                                                  Attachment One

                  2005-06 System Committees and Task Forces

       Joint Legislative      Creating Opportunities
          Committee                 Committee
Charlie Earl, Chair         Carol Landa-McVicker, Chair
SBCTC Members:              SBCTC Members:
 Jim Bricker                 Reuven Carlyle
 Reuven Carlyle              Sharon Fairchild
 Jim Garrison                Tom Koenninger
 Al Link                    TACTC Members:
TACTC Members:              Jim Robinson
 Larry Brown                Larry Brown
 Mauri Moore                Ruthann Kurose
 Ronnie Behnke              WACTC Members:
WACTC Members:              Jack Oharah
  Linda Kaminski            Jill Wakefield
  Priscilla Bell            Public Info Officers:
 Gary Livingston            Anne Tucker
SBCTC Staff:                Amy Goings
 Chris Reykdal              Patricia Paquette
 Cindy Hough                Dale Stowell
 Suzy Ames                  Development Directors:
                            Lisa Skari
                            Joan Hanten
                            SBCTC Staff:
                            Charlie Earl
                            Suzy Ames
                            Chris Reykdal
                            Cindy Hough
  Operating Budget Task     Capital Budget Task Force        Salary Task Force
          Force
SBCTC Members:              SBCTC Members:                SBCTC Member:
 Erin Mundinger              Jim Bricker                   Jim Garrison
 Jane Nishita                Al Link                       Lyle Quasim
 Lyle Quasim                 Jane Nishita                 TACTC Members:
TACTC Members:              TACTC Members:                 Ed James - Renton
 Jim Cunningham - BTC        Gene Chase                    Wayne Martin - CBC
 Sherry Parker - Clark       Frank Irigon                  Jack McRae - Edmonds
 Fred Whang - TCC            Mauri Moore                   Jane Stein - LWTC
WACTC Members:              WACTC Members:                WACTC Members:
 Rich Rutkowski              Tom Keegan                    Mark Palek
 David Borofsky              Gerald Pumphrey               Michelle Johnson
 Linda Kaminski              Steve Hanson                 SBCTC Staff:
SBCTC Staff:                SBCTC Staff:                  Charlie Earl
Charlie Earl                Charlie Earl                  Deborah Frazier
Mary Alice Grobins          Mary Alice Grobins            John Boesenberg
Deborah Frazier             Tom Henderson                 Labor Representatives:
                                                          Sandra Schroeder
                                                          Ruth Windhover
April 27, 2006
                                                                                       TAB 8
                                                                               Attachment Two
Washington Association of Community and Technical Colleges (WACTC)
2007-09 Budget Development Discussions Summary

The WACTC Presidents’ Academy at the April 2006 meeting built on the responses of the
College Priority Survey. Presidents spent time in small group discussions to refine and elaborate
on their ideas about strategic investments, tactics and outcomes for the system. This document
summarizes the results of that discussion.


Framing the SBCTC request
   • Pursue a few broad requests
   • Mesh with Washington Learns, Economic Development, K-14/Opportunity Grants,
      Tipping Point Research.
   • Provide accountability by stating specific, measurable, achievable outcomes.

Policy Objectives and Request Themes

   •   Seamless education
   •   Building Washington's economy and individual incomes
   •   Making students successful

Policy Objective/Theme: Seamless Education

Key strategies:
   • Expanded parent education and early learning connections
   • Expanded and improved K-12 engagement
   • Improved K-14 articulation
   • More baccalaureate access

Key investments:
   • Outreach to parents and community groups, K-12 and four-year institutions
   • Improved, consistent testing and placement and early intervention
   • Expanded math transitions
   • Expanded dual credit programs
   • More university contracts and partnerships

Accountability/Outcomes:
   • Improved readiness to learn in grade school
   • Improved HS retention
   • Improved college readiness
   • Improved college participation

Policy Objective/Theme: Building Washington's economy and individual incomes

Key strategies:
   • Expanded business partnerships

                                                1
                                                                                     TAB 8
                                                                             Attachment Two
   •   Expanded strategic industries capacity
   •   Expanded integrated basic skills for adults

Key investments:
   • Expanded models like customized training, with more industry funding
   • Targeted recruitment of new and incumbent workers to meet local and regional needs
   • More capacity for instructional design, program development, and exchanges of faculty
       and industry experts to be current
   • Develop new instructional staffing mechanisms to provide flexibility and responsiveness
   • Mechanisms and funding to support equipment and technology needs to meet 21st
       century training requirements
   • More outreach to community groups, tribes, governmental agencies

