Gayblack Canadian Man

Foreign Policy Analysis
California State Assembly Select Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education

California State Assembly Select Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education

Well good morning everybody, thank you so much for joining us for this second hearing of
the Assembly Select Committee on the Master Plan for Higher
Education in California. Before we get started,
I wanted to welcome up President Papazian from San Jose State. Thank you so much for hosting us today. I wanna invite you to come
up and say a few words. (clapping) – Thank you, assemblyman,
‘preciate it very much. On behalf of our campus community, it is an honor and
pleasure to welcome you, the commission and all of
our members here today. And it is fitting that
a legislative hearing focused on California’s
Higher Education Master Plan would be held on the campus where the California State University
was founded 160 years ago. That’s okay, you can cheer! I mean, it’s all good, right? Having evolved from the
state’s founding Normal School for teacher training to a
vibrant, metropolitan university supplying much of the
talent fueling the world’s epicenter of innovation, San Jose State, California’s
first public university, is a worthy backdrop
for this conversation. Now I’m a proud product and beneficiary of California’s long-envied,
public higher education system. I followed my parents to UCLA, earning undergraduate and graduate degrees in English literature before
launching my academic career. Of course, several members
of this Select Committee, including two members of
the South Bay delegation, also are products of this system. Assemblymember Low, a proud Spartan, earned his political science degree here. And Assemblymember Kalra is a graduate of the University of California. Each has taught here. My point is, this committee’s membership brings valuable, personal perspective to this very important topic. And the focus of today’s hearing, the relevance of a Higher
Education Master Plan, conceived nearly 70 years ago to the workforce needs of a contemporary, constantly-evolving economy is an especially apt topic to take up in Silicon Valley’s
only public university. When the Master Plan was commissioned, San Jose State was a state college, serving just over 13,000
students in a city of 204,000, less than 4% of whom
were persons of color. Today we are a vibrant,
metropolitan university, serving 35,000 students in
America’s 10th largest city. We also are one of this nation’s most diverse public universities. And among our city’s more
than one million residents, well over half are persons of color. Last year, the aggregate
number of bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral degrees
conferred by our campus was close to our total enrollment in 1960. Now many campuses across the
state have similar stories. In the meantime, this
valley, as we all know, has been transformed
into a living laboratory of relentless innovation and
ever-accelerating change. And it has not simply been a binary shift from agriculture to STEM,
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The very nature of work,
influenced by technology, but also encompassing
myriad other factors, has shifted beneath our feet. As I have repeatedly
said since arriving here nearly a year and a half ago, we are at a critical inflection point. And it is against this backdrop that a thoughtful examination of our Master Plan for Higher Education, not only is worthwhile, it is essential. So, since I am a scholar at heart, I hope you will indulge me in a few rhetorical questions to start your day. And I’ll limit myself to just three. I could go on for a long
time, but I’ll limit myself. The original Master Plan established firm, segmental boundaries that may have made sense in their time. These lines, defining each segments role in fulfilling the triad mission of teaching, research, and public service long have been blurred. For example, comprehensive
universities like ours, long-serving as undergraduate and master’s degree-granting institutions, today offer subject-specific
doctoral programs. All of our universities
engage in meaningful research, teaching, community and public service, and educate both undergraduate
and graduate students for a democracy. At the same time, the role
of our community colleges has never been more
critical than it is today in ensuring affordable
access to higher education for all Californians at
a time when education beyond high school is
more critical than ever for the long-term health and well-being of individuals and communities. So first, do these firm distinctions, including eligibility
standards for admission to our four-year degree-granting systems still make sense in the
ways that served us so well these past 60 years, or do they need to be adjusted to reflect the changing needs
of a 21st century economy? Second, are we thinking sufficiently about the role of our private,
independent institutions in the contemporary higher
education landscape? And third, do the core assumptions that inform the Master Plan’s creation nearly 60 years ago enhance or inhibit the potential of today’s
students and campuses to fulfill their promise? There are many other questions to ask and issues to consider. We know you are approaching
your work thoughtfully and methodically, as you should. So as you begin today’s hearing, please know that we are
here to collaborate with and support you, and again,
welcome to San Jose State. (clapping) – Thank you President Papazian for that great welcome
and also for highlighting some of the core questions
that we’ll be asking over the next two years or longer. As I mentioned earlier,
this is the second hearing of the Assembly Select
Committee on the Master Plan for Higher Education in California, and I wanna thank all
of you for attending, and also to those of you
who are watching us online through the livestream. I would especially like to
thank President Papazian and San Jose State University
for hosting this hearing. In 1960, our state
developed a visionary plan for the future of higher education, known as the Master Plan. However, much has changed in California during the ensuing decades. Population growth, increased diversity, a change in leading industries
and their need for talent, as well as in the field
of education itself. My goal for this Select Committee is to hold hearing throughout the state to conduct a thorough legislative review to ensure that California
has a Master Plan for today and for the future. And to again promise California’s students an accessible, affordable, high-quality, public higher education. The Select Committee is a first step in a multi-year endeavor that could last up to six or eight years or longer. I’m coming in with an open mind, and don’t have any preconceived
notions or solutions, and I encourage my
colleagues to do the same, and I know they all are. I view the first two years
of the Select Committee as being the information gathering phase, where we hear from stakeholders
and collect feedback. The Select Committee recently
held its first hearing on August 31st in
Sacramento where we heard an overview in status of higher education from the Legislative Analyst’s Office as well as from the
leaders of California’s higher education institutions, specifically the community colleges, CSU, UC, and the association of
non-profit private institutions. In addition to today’s hearings, we plan to hold three
hearings throughout the state, including in Southern
California, the Central Valley, and back in Sacramento. The following three
hearings will continue to be issue-focused and examine subjects surrounding the needs
of faculty and staff, of students, and cost and funding issues, including financial aid. After the conclusion of the hearings, the Select Committee will issue a report, likely at the end of next year, summarizing the hearings
as well as recommending the next steps, such as what issues need to be focused on in more depth. Today’s hearing is
focusing on California’s workforce needs, and will
consist of three panels. The first panel will examine what are California’s workforce needs, and in this panel we will hear from higher education experts from the Public Policy Institute of California and from California Competes. The second panel will provide perspectives from various industries
in the business community as represented by IBM, Kaiser Permanente, and the California Manufacturers
and Technology Association. The third panel will discuss how private and non-profit entities
are partnering with, and the local Building and Construction Trades Council of California. And there will also be an opportunity for public comment, and
we have the sign-up sheets for folks who would like to speak. Where’s the sign-up sheet? At the front, oh, right in the front. Louis Morrone, my field representative, is waving it. The Select Committee has a membership appointed on a bipartisan basis, and we are very fortunate to have members who have a strong background and interest in higher education, and with that, I wanna
welcome my colleagues. And before I turn it over to my colleagues on the Select Committee, I wanna bring up and introduce our assemblymember who represents San Jose State, my colleague and friend, Ash
Kalra, to say a few words before I know he’s gotta run
off to the rest of his day. Thank you, Ash. – Thank you so much,
Assemblymember Berman. In about 15 minutes we’re starting the Select Committee hearing on the status of boys and men of color. Which is of course very much related to the work that you’re gonna be doing. Certainly over the next couple of years and the years to come. And it’s my honor to welcome all of you, to host all of you, particularly my colleagues,
including our other neighbor, Assemblymember Evan Low. And when we think about
the Master Plan from 1960, when you have a couple millennials like Assemblymember Marc Berman and Evan Low, We definitely, I think it’s
a great opportunity now for us to think about what we need to be doing going forward. Of course, our other colleagues, including chair of our
higher education committee, Jose Medina and
Assemblymember Susan Eggman, who are equally committed to this work. I’m just very grateful that you’re having this hearing
here at San Jose State. Dr. Papazian has been a phenomenal leader in the short time she’s been here. I believe she’s one of the finest leaders in education in the state. And I’m very excited
about the opportunities and what we see happening here at San Jose State University. But as a product of our
community college system, the University of California system, as someone who taught here at San Jose State University, I believe strongly in California’s
higher education system. I’m just grateful to
Assemblymember Marc Berman for immediately stepping in as a freshman and taking on this monumental challenge. I can’t think of anyone else
that I would rather have taking on this challenge. I am confident in him, I’m confident in the rest of the committee members, and I’m very excited about
working with all of them and learning from all of you. So once again, welcome, and thank you for doing this important work. (clapping) – Thank you so much, Assemblymember Kalra. And let me just say how grateful I am to be joined by my colleagues. I know the requests for
our time that we all have, and so to be joined by colleagues from Riverside, from
Stockton, and from Campbell, means a great deal to me. So I wanna turn it over, if you have any opening comments you’d like to make.
– Sure. I wanna thank our chair. Am I on?
– Yeah. – I wanna thank our chair,
Assemblymember Berman for hosting and bringing us together for this second hearing of the Select Committee
on the Master Plan. Very important work. I wanna thank the president, Papazian, for having us here again. It was not that long ago that the committee on higher education was here to talk about diversity of faculty. I have to remind everyone about my own roots here in San Jose. Born here when my father graduated, 1953, from San Jose State with a
degree in civil engineering. And I bring that up not only
to talk about my father, but as we talk about higher education and the changing demography of our population of
the state of California. At the same time I’m aware that many of our students are first-generation. I think it’s also important to note that Latinos are not
new in higher education, that Latinos, obviously, with the long history in this state, have a long presence in higher education. So I bring that up again
as well for that reason. We know that California’s
changed quite a bit since 1960. As I said, the population’s changed, the needs of the state have changed, and so also must education change. But I think as we look
forward to discussion, we need to look to make sure that we have not only access to higher education, but also accountability, equity, success, completion is something that we very much care about, and affordability. Making sure that education
is not out of reach for many of our students. Look forward to the hearing today, look forward to hearing of the wisdom and what the panels will bring. Thank you for having me here today. – Thank you very much. (clapping) – Good morning everybody,
and thank you all for coming in, being interested in this important topic. Thank you to the chair, to the president, and to my fellow members who are here. So I am a proud faculty member on leave from Sacramento State in case this gig doesn’t work out for me. I renew my leave every year
to have a fallback plan. But I am one of those first-generation, Latino, California-educated students who then found my way to become
a tenured faculty member. And I am also very aware that I represent the most underserved region in the state for public higher education. Around the area of Stockton. The president talked about the tractors in Silicon Valley, people in my district talk about being the last one. There’s a lot of ones
who claim that title, I was the last one that drove
the tractor in Silicon Valley. And drove it over the San Joaquin Valley. It is, I don’t wanna say short, but I commuted this morning and I know a lot of my constituents commute over to the Silicon Valley everyday. And we have a lot, our
housing is more affordable, our land is more abundant, but our resources are still shrinking, so I will not allow a higher
education conversation to take place without me
trying to be on the table, and say this is first university built, and I would like to see the last one, the next one built in
the city of Stockton. And to kind of, when
we talk about success, and we talk about equity, and
we talk about opportunity, and we look at the regions in the state that are growing and the
regions that are diverse and the regions that have the potential to really, I think, capitalize
on the resources we have. With maybe a more technology, maybe a Cal Poly Stockton,
I’m open to that. Anyway, I’m excited to be
part of this conversation, and committed to this as we go forward. And I see some CFA folks over there, welcome to you also. And I look forward to
conversation, thank you. (clapping) – [Marc] Assemblymember Low. – Thank you very much and good morning. This, oh, there we go. Thank you very much, good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to be here with you today. Thank you very much to
our President Papazian here at San Jose State University, and certainly our plug out to my own President Nguyen and Chancellor Miner from Foothill De-Anza as
well, as a proud graduate. I want to make mention in particular when Assemblymember Berman was elected, he asked about more,
asked about some guidance and advice from those more senior to him, in terms of tenure in the legislature. And I said, take a very slow approach, because you’re gonna have up to 12 years. He did not take my advice. Because he said, well
okay, great, thank you very much for advice,
I’m going to now chair the Higher Education Master Plan Select Committee for Education, and for the context, two members ago, two legislators ago, before Mr. Berman was Richard Gordon, before Mr. Gordon was Ira Ruskin, Ira Ruskin also chaired
this Select Committee on the Higher Education Master Plan. And the tenure for the legislators during that time was only six years, whereas now members, all four of us, have up to 12 years in the legislature. Why is that important? Mr. Berman talked about the
importance of the timeline of this effort, that this is not going to happen overnight, and it’s
not gonna change overnight. So we require your engagement
to hold us accountable because you are the
subject matter experts. We are generalists. Yet we have our own experiences and backgrounds, most certainly, but you will help guide
and shape us here as well. So I want to make that very clear to each and every one of you to make sure that you are engaged with us, that you have our contact information. If you don’t have our cell phone numbers, that you have our chief of
staffs’ cell phone numbers, or you know who our point of contact is with respect to higher education. This is a very deeply
important issue to me. Did you know, for example,
that we are one of two states that does not have coordinating entity with respect to higher education, the other state being that of Michigan. There was the California
Post-Secondary Commission that focused on the coordinating entity between that of the systems of community colleges, CSUs, and UCs. That was defunded. I had proposed two bills
that my fellow colleagues also supported and voted for. Flew through the legislature
onto the governor’s desk, and unfortunately, was vetoed
two years in a row now, but we are hopeful this
coordinating entity will continue the conversation as we continue to hear from
each and every one of you on the specifics on Higher
Education Master Plan. So I am very hopeful and optimistic that we will be able to make
some significant achievements as we continue on the foundation. But that we make some significant change as our tenure, hopefully,
should the electorate have us, we will continue to move on. So there is some real meat here, that your engagement is required because we can’t just simply allow government to do everything,
but we require your engagement. I am very appreciative to be here, and looking forward to making sure that we hold Assemblymember
Berman accountable, too. Ensuring that he is equally successful because his success is our success. – [Marc] Thank you. (clapping) – Thank you Assemblymember Low, and thank you for all the advice earlier, even if I didn’t follow it. I know I took some of it. Before we get started and
bring up our first panelist, I do wanna recognize the
elected officials in the room, with Mayra Cruz, vice
president of San Jose Evergreen Community
College Board of Trustees. There she is in the back. (clapping) We have Ellen Wheeler
from the Mountain View Whisman School Board. (clapping) We have Peter Landsberger
from the Foothill De-Anza Community College Board. (clapping) And Gilbert Wong, also
from the Foothill De-Anza Community College Board. (clapping) Thank you for joining us,
and if I missed anybody, find one of my staff members, they’re all over the
room, and let ’em know, and I’ll be happy to introduce you as we go through the hearing. So with that, I wanna bring
up our first panelists. Hans Johnson, who’s director
of the Public Policy Institute of California
Higher Education Center, and a senior fellow a the
Public Policy Institute of California, thank you, Hans. – [Hans] Thank you. – And Lande Ajose, executive director of California Competes. Thank you so much for joining us.
– Thank you. – [Hans] Thank you. – So why don’t we kick
it off to you, Hans? – Great, thank you, Chair
Berman, members of the committee, and members of the San Jose community. My name is Hans Johnson, I am the director of the Higher Education Center at the Public Policy
Institute of California, and it is a great pleasure to be here to talk about a topic that I could go on and on about for a long time, but I will keep my comments brief. And you have before you,
members, my formal testimony. What I’d like to do is paint you a picture of where California is
now and where we’re headed with respect to our labor market and the needs for a more
highly-educated population. So first I’m gonna talk about
some projections we’ve done at the Public Policy
Institute of California, looking at California’s
economy and population between now and 2030. And the quick summary
of our primary finding is that California faces what we call a workforce-skills gap. Others have called it a degree gap. And specifically what our projections show is that if our population
continues to change along the lines that it has been, and our higher education institutions continue to serve students in the same way that we have been doing historically, we will not have enough college graduates with at least a bachelor’s degree, which is the focus of this work, we’ve done other work looking at career technical education,
the community colleges, and I know Lande will be
talking a lot more about that. But with respect to looking
at bachelor’s degrees or more, we will fall about
1.1 million workers short of economic demand. And so this chart shows
you on the far right here our projections for the supply of workers, that’s the population, which by current trends will mean about a third of workers in California we can expect to have a
bachelor’s degree by 2030, but our economy is increasingly demanding more highly-skilled and
highly-educated workers by 2030, almost four out of 10, about
38% of jobs would require at least a bachelor’s degree. Realize that means most jobs will not, and that’s, again, a very important topic on post-secondary education
short of a bachelor’s degree, but this shortage is
the one that we identify as especially critical going forward for California’s future. So let me talk a little bit about how we came to those projections. I promise this won’t be too dry, I think it’s actually, again,
a pretty fascinating topic. First, California’s economy and economies throughout the world,
really, have increasingly been demanding more
highly-educated workers. This chart shows you
California’s projected share of workers with at least
a bachelor’s degree from the labor market demand side, and you’ll see that in 1960, this is an important point, I think, when the Master Plan was developed, only one out of nine, 11%
of workers in California, had a bachelor’s degree. Realize that the Master Plan allowed for the top 1/3 of high school students and the top 1/8 of high school, top 1/3 of high school students to go to the California
State University system, and the top 1/8, 12.5% to go to the University of California. Well in an economy where
only 11% of your workers had a bachelor’s degree,
that was very progressive and very forward-thinking. Today, we still have
those same proportions from the Master Plan, and yet about a third of our workers have a bachelor’s degree or more and our projection, as I noted, is that that trend will continue. So there are two key
drivers of this trend. One is a shift in economy
towards occupations and industries that typically
require more higher education. And the other’s a shift
within occupations themselves. From requirements that workers have, say, an associate’s or less education towards having a
bachelor’s degree or more. So we’ve looked at what’s
happened most recently coming out of this latest recession, and realized that recessions are places where the economy often gets restructured. And this is not new, just
for the last recession. The last recession, of
course, was more severe than almost any before it. But what we see is that that recession hurt most less-educated workers, and in fact, people with a
bachelor’s or graduate degree had very little employment losses in California’s economy
during the downturn. And then as we’ve come
out of the downturn, job growth has been most robust among occupations that require
a high level of education. So here I’m showing you
the percent increase in employment from 2010 to 2015. On the far left are occupations that are highly dependent on college graduates, that’s where 80% of the
workers have a college degree. And in fact those three left-hand bars include workers who have at least 40, occupations where at
least 40% of the workers have a bachelor’s degree. So that’s higher than the
state average right now. All those three are growing faster than the other two categories. You do see that kind of
bifurcation of the economy with very little growth in
the less skilled occupations that still have some technical
requirements in some cases, and then actually faster
growth at the very bottom end. And that has a lot to say
about income inequality which is a topic for another
hearing for another day. So we won’t talk about that. Another way to measure
demand is to look at all kinds of labor market outcomes, labor force participation
rates, unemployment rates. Here I’m showing you wages. All of those indicators
show the same thing, demand for college graduates
is very high in our state. Here I’m showing you the average wage, they might seem high. They’re polled high by, we have a lot of high wage earners in California, the medians are somewhat lower. But in any event, the
picture is consistent. And that is that college
graduates, on average, of course there’s a range, but on average, do very well in our labor market. With people with a bachelor’s
degree, for example, earning twice as much as people who have, for example, a high school diploma. And these wage premiums
are at an all-time high. They’ve been going up for decades. So even as the share of workers with a bachelor’s degree
has grown in our economy, the rewards to those
degrees has also grown, a sure sign of strong labor market demand. We’ve also looked at this,
of course, across majors. And it is the case that certain majors are more remunerative than other majors. This chart shows you
the net lifetime payoff of going to college,
from a wage perspective, compared to only having
a high school diploma. And we’ve actually
subtracted from the wages that college graduates earn the cost of going to college. Which are tuition, fees, room and board, and the opportunity cost
of not having worked during those years when
you were in college or at least not having worked full time because we do know many students
work at least part time. And you’ll see that,
of course, no surprise, students who major in
engineering and computer science do very, very well in California with a net lifetime payoff
of over a million dollars. But even at the lowest level, which are people who
have an education major which is maybe a sad statement about our economy and our values, but even those least well-paid majors still do better than they would have had they not gone to and
graduated from college. So that then brings me to,
that’s the economic side, now let’s turn to the population side. And you’re gonna have to tell
me how I’m doing on time. I see I have a one-minute warning. Not yet.