Accountability/Outcomes:
   • Produce more trained workers faster
   • Improved participation by growing demographic groups
   • Improved wages of program graduates

Policy Objective/Theme: Making students successful

Key strategies:
   • Community outreach
   • Targeted recruitment
   • Improved student supports
   • Expanded access to instruction

Key investments:
   • Broader and more intensive outreach to targeted groups
   • More advising, tutoring, peer supports and retention specialists
   • More off campus instructional sites
   • More on-line degrees and programs
   • More evening and weekend classes
   • Shorter courses
   • More flexible entry into courses
   • Competency based completion

Accountability/Outcomes:
   • More completions, shorter time span to completion
   • Improved participation rates for specific demographic groups
   • Improved rates of transition to next level of education and career achievement




                                                2
                                                                                         TAB 8
                                                                               Attachment Three

             State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
                    2007-09 Biennial Budget Development
          Compensation Recommendations from the Salary Task Force

Introduction
The Salary Task Force identified three compensation priorities for the 2007-09 budget request to
maintain the purchasing power of faculty salaries, reward faculty for improving their knowledge
and skills, and address disparities in part-time faculty salaries among the college districts. The
task force further identified a need for a longer term effort to examine compensation, including
increases in full-time faculty pay.

COLA
Task force members recommend that the agency’s biennial budget request emphasize the need
for full funding of the I-732 cost of living adjustment mandated by state law. This initiative,
approved by the citizens of the state, requires that community and technical college faculty, and
technical college classified staff, be granted annual cost of living adjustments at the Consumer
Price Index (CPI) rate calculated for the Seattle area. The Legislature has at times not fully
funded, or suspended funding, of these wage adjustments in past years. These actions were taken
during periods of falling general revenue; because the revenue outlook for the state appears to be
good in the upcoming biennium, it is not anticipated that the Legislature will take such action.
However, the task force believes it is important for the community and technical college system
to emphasize the importance of fully funding of this COLA to maintain the purchasing power of
staff salaries.

Task force members also recommend that the biennial budget request fully fund COLAs for
employees not covered by I-732. Community college classified staff not covered by I-732, but
represented by unions, will have their cost of living adjustment negotiated at the statewide level.
Unrepresented classified and exempt staff cost of living adjustments, in the last biennium, were
set at the same level as that established by collective bargaining, except the timing of the
adjustment was delayed by two months. This pattern may be repeated in the upcoming
biennium.

Faculty Increments
Faculty increments are wage adjustments that reward those faculty members who continue to
enhance and improve their knowledge, skills, and abilities. The task force recommends that the
agency’s biennial budget request include the funding necessary, when combined with turnover
savings, to support payment of the annually earned increments. The calculation of state funding
for this purpose has been eight tenths of one percent of the system’s faculty salary expenditures.

Part-time Faculty Salary Improvement
At the system level, part-time faculty earn 58 percent of the full-time faculty average salary, if
the part-time faculty were teaching full-time. The task force spent considerable effort examining
the gap between part- and full-time average salaries at the individual college districts. The gap at
the districts ranges from 12.5 percent to over 150 percent. The task force recommends a budget
request that will address this disparity by reducing the gap at each district, with those districts
with the largest gap receiving the largest percentage increase in funding. The task force

                                                 1
                                                                                          TAB 8
                                                                                Attachment Three
estimates that $11.9 million will result in a 2 percent to 16 percent average increase for each part
time FTE. If this request is funded, the system average part-time faculty salary would be 62
percent of the full-time faculty average salary, if the part-time faculty were teaching full-time.

Salary Study
Task force members recognized the need for a more in-depth look at compensation, including
full-time faculty salaries. Such an effort cannot be completed prior to the submission of the
2007-09 budget request. The task force recommends that the Board establish a group and
process to examine compensation, and the options available to the system for providing
competitive and fair compensation while meeting the need for individual districts’ flexibility
and responsiveness to changing local and regional demands for instructional efforts.