– Not yet. – Not yet, good. – Take your time.
– So, the key, critical challenge facing us
from a population perspective, is the aging of the Baby Boom. And you’ll see it here, this is the change in the population between 2015 to 2030, and the large bars there are baby boomers, people who are aging
out of the labor market. And so not only is this the first time in the history of California
or the United States or in fact anywhere in the developed world that such a large number of people are exiting the labor force, but they’re also well-educated. They are one of the highest
educated groups in our state. And they’re being replaced
by young adult populations that are not growing nearly as fast. So this creates a
tremendous challenge for us in terms of improving the
pipeline to and through college. And let me just kind of reiterate one of the primary concerns that we have as we’ve done this work. And specifically we see very little generational progress in
higher education in California. So here I’m showing you, and I’m sorry you can’t quite read the x-axis here, but I’m showing you, for
all the OECD countries and then California, which
I’ve added to this list, the share of workers who have
at least a bachelor’s degree. And what I’m showing you
now are the share with, of 55 to 64 year olds, those are people who are about ready to retire, who have a bachelor’s degree. In California, that’s about 31%. That’s higher than any other OECD country. And there’s several
dozen countries on here. Actually higher than the
United States as a whole. And now I’m gonna show you how we’re doing with respect to young adults. These are 25 to 34 year olds. Here California ranks near the bottom. This is sorted, of course,
by the 25 to 34 year olds. With countries on the far left having experienced not
only dramatic increases in generational educational
attainment improvements, but reaching far higher levels
than we see in California. So to me, this also reiterates
this tremendous demand and need to do better
than we’ve been doing. We’re competing in a global economy, but we are not equipping our
young adults in California to succeed in that global economy as well as other places have. So we’ve done a lot of work looking at this pipeline in California. From high school through college and to college completion. And unfortunately, it’s
a very leaky pipeline. So here I’m showing you that for every 1,000 ninth-graders in
California, based on current transition rates
and completion rates, how many will end up
earning a bachelor’s degree. And it’s a little over, out of
those thousand ninth-graders, it’s just a little over 300 will end up earning a bachelor’s
degree at current rates. We actually do not too badly in terms of the transition from high
school graduate to college. We rank fifth in the
country in the share of high school graduates to
go to community colleges. Which is great, but we
rank near the bottom, 47th in the country, in the
share of high school graduates that go to a four-year
college or university. This is a tremendous challenge and has clear Master Plan implications. And then finally you’ll
see the blue bar there that connects the community colleges with the four-year colleges and universities, and that number is simply way too low. And the community
colleges, to their credit, under President Eloy Oakley’s, Chancellor Eloy Oakley’s initiative have issued a very ambitious goal to improve that number. So what do we do to close the gap? Here I’m showing you the number of additional bachelor’s degrees that would be required in California to close the gap, that’s the green line compared to the orange line. It looks ambitious, it is ambitious, but there are periods in our history where we have grown the
number of bachelor’s degrees we’ve awarded in a similar magnitude to what we’re projecting. And to do that, we need
to improve completion, we need to improve transfer,
and we need to improve first-time access, especially to our four-year colleges and universities. PPIC has a lot of work
that we have shared, and we’ll continue to
share with the committee on how to do that. We’ve broken it down by segment for UCs, CSU, the community colleges. There’s good news, colleges
like San Jose State University and others CSU campuses are embarked on a very ambitious graduation initiative to improve completion rates. As I mentioned, the community colleges have a new vision for success that if realized, would increase the number of transfer students to UC and CSU by 35%
over the next five years which is exactly consistent
with what needs to happen according to our projections. I was on their advisory committee, and was please they adopted
that recommendation. And UC wants to increase enrollment, as long as they get the
support from the state. And I know CSU and
community colleges are also very concerned about
support for the state. But the short answer is,
we created this system, we can solve these problems. I’m very pleased that the committee is looking at these topics. They are topics for the short-term and the long-term and I look forward to continuing to participate with you as we seek to find answers. – Thank you very much. (clapping) Thank you very much, Hans. Lande. – [Lande] Me? Oh.
– Oh. It’s in the back. – [Lande] Well I’ll start
by saying good morning. – Good morning. – And happy birthday. (laughs) – [Marc] Thank you. – So thank you very much for having me. My name is Lande Ajose, and
there’s the cover slide. I’m the executive director
of California Competes: Higher Education for a Stronger Economy. We’re an independent,
nonpartisan, non-profit project focused on bolstering the state’s post-secondary outcomes and fostering a more robust economy,
more vibrant communities, and a more engaged citizenry. All of our work really has to do with making the economic
case for higher education and doing so in a way that increases college completion here in California. We’re guided by a leadership council of business and civic leaders, and the reason we have selected them is because they really represent the demand side of the economy. And we think it’s
important to contextualize the conversation around higher education by thinking not just about what do we need from our institutions, but what do we need for our employers, for our communities, so that we can live in a much more vibrant or continually vibrant
economy and communities. And we wanna make sure that we do that in a way that allows our state to deliver much more equitable outcomes
from higher education. So I’d like to speak with you today about, where do I point this? There we go. About the future of the Golden State. In the 1960s we emerged
as an economic powerhouse that was the envy, as Hans just said, not just of other states but of nations. In addition to our glorious sun and sand that we have in California,
we’re also known for the richness of our economy. We’re at the top of
our game in agriculture and natural resources. Shipping and logistics,
everyone knows about Hollywood, the computer industry, and in this last area in particular, we’re making huge strides in terms of artificial intelligence and data science and augmented reality. It’s very rich. And our ability to be at the forefront of these innovative
and creative industries all hinges on California’s
higher education system. It was the implementation
of the Master Plan in the 1960s that expanded
access to higher education, and focused our colleges
on these distinct roles, that Hans mentioned, that have contributed to the unprecedented economic
growth that we’ve seen. We’ve also seen how the world has changed in the past several decades. And what we know is that in places where you have the creativity
and the industriousness and the entrepreneurship that comes from training and education, that
you end up with good jobs. Those jobs create strong communities, those strong communities
contribute to more education. And so there’s a cycle
of upwards improvement in communities of education, of families, of opportunity, that reaches
people from all backgrounds and is really critical to getting us to having folks with more
degrees and credentials. What’s unfortunate is that
despite the investment, California has actually slipped in terms of producing the kinds of talent that we need to remain
an economic powerhouse. And the reason is, as Hans said, we’re not producing
enough skilled graduates. In higher education, with
48% degree attainment, which is what is estimated
by the Lumina Foundation for education in terms of
what we have in this state. We rank 17th now out of all
the states in the nation in terms of the proportion of adults between the ages of 25 and 64 with associate’s degree or above. We have a report called Mind the Gap, and what it found is that by 2025, if our current trends continue, that we will not produce the quality, the quantity, or the diversity of college degrees needed to maintain the state’s economic vitality. Our analysis is predicated on the idea that California should be amongst the top 10 states in the nation producing college graduates. And like my colleagues at PPIC, we estimate that degree attainment gap to be about a million bachelor’s degrees, and an additional 1.4 million
sub-baccalaureate degrees. Those are meaningful associate’s degrees, degrees that require at
least nine months or more of training, where we will be
short of what the state needs. Those degrees are important not only for the economic gains that
they deliver to individuals, but also because of the other benefits to society that go along with having a post-secondary education credential. Those with sub-baccalaureate degrees will contribute to the state
by way of tax revenues, and they also posit, degree attainment is also very positively correlated with higher civic
engagement, including voting. The problem that we face is that the state can’t increase our
degree production in time to meet that 2025 goal. This graphic tells the story, and without going into all of the numbers, the blue is what we’re
projected to produce once you account for people
who are gonna be retiring, and the green is what we would produce if we increased degree production by 10% per year, each year, so that by 2025, we’d have about 800,000 more degrees. And the red, finally,
is the cumulative number of degrees needed if we
were to close that gap. And so you can see, if we accomplished producing the number of
degrees in the green, we would actually begin to close the gap. Our institutions, the
institutional segments, are mindful of these pressures around closing the degree attainment gap, albeit for some different reasons. Concerns about California
residents having access have prompted the University of California to expand the number of seats in recent years by 10,000 degrees. But even at a six year
graduation rate of 84%, the system would generate 8,400 graduates, which is what you see
in that little sliver. At the CSU, as Hans mentioned, there is a graduation initiative. Right now the CSU has
a not sterling record of 19% overall, institutions at 19% graduation rate over four years. But the Bold Graduation Initiative by 2025 would yield about a half
million new graduates. And while that is very significant, you can see that it still leaves us substantially short of where we need to be in terms of closing the gap for the 2.4 million. Our report also examines choices around course of study
over a 10 year period. So we looked back between 2000, I think it was 2004, to 2014 or so to see where are we producing graduates. And what we found was that despite the much-discussed need
for more STEM majors, fewer than a quarter of our graduates, both at the CSU and
UC, majored in biology, health professions, engineering,
and computer science. There’s a range of other things that folks are majoring in. And then when you, I’m
sorry this is so small, but then when you start to
disaggregate that by race, what you find is that the likelihood of people from people of
different racial and ethnic groups then means that they are much less likely to major in these top fields. So if you look at engineering for example, it is not among the top 10 majors for blacks or Latinos in
the state of California, even though statewide it ranks as seventh. Our examination of the top 10
sub-baccalaureate credentials revealed that over 2/5 of all degrees were taken in the health professions, while only 4% were taken in computer tech and engineering tech, respectively. And again, when disaggregated by race, we see that outcomes, once you account for the health professions, are very much differentiated by race. It bears mentioning, and I know Hans would agree with me, that knitting all these together, all
these data together, is not for the weak of heart. We have very antiquated data systems here in the state of California that don’t integrate
our institutional data and certainly don’t
integrate with our K-12, our partners in workforce
or our partners in K-12. And that is problematic in terms of really being able to develop
some strong solutions. When the Master Plan was
originally crafted in 1960, it focused on elements necessary for expanding and guaranteeing access to California residents. Since then, the demographics of this state have changed dramatically, and we need our higher education systems, all of them, to respond to a host of issues never envisioned by the
original Master Plan architects. A conversation about access must be paired with a conversation about equity if we’re to ensure that the
benefits of higher education reach broad and deep in ways that serve our civic and economic interests. Affordability must not only be thought of as an issue of tuition,
but also in terms of managing the total cost of
attendance for students. Which includes addressing steep costs of housing, books, and other expenses. The state must not rely
on accrediting agencies to judge that with maintain
top academic quality, but must develop mechanisms for ensuring that we’re doing this ourselves. We have to find ways to address the systemic inequities that exist within our K-12 system,
so that we can ensure that those inequities don’t result in educational stratification once they get to the
post-secondary education system. And finally, California’s
higher education systems must be much more integrated
with our workforce system if we’re to ensure that
we are developing talent in the right fields so that our growing economies are well-served. And so I would ask you all to continue to think about the Master Plan, as you think about it, to think about all these silences that currently exist within the current plan. I also hope that you
consider some policies that will focus on increased
degree attainment for students. Paying particular attention
to the majors that the state most needs to fuel our economies and ensuring that we have greater equity within academic majors. This will necessitate improving our advising systems on campus to ensure that students are informed
about labor market opportunities as they make choices about
courses of studies to pursue. We must align our course curricula with the economic needs,
being ever mindful that business cycles
move much more rapidly than educational institutions do. And that a certain
responsiveness is required. Finally, we can address more
immediate workforce needs by reengaging those in the state with some college and no degree. Adults with labor market experience for whom an additional semester or perhaps an additional year, would allow them to complete their degrees and be meaningfully
engaged in the economy. I think taken together, these policies can equitably expand opportunity
for California residents as well as for our
state’s broader economy, and I thank you for
including us on the panel. (clapping) – Well, thank you very much. And then before I turn
it over to my colleagues for any questions or comments they have, I just wanna say, our biggest frustration with the Select Committee has been that every one of these conversations could be two and a half hours long. And though we try to jam so much in because it is such a complex
task that we’re taking on. But I know a couple of my colleagues and I spent a day and a half
with Dr. Ajose and her team a couple weeks ago, and Hans and his team have done analyses and written reports on every single topic
that we’ve been covering. And so the conversations go
way beyond just here today. But with that I wanna kick it off to any colleagues for questions they might have, or comments. – I would just make the comment that I just appreciate, as Evan said, we’re all
by design of our job, we have to be somewhat
generalist in the things that we look at. While we all have very
intense interest in this, we don’t have the, I don’t
wanna say it’s a luxury, but to spend as much time as
you get just focusing on this. So we hugely value the work that you do, and the input, and we’ll look forward to your guidance as we go forward. ‘Cause I think that you hit on all the core issues that we
need to be talking about. – Just a clarifying
question, perhaps, Hans, on this slide with respect to too few students complete college. And you used the metrics of out of a thousand ninth-graders and then at the very
end, of those thousand, 305 earn a bachelor’s degree. And so, if I just do sort of basic math, 30%, is that,
– Yes. – is that?
– Yeah. So the statement then
is accurate to say that only 30% of Californians
will actually attain a bachelor’s degree, is that correct? – As they move through this pipeline, as Lande mentioned, there is a challenge in reengaging older adults, so some people do stop out for awhile and then come back, it’s not a big number. So it’s probably just two or three percentage points on top of that 30%, but some people do come back later in life and earn a bachelor’s degree. And that number includes our bachelor’s, we follow students to
the extent that we can, not only to California public universities and private universities, but also students who leave the state. And increasingly, we’re
seeing more students leave the state, and we
know both at UC and CSU, many thousands of students
every year are turned away because there’s not
enough room for students who have done everything
we’ve asked of them. Whether it’s actually
high school graduates, but also transfer students
who are technically transfer-eligible, but are not finding space for themselves in our own systems and are turning to other places. Or, in some cases, not going at all. – [Evan] Thank you. – Question, and it’s a
pretty broad question. Suggestions that you have
for us as legislators to do more to narrow the workforce gap that you’ve demonstrated to us. – Well I do think it starts
with helping students to do two things: one is to better navigate their own institutions, that a lot of students, there’s a problem with degree attainment in part because it’s taking
students such a long time to get through, and they
struggle to navigate the systems that they’re in. There’s lots of stories about, wow, I can’t get the class I need, and so students are very enterprising and they’ll find a different college to go here and go there, but that takes time. And for every semester it takes, that’s another, while the
student’s paying tuition, it’s also an increment
that the state is paying. So really trying to think about how do we streamline, as Chancellor Eloy is thinking about with Guided Pathways, how do we start to
streamline that experience for our students, and how do we ensure that students are getting information about the labor market in ways that is early enough for
them to make some decisions so that as they’re trying
to navigate that pathway, they’re also doing it with the idea that they know that the skills that they’re developing are actually gonna be skills that are in high demand? Not necessarily for specific occupations because what we wanna
make sure students have is an opportunity to use those skills in multiple places because
people don’t stay in jobs as long as they used to. And so those have to be
really flexible sets of skills that can be adapted to
multiple environments. – So I echo those comments. I would add three things. First, you should, and I know you are, working with the systems to make sure that there’s room for students who have done everything right to enroll in our higher
education institutions, so that’s about eligibility. And if more students are eligible, which is happening, our high schools are actually producing more
UC and CSU-eligible students. We should meet that demand rather than increase the eligibility
criteria and shut out students. Which is what has happened in the past when too many, too many, students are doing what they’re
supposed to in high school. Secondly, I would say,
working on transfer is huge. There’s been some positive steps, associate degree for
transfer, for example, but we need better articulation and smoother articulation
between the systems for that to really work. And that is, of course,
when we’re talking about the tremendous need to make sure that higher education serves as an economic ladder of mobility, it is the community colleges that serve the most diverse population in California, the most low-income
population in California, so that’s critical. And then the third item, and this isn’t just a researcher item, but it is also that we need a good longitudinal data student data system. I’m hoping that you’ll
be able to work with the next governor in helping
see that come to fruition. And the reason that matters
for students and institutions, is that allows us to know who
higher education is serving, who it’s working for, and who it’s not. And without that data, we’re not able to tell you what’s working and not working with the kind of precision
we would like to have. – Follow-up, and thank you for that. Because as we’re talking about everything, I think you identify a key issue is as we try to move forward, what is legislative? What is just system leadership? And then what comes back to funding? Those are kind of the three buckets that if we can get everything moving in the right direction,
then we make some progress. I asked for an audit from the LAO looking at capacity in our systems. Thinking that we have a capacity issue and we would need to
build a new university. But they said no, it’s all fine. It’s all fine, there’s room for everybody, just with what we currently have. So I think we have different
ways of looking at data. That I think we, so
that’s another huge issue, is how do we compile all the data that we all ask for, and then putting it into something, again,
and then figuring out, what’s legislative, what’s
just system leadership, and what’s funding issues. I think some of the things we look at are, as you said, antiquated. And then back to Mr. Low’s point, I was gonna follow up as somebody who did not go directly to college but went to the military first, do we do a good track of tracking our military veterans as
they go somewhere else? Oftentimes get degrees
online and other places, come out with huge debt, but are we tracking that population and how then they reenter
the workforce at all? – We’re not tracking them
as well as we should, and I know Lande’s done a lot of work looking at re-engagement. – Yeah, we’re trying to think about how do you reengage
folks who had been out, for whatever period of
time, to get them back in. And there’s a lot of discussion around valuing the work experiences
that students have had. And so being able to
offer credit for that, thinking about–
– We’ve done some of that legislatively. – Which is fantastic. Thinking about modularizing some of the education so that you can get stackable credentials and credits, and again, those are the kinds of things that allow students to have some fluidity in how they think about integrating both their current
labor market experiences and their academic experiences. So it’s really talking about turning how we’ve thought about education
traditionally on its head, in part because we tend to think of most graduates, most college students as being 18 to 24 years old. That’s not who most college
students are these days. Most college students are adults, they have families oftentime, and so we need to think about how do our systems accommodate those students rather than assuming that students are just coming from living with mom and dad
and moving into a dorm. So I think it is important
to be thinking about all of those, and to be ensuring that there are the kinds of state support for those students to then
be able to attend college. Because it’s not clear to me how someone who is an adult, who has debt, who has children, who has a mortgage, then affords to stop out for awhile
and go back to school to complete a degree. So I do think that we need to be, and I say this, truth in advertising, I’m on the Student Aid Commission, but I say this because I
think it’s really important to be thinking about what are the sources of support that we offer for students so that they can complete their degrees. – Can I just add on the capacity issue? So I have a lot of respect for the LAO, I think they do good work, but clearly, when we have students who are not finding a
space for themselves, there are capacity issues. We just issued a report. It looks at regional capacity, including the San Joaquin Valley, the Inland Empire in Los Angeles County. And we deliberated. Do we recommend more
campuses, what do we do? And we decided that the most efficient response would be to increase capacity at
our current institutions, including satellite campuses. And I know the legislature has actually put some support behind
some satellite campuses in the Inland Empire,
Palm Desert, for example, which is a satellite campus
for Cal State San Bernardino. But there are ways to move forward without establishing brand new campuses and all the expenses those incur, which do have to do with
addressing capacity constraints at key colleges and universities. I would say probably also president here at San Jose State. Thinking about it in terms of innovation, housing CSU bachelor’s degree programs at community colleges. Which, in some cases,
are having a hard time hitting their enrollment caps right now. So there are things that we can do short of establishing a brand-new campus that I think all of you
should be thinking about. And that’s part of what
the legislature wants in terms of efficiencies
and accountability in our higher ed system as well. – Just one note on the capacity question which is something like 22 or 23 of our, 22 out of 23 of our CSUs are impacted. Almost all of our UCs are impacted. So there’s definitely
some capacity constraints. One thing I think we have
to be very careful about is how we approach, because
a lot of the solution that gets talked about sometimes in Sacramento and around the state is, well online learning is the solution. And I think we have to be very careful about how we approach that, particularly for students
who haven’t necessarily been as successful in the K-12 system, to then tell them, yes
you can go to college, but you’re gonna have to do it online, isn’t necessarily the best
way for them to learn. When I said we need to be thinking about learning and quality
and accountability, that’s part of it, is
we need to be thinking and making sure that
we’re providing students with the best way for
them to be able to learn and get the most out of
their education as well. – I mean, you could walk
around this campus, right? It is a vision of opportunity. So I hear what you’re saying, that we don’t need to build more, we just need to make do with what we have, but the symbol that it
provides for a community can not be equal to sitting in your house looking at something online. And, again, if we look at the analogy between prisons, which
I have three in my district, and higher education
institutions and I have none. And we have capacity issues
in both, but we find a way. – A quick kind of follow-up question. Given that Assemblymember Low pointed out that the state of California has no overreaching body, and
this question’s to Hans, has no body to look at statewide policy, who should determine? How can the state of California determine when it needs a new
campus in a new location? – [Hans] Oh, Lande and I can do that. – I’ll do it.