                                                 2
                                                                                                                    TAB 8
                                                                                                           Attachment Four


                                SBCTC Budgeted vs. Actual/Projected State Enrollment
                                Growth 2007 to 2015 Based Solely on Projected Population Growth
                                                  and 2006 Participation Rates


  155,000


                                                  Recession -
  145,000                                                                          2007-09
                                                  WRT demand
                                                                                   Biennium
                                                                    Economic
                                                                    Recovery
  135,000



  125,000

                                                                       Population Growth alone would
  115,000                                                              increase student demand by around
                                                                       2,400 FTES per year in 2007-09

  105,000



   95,000



   85,000



   75,000
            1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

                                             Budgeted Enrollments      Actual/Projected Enrollments



Source: State Board for Community and Technical Colleges                                                       April, 2006
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                              TAB 9


Subject (Information/Discussion)

Washington Learns: Discussion with Denny Heck, Chair, Washington Learns Higher Education
Advisory Committee

Background

Governor Gregoire’s Washington Learns effort is progressing toward decisions that will affect
the community and technical college system as well as all education in the state. In February,
Denny Heck was selected to chair the Higher Education Advisory Committee (see Attachment
One – membership list) and has been working to advance recommendations covering higher
education. The schedule calls for consultant’s recommendations in June and then a public
information and input process through the summer. Attachment Two provides a roadmap of
upcoming events.

At the last State Board meeting, Jim Garrison suggested that it would be helpful to have Mr.
Heck available to discuss potential alternatives with the Board at the May meeting. Recent
topics having been discussed by the committee include: tuition policy, enrollments (including a
focus on high demand enrollments), university research, transitions between K-12 and higher
education and within higher education, and Washington higher education comparisons with other
states.

The Board’s Strategic Direction discussion at its May 3 study session will provide an opportunity
to preview the Washington Learns agenda item at its regular meeting on May 4.

Outcome

The Board will be updated on Washington Learns activities and have an opportunity for
discussion with Denny Heck.




Prepared by Charlie Earl
April 21, 2006
                                                                                              TAB 9
                                                                                      Attachment One

Washington Learns

Higher Education Advisory Committee Members


Denny Heck, Chair

Chris Alejano
Student, Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, University of Washington, Seattle. Former
kindergarten teacher

Bernal Baca
Faculty President, Yakima Valley Community College

Jim Bricker
State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, board member

Phyllis Campbell
President/CEO of the Seattle Foundation

Roy Flores
Vice President of Student Affairs, North Seattle Community College

Sally Jewell
CEO, REI, Kent. Chair, University of Washington Board of Regents

Sharon Kinley
Northwest Indian College, Bellingham. Member of the Lummi Tribe

Ray Lawton
President/CEO, Lawton Printing, Spokane. Whitworth College trustee

Susannah Malarkey
Executive Director, Technology Alliance, Seattle

Diana Mamerto Holz
Director of early childhood education, Green River Community College

Michael Miles
Manager of Marketing and Business Development, Morrison International Construction, Tri Cities

Steve Mullin
Executive Director, Washington Roundtable, Seattle

Michael Pavel
Associate Professor of Educational Leadership and Counseling, Washington State University. Member of
the Skokomish Indian Nation

                                                     1
                                                                                             TAB 9
                                                                                     Attachment One
Michelle Reid
Assistant Superintendent for Curriculum, Assessment, and Secondary Programs, Port Angeles School
District

Robert Segura
Student Body President, Tacoma Community College

Betti Sheldon
Recently retired from the Washington State Senate

Jane Sherman
Associate Vice Provost, Washington State University, Pullman

Dave Spangler
Recently retired President of St. Martins College

Tim Stensager
Director of Technical and Career Education, Franklin-Pierce School District

Elizabeth Street
Professor, Department of Psychology, Central Washington University, Ellensburg

Beth Thew
Secretary/Treasurer, Spokane Regional Labor Council. Workforce Training and Education Coordinating
Board member

John Warner
Recently retired Chief Administrative Officer at Boeing. Chair, Western Washington University Board of
Trustees, Bellingham

Legislative members appointed by their respective caucuses:

Rep. Don Cox
Republican, Colfax

Rep. Phyllis Gutierrez Kenney
Democrat, Seattle

Sen. Cheryl Pflug
Republican, Issaquah

Sen. Craig Pridemore
Democrat, Vancouver




                                                    2
                                                                    WASHINGTON LEARNS STEERING COMMITTEE                                                           REVISED
                                                                                                                                                                    4/14/06
                                                                                            AUGUST 9-10
                         APRIL 10                                                           RETREAT AND
                       “The Research                                                         PLANNING
                          Engine”                                                             SESSION
                         UW - HUB
                                                 JUNE 14
                                              Public Forum:                 June 28                                                                     OCTOBER 9
                                              Investing in               Presentation                                                                  SC preview of Staff
FEBRUARY 13                                                             and Discussion                                                                proposed Final Draft
                                              Education                                                               August 22
P-20 Overview                                 SeaTac Hilton                    of
                                                                                                                                                            Report
                                                                                                                 AC’s review and
                                                                         Consultants’                            react to SC
                                                                          reports and                            integrated draft
                                                                        identify major
                                                                             issues