– I’m kidding. – [Marc] Perfect. – I think that is one reason why we need a coordinating body. All of you know that the Master Plan included among its tenets
a coordinating body. Lande has been very articulate about how, and has published a report about what that might look like. At PPIC we’ve done work arguing for a coordinating body for some time now. And you’re gonna, I think a new governor will be key in making that happen, there have been bills for
many years, not just yours, but yours as well that
have not been signed. And I think the critical questions are what do you want that
coordinating body to be, and how is it going to be successful? And that has to do everything with who it responds to, who
it is accountable to, if it’s a member-based body,
who appoints the members, but at the end of the day, it needs to be an objective, nonpartisan,
empirically-based analysis of our higher education needs with a focus on not what’s necessarily
good for the institutions, but what’s good for the
state and its people. And as much as I love CSU, and I actually have taken courses at all of our public segments, and I have a son now at
a private non-profit, I think that their
focus, often, not always, is what’s best for the institution, and often, but not
always, that’s what’s best for the student as well. But the state needs to have a role in saying what’s best for the student. What’s best for underserved students, and that might have to do with regional, UC Merced exists partly
as a response to that. In any event, I think that’s your role, is to say what’s the state’s focus, and how do we achieve
that through this body in an effective way? And look, you know, you
could end up deciding, well having really powerful leadership in the legislature, and
the governor’s office is all that’s necessary,
and we don’t need this body, I would say we certainly need a body to at least be able to
tell us, empirically, and get into the weeds in
ways that you’re not able to, what’s working and what’s not working. Sorry, that was a long-winded
answer to your question. – Thank you very much, really appreciate all your comments and all your questions. Thank you.
(clapping) So before we bring up our next panelist, I wanna quickly introduce all of the different leaders of
our educational institutions in the region who are here today. I’m just gonna, I’ll
just read off the names, and then let’s all applaud for everybody at the end would be great. But we have Father Engh, president of Santa Clara University, we have Thuy Nguyen, president of Foothill Community College, Ron Galatolo, chancellor of the San Mateo Community College District, Judy Miner, chancellor
of the Foothill De-Anza Community College District, Judith Greig, president
of Notre Dame de Namur, Maureen O’Connor, president
of Palo Alto University, and Debbie Budd, chancellor of San Jose Evergreen Community College are with us today, let’s give
them a round of applause. (clapping)
Thank you so much. When I hear about all the leaders that are in the room, it makes me nervous. But I really appreciate
y’all participating. So we’re gonna move on to panel two, which is Perspectives from
the Business Community. And so I’d like to bring up Laura Guio, vice president of Systems Services Center of Competency and Sales at IBM, Scott McGuckin, senior
director of talent acquisition at Kaiser Permanente, and Nicole Rice, policy director of the California Manufacturers
and Technology Association. Thank you all so much for
joining us this morning. And why don’t we, we’ll
just go down the line, so Ms. Guio, if you’d like to kick us off? – Sure, thank you. Good morning, everyone. I’d just like to echo the comments of those that came before us. There is a grave need here
in the state of California, and across this great nation, of what we need to do
around higher education. At this time in the United States, we have over 500 thousands of jobs across different states. In IBM alone, we have thousands of jobs that are never answered on a daily basis of what we’re trying to fill. Those thousands of jobs
need high-tech skills, but maybe not necessarily
a four-year degree. There’s a struggling number of modern, middle-class jobs that are going unfilled here in the nation. And IBM’s trying to address that. They aren’t blue-collar jobs, and they’re not white-collar jobs. They’re something that we’re
calling new-collar workers. These jobs focus on capabilities and not necessarily credentials. These opportunities can help fill a lot of the gaps in the tech industry for job needs today. Some of those come into the
areas of cyber security, around cloud technology,
and around other jobs that could help be filled if we could work out the education system
and how we go about this, and what are those
needs of industry, here. And that’s why the three of
us are here talking today. IBM has done quite a bit in this field. We’ve coined a new way
of going about education, something called P-TECH,
which is a 9-14 grade system. We kicked that off a number of years ago. We have 60 high schools across the nation. But a lot of this change is
gonna take legislative change, and I know that’s why we’re here today. So we definitely have an opinion, we have things that we’re doing as a technology leader
in the United States, and we’d like to continue to grow our workforce here in the nation. And to the question that you asked earlier around veterans, this is a key area that we’re focusing on, is
retraining our veterans. The IBM Corporation has committed to hiring 2,000 veterans
in the next four years to fill some of these new-collar positions that we have open. So those are some of the
things that we’re focused on. – [Marc] Great, thank you very much. And Mr. McGuckin. – Yeah, great, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. Let me just also thank
the earlier presenters, they might’ve stepped out. But I was thinking about my
11 and 13-year-old daughters when I saw Mr. Johnson’s
lifetime earning graph. I would like to get a copy of that and bring that home with me. As motivation for their education. So again, my name is Scott McGuckin, I’m a senior director
of talent acquisition at Kaiser Permanente, and again, I appreciate the opportunity
to be here with you today. Kaiser Permanente is recognized as one of the nation’s
leading healthcare providers of not-for-profit health plans. We currently serve 11.8 million members in eight states and the
District of Columbia. We know that a robust healthcare workforce is critical to Kaiser Permanente accomplishing its mission to provide high-quality, affordable healthcare, and to improve the health of our members in the communities that we serve. California’s population,
as we already heard from the earlier presenters, is growing, aging, and
becoming increasingly diverse. Trends that place an untenable burden on the state’s health workforce, the pipeline of caregivers
including doctors, nurses, therapists, and
elder care specialists, has not kept pace with demand, particularly in underserved, rural, and ethnically and
linguistically-diverse communities. More coordinative planning and investment is needed now to ensure that California has the right people
with the right training and the right places to fill current and new roles that will be essential to meeting future health needs. With regard to some of the challenges that we’re facing with
our workforce needs. We’re a large organization, and of course, it’s hard to distill some of our needs down to a few bullets,
but I’ll just reference a couple of specific areas
within our workforce, starting with primary care clinicians. According to the
Healthforce Center at UCSF, California’s facing an imminent shortage of primary care clinicians. The number of physicians completing primary care residencies in California does not appear adequate to replace the primary care physicians who are likely to retire in the coming decade. We also have expected shortages in behavioral health, nursing management, allied health, and more broadly speaking, this has already come up earlier today, but workforce diversity,
let me comment on that. Workforce diversity is
important to improving the health and wellness of Californians. Many experts believe that a workforce that mirrors the racial
and ethnic diversity of California will increase access to care and improve the quality of care that we can provide to our
members and to our patients. As such, a more diverse
cadre of physicians, nurses, and other healthcare
delivery professionals is a crucial strategy for improving the health and wellness of
underserved communities. I’d like to briefly
talk a little bit about what we’re doing to both
increase the development of our own workforce, and
also some of the partnerships that we found to be successful with higher education
institutions here in California. Like many organizations, we do a lot to develop our own staff. We have over 1,200 courses and videos that we employ to develop our workforce as a supplementary education to what they might be
receiving in higher education. We have curriculum for
leaders, for new grads, but I’d like to highlight
a couple of programs that we found to be very successful within the organization. We have, as you would expect, a fairly robust graduate
medical education program, the purpose of this is to provide an organized education program with guidance and
supervision for residents. Facilitating the residents professional and personal development while ensuring that we provide adequate safety for our patients. And we have partnerships with UC Davis, UC San Francisco, in Northern California and Southern California. We partner with UC Irvine,
UC Riverside, UCLA. They’re among our current
list of affiliates. In addition to this work,
our residency programs also offer initiatives focused on increasing recruitment and retention of a diverse, culturally-educated
healthcare workforce. For time’s sake, I won’t
go into detail on those, but that is something that
we’re engaged with as well. As we look at the broader
healthcare workforce, we have a trust called the
Ben Hudnall Memorial Trust, it was established in 2007, which provides career counseling services and access to education
and training programs across the KP regions. And I’ll reference a few that we found to be particularly successful. We have a degree completion program with Coastline Community
College down in Costa Mesa. It’s designed for those who have already completed some college-level coursework, perhaps from a variety
of academic institutions, who would now like the opportunity to turn that collection of classes into an academic certificate,
or an associate’s degree. And what makes this program successful for our employees is that Coastline has several articulation agreements with institutions within California that offer guaranteed admission. We also have an RN to BSN program, Bachelor of Science and
Nursing, with CSU Fullerton. And this is a customized,
individual stipend program developed for those pursuing BSN degrees. We have a partnership with CSU San Marcos, and this is for employees to complete lab science pre-reqs online that may be required for nursing and allied health disciplines. In addition to those, we also provide community benefit,
workforce development grants. And one example of that is the Santa Rosa Junior College high school Pathways to Health Careers Program. I’ll say that once, it’s
hard to say it twice. Since 2015, we’ve supported this program which works with Sonoma
County 11th and 12th grade students from underrepresented backgrounds in a multi-year program that features advanced healthcare professional training, skills lab, job shadowing,
work-based learning. And over 375 students have actually gone through that program since 2015. We’re also directly contributing to the academic development
of the healthcare workforce in California through a couple of schools that Kaiser Permanente started. The KP School of Allied Health Sciences and our School of Medicine which is scheduled to
open down in Pasadena in the fall of 2019. With regard to what role
higher education plays in meeting workforce needs, and what role industry can play, we believe that industry should articulate its needs, including
trends in the marketplace. We’ve heard that this morning. Industry needs to invest
in higher education in that way to ensure that higher education is as
relevant as possible. Like many industries, healthcare is in a period of transformation. Unfortunately, change
comes in relatively short, 18 to 24 month waves. We usually cannot provide five year plans, for example, as has been requested from us in the past. In addition to fostering
strong relationships between industry and higher education, universities need to become
as agile as possible. Just because of the speed
of change in industry. But we believe that
together we can provide education, develop
critical thinking skills, practical work experience,
and provide access to the latest scientific research, and all of this, we believe, will provide relevant and needed knowledge skills and experience for a ready
California workforce. I think we can all recognize that the healthcare workforce is vital for us here in California and beyond. It constitutes a significant portion of the state’s labor market, and it is a source of
care for Californians. Developing a coordinated
and comprehensive strategy is not something that
can be done in isolation and will require intentional
levels of collaboration and cooperation between multiple players, and we look forward to
being part of the solution with policymakers and the state, as well as other health
workforce partners. So thank you for the opportunity
to present to you today. – [Marc] Thank you very much. Ms. Rice. – Thank you. I’m gonna take this so
I don’t have to lean. So thank you, Chairman Berman, and all the members who are here today. Thank you for the invitation. Once again, my name is Nicole Rice, I’m policy director with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. We represent the interests
of the 30,000 plus manufacturers here in California who employ 1.3 million Californians and have hundreds of billions of dollars in our economic activity
here in the state. So we’re always proud
to talk about this issue because of the deficit that we have in middle-skills workers who can fill those positions that are rapidly becoming available as our workforce, our existing workforce, who built the country and the systems that we know today, they’re retiring. So we need to backfill those positions, excuse me, with workers who
have the technical skills necessary to continue to lead
California and the nation into the innovation future. So before I make my comments, I want to make a disclaimer that I’m gonna talk in broad terms. As our industry sees the challenges and opportunities with
the higher ed system, and I’m going to define those broad terms in kind of bold colors. But I think this discussion is timely and necessary for where
industries are in California. I also want to say that there are going to be exceptions to what I say. There are many great things
happening in the field, but I think from systemic viewpoint, where I believe you all will be looking at this, I think that there is some concerns and challenges
that need to be addressed. When I took a look at the Master Plan in preparation for this hearing, I noticed that it’s really
a structural document. And that its main goal
was to really delineate the roles of the different
segments of the system and what they were going to do. The role of, at that
time, vocational education or career preparation was housed in the community colleges,
local colleges at the time. And then you have CSU and UC who have their roles and responsibilities. Today the standard for
education attainment is now looking at the requirements of the University of California. However, the University of California, by their own admission, do
not have a workforce goal. They’re training researchers,
scholars, academics, but they’re not training welders or maintenance mechanics
or plant operators. Which are those middle-skill jobs that our industry is
desperately in need of. As that standard becomes
the goal and the objective of California’s education system, all the way down, informing as
far down as the K-12 system. We ask as an industry, the question, where does that leave
middle-skills training? That loss of delineation between the segments in the system is creating what is becoming
a serious disconnect between California’s higher ed system and the world of work. And continues to make, and
has made the attainment of a degree, the success
of the education system instead of preparing students for careers, to be able to compete in
the 21st century economy. If that situation isn’t addressed, then the middle-skills pipeline will continue to be at a deficit. And industries like mine will continue to struggle to find workers. And for manufacturers, if
we can’t find the workers to be able to do and perform the responsibilities of our industry, then we can’t be competitive, either here in California or nationally. And California continues to
lead in manufacturing as well. So our encouragement as the
Master Plan is being reviewed, is to encourage those segments to embrace those delineations
that were once there. In the community college, there are various success stories that we have working with community colleges to build a manufacturing workforce, lots of good programs out there, and we actually sat on the
Strong Workforce Taskforce. So we were part of those conversations and those recommendations to move to enhance their career
opportunities and goals. However, as that continues to roll out, it’s kind of hit-and-miss. As well as we see in the K-12 system. Very hit-and-miss where you get high-quality, successful programs that we define are
programs that are aligned to industry needs, informed
by labor market data. And we continue to kind of see, hit-and-miss and success to provide that type of training. So we encourage you to
consider those delineations, to encourage that the segments continue to move forward in those delineations, and let them do the things
that they’re good at without abandoning those
workforce development needs that are embedded in the system. Thank you. – Thank you very much. I’ll open it up to colleagues, if they have any questions or comments. – You just made me think, Nicole, about, this is not necessarily
tied to higher education, but we’ve all been hearing on the news and everything today about the gas tax that’s going into effect today. Which is gonna pump billions of dollars in the economy and create
hundreds of thousands of jobs. And I’m wondering if you
guys have thought about how that’s gonna have an impact on technology and manufacturing, if you’re gonna lose a bunch of workers if there’s only so many workers who are doing that kind of
middle-skill labor market. If we have hundreds of
thousands of new jobs, what’s that gonna do
to the existing economy and jobs that are out there right now that are being filled
by those level workers? Just knowing, and I’ve
got family in Oroville, and everybody else lost all their workers when they started workin’ on the dam. ‘Cause they were paying good money and right now and long hours, right? So the timber industry, everybody else who is dependent on those
same workers, was at a loss. – I don’t think, for our industry, we have not discussed that. I don’t know how much of an impact that will have on what we’re currently facing in the system. And the reality is, is that there is just not enough training going on. I think that actually
adds to the narrative that we need to think about expanding and diversifying that
training and making sure that we have training to fulfill and to impact all the different job opportunities that
might come in the future. Five years ago, we might’ve never thought that we would have this
opportunity for these jobs. So is the system, quite frankly, ready to be able to deal with what
the future might bring us as we deal with climate change and those technologies, as we deal with just the pressure we’re
getting from innovation, and the marketplace constantly pressuring to have more innovation, more consumer consumption, and we’re going to need a workforce. It might not be necessarily
in my industry more jobs, but it’ll be higher skill jobs. It’ll be a different skill set than what we might
currently be seeing today, and certainly what we saw 50 years or so ago. So I think what the challenge is, is making sure that there is enough training going
on for those industries that have been identified
by various state industries, or entities, as being emerging
or priority industries. We need to make sure that
we are meeting the needs of those industries
and are training today. Not just starting in higher ed, but also as higher as, K-12 is
the feeder to higher ed. Having students become introduced and engaged in those
type of career pursuits, then we need to make sure that that type of hands-on
training is available. And, to piggyback on what one of the other panelists said, it’s important to have industries’ engagement and voice in the development and contemplation of that training. Because we are out there in the field, and we are forecasting for
our own business needs, so we can help inform educators about where the trends
in employment are going. – So, just piggybacking off of that, and that was one of the reasons why we asked all of you to
participate today is, I think all of your industries, there’s an expected workforce
pipeline deficit pending. And all of you, Laura
you mentioned P-TECH, Scott you talked about Santa Rosa program, Nicole you mentioned that there are some programs out there that are working and others that aren’t in reaching, even before higher ed to
high school and before. Can you talk a little bit more about the P-TECH program, or
the program in Santa Rosa. I’d love to learn more
about what’s working and how we can encourage and foster those programs that go from high school through higher ed and into the workforce. Whether it’s just community college or bachelor’s degrees. – Sure, I’ll start with P-TECH So P-TECH was something that IBM started, our first school opened
in 2015 in New York. We were focused on lower-income areas within the New York area. And being able to reach out to students that wouldn’t otherwise
have an opportunity. Now that coupled with the need for non-four-year degrees to start with. And this is a great example of where industry coupling with higher education and the
high school-level education, coming up with a program that satisfied the needs of both the
community and the workforce. This is something that’s
gone beyond just IBM, we have other high tech industries that are joining us in
these other 59 schools around the United States. But first and foremost, it took a change in legislation in the state of New York to recognize this as a
degreed program of 9-14. Now the way that we’ve worked it is, we commit to the students that if you have successfully completed as you’re
going through the program, we start providing internships
in the 12th grade through 14, and then guarantee them
a job upon graduation. Now they have a choice
at that point in time to either continue working full-time, or go on to finish the last two years for a higher education degree. And don’t get me wrong,
higher education degrees are also very needed in
the high tech industry. But it’s not all about, yes, BA degrees and master’s degrees, it’s also there are a
lot of jobs out there that can be satisfied by
this specific skill set if we’re willing to train them. This is where I think
taking in combination community colleges, which
is such an important part in new-collar jobs. We’ve identified 15 community colleges around the United States
that we’re working on to supply them with what
are the needs of industry to make sure that their curriculum is matching the jobs that we have open within our workforce. And that’s really important, and I think my panelists up here have
all hit on the same topic is, it’s not just a high school
or a four-year-degree or a master’s degree, there’s
a lot in between there that’s not being addressed
by our education system. – Well said. I would just add to that that it seems like it’s
a both-and discussion. There’s a lot of different
issues that we can address. We have a community benefit function because we’re a
not-for-profit organization. And through that entity, we do fund a number of these types of programs. And oftentimes they’re aimed at trying to get more
underprivileged students engaged in, for us at
least, the health arena. So we found those to be pretty successful. It introduces them to something that might be somewhat unfamiliar. And so we’re leaning into that, and we continue to fund programs like that because we believe that
we’re seeing good results in terms of their continuing education and going on to pursue degrees in STEM-related coursework
and in the health arena, and all of that, of
course, is beneficial to us as well as the industry at large. – So, two examples, and then maybe if I can share with you, just, still, even in the midst
of all this great work, what they’re seeing in
companies on the ground. So Manufacturing Day is a national event. It’s the first Friday of October for the last, maybe, three to five years. And it’s an opportunity, it’s where industry has responded, where we’re seeing that
kids don’t really understand what manufacturing careers are. They think of manufacturing
from the 1950s, and they’re frankly not interested. And we recognize on our part, we have a role to play
in helping to educate the population at large
what manufacturing is, so students can see it as a career path and parents can actually be proud if their students choose
that as a career path. So Manufacturing Day is a giant open house across the nation where we partner with K-12 districts as well
as community colleges, and invite them into our facilities and show them the cool and neat things that are happening in manufacturing and the different types
of career opportunities that they could have in the industry. So that’s one way that we’re kind of proactively getting involved. And these are very large events. I think we had definitely
over 200 events this year, close to 300 last year. I don’t have this year’s
number off the top of my head, but that’s just in California alone, and this is a nationwide event. The second example is down