                                                                   JULY 10
                                                                  Work session                     July 18                                                                         NOVEMBER 13
                                                              Discussion with EL, HE,       AC deliberation on                                                                     ADOPT FINAL
          MARCH 13                                            AND K-12 ADVISORY             draft report and                SEPTEMBER 12                                             REPORT
                                                                 COMMITTEES:                recommendations                 PUBLIC HEARING
      A Dialogue                                                PRELIM. MAJOR                                                                                                        EDUCATION
      with Students            MAY 15                                 ISSUES                                                    ADVISORY                                              SUMMIT
      Columbia Room,         International                         SeaTac Hilton
                                                                                                                              COMMITTEE                                            Bell Harbor - Seattle
      State Capitol        comparisons and                                                                                     FEEDBACK
                              challenges                                                                                  Special event celebrating
                           SeaTac Hilton
                                                                                                                             AC contributions


                                                      THE ROAD MAP TO NOVEMBER                                                                                                        Legend
                                                                      Major events
                                                                                                                                                                     Regular Steering Committee Meeting

      •    June 14 Public Forum: Explore the economics of investing in education. Invite the national economists (e.g. Art Rolnick, James                            Major Public Events
           Heckman, Richard Simms, Anthony Carnevale, etc.) What are the “social returns” for raising the level of educational attainment – more                     Advisory Committee meetings
           civic participation, less crime, better health care, etc.
                                                                                                                                                                     Steering Committee Work Sessions




                                                                                                                                                                                                           Attachment Two
      •    November 13 Education Summit: Governor’s second education “summit” with a keynote speaker and invited participants (e.g.                                  Steering Committee Public Hearings
           legislators, chambers of commerce, business leaders, WEA and other education stakeholders, college presidents, private philanthropy,                      ACTION ON FINAL REPORT
           etc.). Purpose would be to announce final report and begin a “call to action”




                                                                                                                                                                                                                   TAB 9
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                           TAB 10


Subject (Information)

Chair’s Report for May 4, 2006

Background

Materials for the Chair’s Report will be distributed during the State Board’s regular
meeting of May 4, 2006.
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                                  TAB 11


Subject (Information)

WorkFirst Update

Background

In 1997, Washington State inaugurated WorkFirst -- our state’s welfare reform program -- based
on the 1996 federal Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) welfare reform legislation.
WorkFirst’s aim is to help people get “a job, a better job, a better life.”

The US Department of Health and Human Services funds the TANF program. Funds are given
to the Washington State Department of Social and Health Services, which contracts with
SBCTC. The SBCTC awards block grants to 34 community and technical colleges plus
community based organizations and private career colleges to deliver education and job skills
training services that meet the needs of WorkFirst and other low-income parents whose income
is below 175 percent of poverty ($29,050 for a family of three).

Colleges offer both mainstream educational opportunities and specialized programs, including
employment focused training programs customized to meet the needs of the local economy and
WorkFirst families. In 2004-05, over 14,000 students were served through WorkFirst training
programs.

Four state agencies jointly carry out WorkFirst:
   •   Department of Social and Health Services
   •   Employment Security Department
   •   State Board for Community and Technical Colleges
   •   Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development

The heads of the four partner agencies listed above form the WorkFirst SubCabinet. The group
is chaired by the director of the Office of Financial Management and meets several times a year
to coordinate and make decisions about high-level policy and budget issues. Local employers,
tribal governments, Workforce Development Councils and community organizations are also key
partners in planning and providing services for WorkFirst participants.

In 2005, the program was facing an approximately $50 million per year budget shortfall, out of a
total $800 million annual budget. To address the problem, Governor Gregoire appointed a
WorkFirst Re-examination task force to come up with specific recommendations for a financially
sustainable welfare system consistent with the priority goals for the program. These
recommendations were presented to the SubCabinet and then to the Governor in November.

To address the fiscal shortfall, the college system’s budget was reduced from $23.8 million to
$22.1 million per year. This reduction was significantly smaller than the reductions imposed on
other agencies. The college system’s success at staving off deeper financial cuts was the direct
                                                                                      TAB 11, Page 2

result of a guarantee for continued internal college system monitoring with an increased
emphasis on performance and accountability as reflected in the funding formula used to award
WorkFirst dollars.