in Southern California. There’s an industry group called The Manufacturing Council
of the Inland Empire that was formed because one of the larger manufacturers in the region, California Steel Industries,
had a skills-gap need. And they were having some challenges finding programs that
were actually teaching what they needed their
candidates to understand. So not only did they
look at their own need, but they looked at it regionally, and there’s a lot of discussion about regionalism related to
education and collaboration. And so they understood the constraints of the community college system and be able to have a classroom that provides instruction for
only five or six students, so they went through the region, combined industry needs,
and started working with Chaffey Community College as well as their workforce
development partners in the region, created this
industry advisory group, if you will, and through that multi-year collaboration,
recently was awarded a federal grant to develop what is now called the InTech Center. And it’s providing
training in manufacturing and logistics for the entire region. And it’s a shining example of how industry and educators and the
workforce development system can partner together and collaborate for a successful outcome. However, it is not the norm. And so that is what we
hope to be able to create and remove barriers in the system, so that can be a model that
can be successfully duplicated. Just real quickly, the same company and their HR manager is very involved with the manufacturing and distribution logistics field in that area, and is also part of an organization that’s over a hundred HR
professionals in that area. In this industry area. Here is just a sampling of
some of the things that, when he did an informal survey of these HR professionals, what they’re seeing in candidates who are applying for very good, middle-class jobs with career
mobility in manufacturing. The candidates have never
done anything manual. They have never worked on a car, they’ve never cleaned the
house or mowed the lawn, they’ve never put together IKEA furniture. So these are individuals who don’t–
– It’s a low bar. – Yes, yes! – It might be a different one. – And this next–
– A high bar sometimes. – And this next bar, I don’t even meet. They don’t know how to
read a tape measure. I don’t know how to read a tape measure. My husband bought me tape
measurer for dummies, that has all the little marks on it so I actually know what I’m doing. But they don’t have any
mechanical aptitude. They have poor math and
problem-solving skills. They don’t show up to interviews on time, if they show up at all. And when they don’t show
up, they don’t call, they don’t text, they don’t email. During the interviews, they don’t have good interpersonal skills, so they can’t really talk about themselves and why they’re interested in the job or the company, for that matter. They don’t make eye contact,
they don’t shake hands, and they use casual communication
like bro and hey dude. If they’re hired, they don’t work well with other employees that have different perspectives or viewpoints. They don’t manage criticism
or disappointment well, and they often take offense
when trying to give, when they’re being given direction on how to perform the job correctly. So it’s kind of this
know-it-all mentality. – [Susan] Did you check
whether millennials, or? (laughing) – But it’s the culture of the candidates who are out there, and so part of that is on our end, as industry, to help kind of inform what it is that a person who’s ready for the world
of work needs to have, the characteristics and
interpersonal skills. Internships can do that, on-the-job training opportunities can do that, but it’s also behooved on education to start preparing students. If that, and I’ll leave
it with this last point, if the real goal of education is to prepare students
for the world of work, then we need to start rethinking about how we deliver education. If the goal is just higher degrees of attainment in education, then perhaps the system
doesn’t need any changes, and that’s a policy decision
that needs to be made by legislators such as yourself. – But I would say, it needs to, as Scott said, and-and-but,
and and-and-or, because I don’t think it
should be one or the other. People go to a four-year degree program and discover humanities, discover culture, discover all kinds of things
that expands their world. I don’t think we wanna create systems in which we’re creating
workers to fix widgets. It needs to be much more than that, and I think we need to pay attention to workforce development
in very significant ways that parallel our economy. So I think it should be both. – I think the panelists
have done a great job of showing the diverse needs of the state of California’s workforce. And therefore the challenge
to the state of California. Going all the way from
very technical, medical, and I’m very happy that UC Riverside is partnering with Kaiser Permanente. The state of California a few years back, five years ago, funded the
UCR School of Medicine. $15 million, ongoing, to meet those primary care
doctors need that we have, mostly in the inland California, including Riverside and Central Valley. And making sure that
that program is diverse. And making sure that
those doctors coming out meet the diversity of
the patients in our area. I’m also the representative most close to Chaffey Community College. And as a community college
trustee of 15 years and someone who got to visit CSI Steel, I know what a great program that is. Nicole, you said that we should embrace – Delineations.
– the delineation of missions to each part. Which, at the beginning
we said has been growing. It sounded like you said that each part, each segment should do
that which it does best. And certainly, in the areas
that you’re talking about, programs like CSI Steel, with
Chaffey, they do that best. So you think, Nicole, a question, that rather than mixing the missions, we should go back to seeing
what the original missions were? – I think that’s a start. I’ll put it this way. I agree and I also need
to put the disclaimer that college and career-readiness is something that is an approach that works well for our
higher education system. And that even in our field, we have positions that
need four-year degrees. I do agree that there are segments of the system that do their roles well and should continue to do that. But there are also missions that have been adopted and embraced by other segments that should not necessarily be abandoned. And that the goal that
seems to have taken effect with the requirements
and the standards of UC becoming where everyone’s
pointing and looking at, should not be the end-game. That where in community colleges, there’s a transfer mission, yes, there’s basic skills, but there is also their vocational mission. CSU also has a career preparation for certain industries, and I’d love to see them look and expand in other industries where that
methodology would play well in training individuals for the workforce. I think that there is an opportunity, there should be an opportunity to look at community colleges and CSUs and see what a bigger
role that they can play in a mission that was
already granted to them through the Master Plan. And just not look at,
again, the attainment of the UC, reaching that goal being the full definition of
success for education. Especially for middle-skills jobs. – You also touched upon
the role of business and industry in providing internships, giving students the practical knowledge, the hands-on stuff that you
talked about, measuring tape. What can industry and business do more to do those kind of things like CSI Steel? How can IBM, how can Kaiser Permanente give more of those kind of
opportunities to our students? – Yeah, sure, I’ll start there. We actually have a pretty robust internship program that we’ve offered, we’ve also moved in to
the non-clinical space. Of course, we have a lot of
student clinical rotations that go through Kaiser
Permanente as you would imagine, but about five or six years ago, we started going out to schools, San Jose State, is among them, where we’ll come and actually try to recruit their IT students. Just helping folks understand that every industry, regardless
of where they are, requires a workforce with a
very diverse set of skills. Providing those real-life opportunities we think is vital. To Nicole’s point, a lot of students don’t come completely prepared for the non-academic elements of work. How you run a project, as a good example. And how you manage a team. How you stick to a guideline. Showing up, showing up well. Those seem like pretty
fundamental elements, but oftentimes they’re really not. And those are things
that I would underscore as strongly as possible because that helps ensure that folks who are academically prepared are really well-informed
and able to go out and contribute in a meaningful
way as quickly as possible. We’re doing a lot in the internship space, we would absolutely
encourage every organization and industry to keep doing that, or to get into that space if they’re not already doing that as much as they could, because that certainly
supplements the academic education that students are getting,
so we think it’s vital. – I had the opportunity two years ago to meet with Secretary of Labor Perez. One of the things that we talked about was the jobs and what
they’re training people for nowhere near matching what the
workforce has needed today. I know IBM is working with
the US federal government to help update those systems and make sure that there is a faster connection between the job openings we have, the skills required,
and what we’re training, or retraining individuals
to have the ability to do. It’s upon our industry to make sure that we’re communicating very clearly. We feel like we are, but back to some points
that were made earlier, we’ve got to embrace the
entire education system from beginning to end here. It’s not all about getting
the four-year degree. That’s something that I
would employ all of you to think about as you’re doing
these committee hearings. But that gap there in the middle of individuals that can
have specific training, take cyber security for example. We have an example of an individual, a female who came back from the military looking for a living wage to
be able to support her family, but not able to go and
get a four-year degree, to afford four years of
not being in the workforce. She was able to go through a blue collar opportunity
retraining program and is now a security specialist at IBM after a two-year certification degree. That’s just one example of a type of job. We have the need for, I work
at our research facility, I’m an engineer myself, and
a San Jose State graduate. (laughing) But understanding where
the different jobs fit, and the end game isn’t just a
four-year or master’s degree. Keep that in mind. – I want to ask the flip
side to the question because Dr. Eggman referred to it. Our president here, Dr. Papazian, and the president of UC California are both professors of English. That goes to the graph that
we looked at where we saw more students majoring in
business, majoring in STEM. I think you’re the only panel
that we have in front of us that are going to be from
business, from employers. Why is it important for business? Why is it important that we continue to graduate students in liberal
arts, in the humanities? Why is it important to business? Do we not need any more English,
poli sci, history majors? – No, we absolutely need all different disciplines in the industry. I’ll share something
very personal with you. When I was at San Jose State,
I was an engineering student. I was not able to actually graduate with an engineering degree because the program was so impacted here. I was married, I was starting a family, I was expecting my first child. I ended up switching over
to the school of business and getting a degree in marketing. It was a practical reason
why I had to do that, because I could not get the classes that I had to get to complete. Did that impede my ability
to go on and be an engineer? IBM trained me and said, “Okay, pass these tests,
we’ll give you a job.” And they did. But I’ve always been under the notion that different disciplines are needed. Whether it’s high tech or
education, I hire art students to be technical support specialists at IBM because they have this ability
to do spacial reasoning. I think part of this
is not only making sure that our education system
matches what the needs are, but re-educating business leaders to get away from the stigma that unless you have a master’s degree, you’re not qualified to work for me. It’s on both ends of the spectrum there that we need to do this. – It’s a good question. I heard somebody who was asked recently, “How’s the job market for students?” And the response was, “It
depends on the student.” I think a lot of it does
depend on the individual. There’s no doubt that there
is significant increases, and we’re seeing the same thing within STEM-related career
fields and education disciplines. That certainly is a trajectory
that I believe will continue, and every report that we read