In addition, during the re-examination process, the SBCTC advocated for major policy changes
impacting the education and training system. These policy changes were based on input from the
college system which had identified key elements for improved program effectiveness and were
supported by research findings. Specifically, the SBCTC advocated for:
    • upfront educational assessments and earlier referrals to education and training, and;
    • the ability to provide more longer training programs than was currently allowed.

The SBCTC was successful. With the implementation of these policy changes, the college
system will realize more appropriate referrals for training and an increased ability to positively
affect job placement and increased wages. The college system performance should increase as a
result of these changes.

Process for Development
Staff members from all four partner agencies are currently in the midst of implementing the
recommendations. There are many components including: implementing a system-wide
Comprehensive Evaluation, the creation of new policies, WAC and procedural changes,
handbook revisions, and training across all agencies to ensure that services are comparable
across the state. The WorkFirst re-examination changes are to be implemented June 1, 2006.

WorkFirst is the only program in the college system that participates in the Governor’s new
accountability system, Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP).
This thorough analysis of operations is based on performance data and has markedly changed
accountability across the state. The GMAP process spotlights the performance of the college
WorkFirst programs on both a system level and an individual college basis. Consequently, new
criteria are being developed that reflect the revised college system priorities and align with
GMAP.

Concurrently, WorkFirst block grant funding is scheduled to move from the current 80 percent
base and 20 percent performance formula in 2004-05 to a 70 percent base and 30 percent
performance formula.

The time line for the WorkFirst program is outlined below:

                                 WORKFIRST (WF) KEY DATES
                Date            Activity
                4/10            ITV with WF system reps
                4/17            WF System Advisory Committee Meeting
                4/20            Present Block Grant update to WACTC and WACTC
                                Education Committee
                4/27            Draft of WF Block Grant Plan to Executive Director,
                                SBCTC
                5/18            WorkFirst BG released
                6/29            WorkFirst BG Plans Due


Prepared by Amy Hatfield
April 19, 2006
STATE BOARD REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEM                                                 TAB 11


Subject (Information)

Professional Technical Faculty Certification Update

Background

In 2003-04 the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) for professional and technical faculty
members’ certification was revised to meet standards set forth by the “Skill Standards for
Professional-Technical College Instructors and Customized Trainers” developed by faculty
members from across Washington State. Following the WAC passage, the State Board for
Community and Technical Colleges requested that a committee be created to oversee the
implementation of WAC 131-16-094. Committee members include:

•   Jim Walton – President of Centralia College
•   Joe Dunlap – Vice President of Instruction, Spokane Community College
•   Malcom Grothe, Dean of Technical Education at South Seattle Community College
•   Berta Lloyd, Instructional Dean, Professional and Technical Education, Shoreline
    Community College
•   Marie Willsey, Faculty Union Representative
•   Russell Rosco, Faculty Union Representative
•   Rick Lewis, Faculty Union Representative

The committee met numerous times in two years to recommend processes for smooth transition
from past certification requirements to present requirements. A survey was conducted in spring
2005 to determine system needs for certification implementation. Based upon survey results,
committee recommendations, and Workforce Education Council activities, the following has
been achieved:

•   An online system accessible to all community and technical colleges has been established to
    track professional development of faculty based upon the WAC standards.
•   Local bargaining agreements are in the process of including language that allows
    implementation of the WAC at each college.
•   Numerous trainings have been delivered to faculty members, workforce development
    administrative assistants, workforce education deans, and vice presidents of instruction.
•   Materials and best practices have been disseminated system-wide including PowerPoint
    presentations, best practices in dealing with faculty unions, and professional development
    forms.
                                                                             TAB 11, Page 2


Next Steps

The committee convened a telephone conference on April 6, 2006, to suggest further system-
wide certification implementation efforts that include:

•   Collect and post on the SBCTC website (1) professional development documents used in the
    certification process, (2) examples of how various colleges define “activities” as used in
    WAC section 131-16-094, (3) narrative descriptions of implementation processes used on
    various campuses, and (4) challenges faced by college faculty, administrators, and staff
    members in implementing the new standards.
•   Provide an opportunity for the Workforce Education Council to have face-to-face discussions
    on best practices, challenges, and successes related to implementing the new standards.
•   Meet with the Human Resources system group to respond to questions related to the
    certification standards.
•   Clarify exactly who administers WAC certification standards on each campus.


Prepared by Michelle Andreas
April 19, 2006

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:19
posted:8/10/2011
language:English
pages:80