and that we’re experiencing would indicate that that is true. That being said, there is certainly a wide range of occupations out there. We need folks who have various disciplines to enter the workforce. We found your personal situation to be very true at KP as well. We have a lot of folks that
will have an academic discipline in a particular background and are able to get in
because of interests or a certain aptitude into certain roles that might generally
require a technical degree, and they do very well. I think a lot of it is individual, but no doubt there is certainly an increasing interest in
STEM-related disciplines. – I’m not sure that the question is, or should be, why one
discipline versus another. I think we certainly see
ourselves as consumers or the end user of the education system, but also the student is. I think education should
be about exploration for individuals and finding
your place in the world. The education experience
should create options and on-ramps and off-ramps for students, so that they can explore
what their aptitudes are and then determine what is
the best course of action. I don’t think I want to
necessarily tell one individual that this is the right path. I want the system to be
so robust in its provision that the student will have an opportunity at every milestone to be able to determine which pathway they want to choose. That way I think they’ll
feel most fulfilled at the end of the experience, whether they choose industry,
whether they choose education, or whether they choose
a different pursuit. – Thank you very much. Really appreciated the
points and the conversation. Thank you. (audience applauding) Our last panel this morning will be on addressing workforce needs. I’d like to bring up and
introduce Barbara Baran, co-director of California EDGE Coalition, Dr. Alma Salazar, senior vice president of the Center for Eduction
Excellence and Talent Development at the Los Angeles Area
Chamber of Commerce, and Josue Garcia, if Josue’s here, I know he’s going to be a minute late. Josue Garcia will be joining us, who’s the executive director of the San Benito, Santa
Clara County Building Trades. Good morning, thank you for joining us. – Good morning. The advantage or disadvantage
of being the last panel is that what I’m going to
talk about will be reiterating a lot of what you’ve
already heard this morning. I actually think that’s a good thing. I want to also, given the
conversation we were just having, say that my undergraduate degree was in European intellectual history. (audience laughing) But I will be talking to you. I am, as you just heard, co-director of the
California EDGE Coalition. We’re a coalition of business, labor, community organizations,
workforce organizations, community college organizations that came together about a decade ago, recognizing that the skills
of the California workforce, that the future of California depends on the skills of its workforce. I want to also talk about what Nicole, who is on my board, and so is Alma, was middle-skill jobs. Our focus has been middle-skill
jobs, which as she said are jobs that require
a considerable amount of post-high school
education and training, but not necessarily a
baccalaureate degree. Given that that’s been our focus, we have a series of recommendations that we would bring to you. The first, which I think was
a plea that Nicole was making, has to do with the place
of career education in our overall higher education system. California appropriately prides itself on having the most extensive,
and one of the most effective public education systems in the nation, and also among the most
diverse student bodies. But for a set of really
complex historical reasons, our state has tended to
undervalue career education compared to numbers of other states. Moving forward, we really
think as Nicole just said, that it’s critical that
California honored, as a core mission of higher education, career education programs, and that we ensure that
the funding streams for those programs are
adequate and reliable. High quality CTE programs
are often quite expensive, but they also pay big benefits in terms of the salaries that
graduates are able to obtain. But a lot of those
programs, for way too long, it depended on erratic grant-based
funding to sustain them. We really need to make sure
that the funding is both of adequate size and regular and reliable. We also need to ensure that
the implementation of policy takes into account what the impact on career tech programs is likely to be. A really good example
is the EDGE Coalition, Lande was talking about Chancellor Oakley and the community colleges
beginning to move and embrace a rewiring of their system that is being called Guided Pathways. We think that couldn’t be more important. That said, we have a series of concerns about ways in which
implementation of Guided Pathways could have unintended consequences, negative consequences, on career programs. On the one hand, it
could be the best thing that ever happened to them. On the other hand, if we’re not thoughtful about the special needs
of career tech programs, it could have unintended consequences. Third, that you also heard
the last panel talk about, we think that it’s important to increase our investment
in workplace-based learning. I know Jeremy, who was gonna be here, would have talked about that. Earning while you learn is
both one way of addressing the real financial barriers
a lot of students face, but also, lots of people find it a more effective way to learn. We’d like to see a growth and extension, and that, of course,
involves closer integration with the employer community. That gets to our second recommendation. We really think that it’s important to ensure
the relevance of career ed. For the past decade, policy
makers have been trying to be responsive to the needs of California’s very
different regional economies. One outcome has been a proliferation of legislatively mandated regional bodies. Unfortunately, many of them have failed to effectively engage business and labor. And in fact, the profusion of the tables at which industry and
labor are expected to sit I think has become a
problem in and of itself. We need to think about how we can also address the structural barriers
that continue to exist, despite consortium after consortium that we have out there
supposedly bringing together educational segments and
educational institutions. I think the structural barriers to them working well
together remain pretty deep. Moving forward, we need to
continue our regional focus. We need to continue to focus on high demand sectors, as we’ve heard. But we also need to do a better job creating viable vehicles
for industry engagement. I think Alma’s gonna talk
about an exciting one, and you’ve heard some
just in the last panel. Our third recommendation has to do with illuminating key barriers to student access, progress, and success. You heard our first panel talking a lot about the fact that we
really need to up our game in terms of getting
folks out the other end. Community colleges have the lowest tuition of any in the nation, and frankly, as everyone knows, they’re tuition-free for most students that have
any kind of financial need. Yet a recent study found that the net cost to attend a community college is actually greater than to attend either the CSU or UC systems, and it’s because
community college students are much less likely to be able to access the kind of financial aid that
also pays for cost of living, which everyone knows is
particularly high in California. The majority of community
college students, and I’m not sure whether it’s the majority or almost the majority of CSU students, also face serious educational barriers. Today, roughly 80% of
community college students test into remediation, and
only a tiny fraction of those make it out the other end with any meaningful certificate,
degree, or transfer. Finally, as you heard Lande talking about, navigating the educational system is a huge problem for many
students, which is why so many, particularly community college students, rack up way more credits than they need, and frankly, are wandering
around dazed and confused a lot. Huge numbers of them just drop out. We think that California needs to provide a debt-free pathway for all students to make it through college, and ensure that CTE students have access to those financial supports. Whether that means rethinking
the Cal Grant C system or rethinking Cal Grant system period, we think we need to look hard at that. We think we need to, and the EDGE Coalition’s
been looking for a long time, we need to eliminate the
remedial education sinkhole that just swallows up
so many of our students by changing placement policies and by implementing
evidence-based practices that we all know will get students through without any remedial education, or a minimal remedial education, and the other kinds of
supports that they need. We need to significantly expand our navigational systems to students. As somebody, I forget who, talked about, we really need to create
pathways to institutions, so from K-12 and so on,
and through institutions. I wanted to say that one of the systems that we’ve spent a lot
of time caring about is the adult education system, which is actually mentioned
in the Master Plan, but sort of in passing. It’s really uneasily co-governed right now between CTE and the Chancellor’s Office. We really need pathways from
K-12 to the community colleges, from adult ed into the community colleges, through to the CSUs and so on. Then last, I will just repeat Hans’ plea, overall our educational systems need shared vision and meaningful data. California just shamefully
lags the rest of the nation in terms of our ability to track students through the educational
system and make any sense out of what’s working, what’s not working, so we’re making policy
by anecdote these days, rather than using the evidence that the rest of the nation is doing. Moving forward, we need to establish ambitious outcome and equity goals, and we have to put in place the kind of cross-system longitudinal
data systems we need to track. – [Marc] Thank you, Barbara. Dr. Salazar? – Good afternoon, or good
morning I believe still? Assemblymembers, delighted
to be with you here today. Just again by way of introduction, Alma Salazar, senior vice president for the Center for Education
Excellence and Talent Development at the LA Area Chamber of Commerce. I have the privilege of
working for an organization that represents 1,600 member
companies in the LA Basin. I definitely want to echo
many of the sentiments, remarks made by the prior
panel and by Barbara. As a business organization, and I would say largely an intermediary, I have the good fortune
of being trilingual. I speak business,
education, and workforce. That is definitely an acquired skillset, but nonetheless, incredibly
needed in this day and age, particularly as we try to
address many of these issues that have been brought forth today. I first want to set a context, and I think I want to point to some of the things that we’ve done well, particularly over the last
several years in California. Because I have an opportunity to interface with many of these employers,
I think what Nicole said, and our partners from IBM
and Kaiser reiterated, Assemblymember Medina,
to your question earlier, the absolute need to ensure
that our young adults, when they leave our educational
system, irrespective of whether they choose a
middle-skill occupation or whether they choose a four-year degree, our employers have been
very clear from the onset that it is both the combination
of strong academic skills as well as strong career
technical education skills that is really providing
a well-rounded workforce. I subscribe to the notion that the two are not mutually exclusive. If you choose a liberal arts degree, even within your chosen career profession, you’re going to need those
applied skills to be successful. I will point to specifically
two areas where I’ve seen, not only embracing that notion, but also more importantly,
one thing that I would implore the committee to really think
deeply about, is recognizing that if we’re really going
to address these issues, particularly around issues of equity, that we really need to look holistically at the P-20 continuum. It is the interdependence
between early ed, K-12, higher ed, workforce development that is absolutely paramount if we are really going
to make any headway. I say this in part because I believe that, I should acknowledge I’m a State Workforce
Development Board member. I was very involved in the development of our state-wide strategic plan. I think what gave me solace in recognizing that as we try to address many of the workforce’s
issues within our system, that I think for the first time, at least in my short career, we did see the Department of Education,
the community colleges, the Workforce Development Boards, many of our public social service systems, corrections, all working together to try to address some of
these workforce issues, particularly around our
most vulnerable populations. Secondly, I also have
the good fortune to work with California Ford and its
California Economic Summit focused around ensuring that
we have one million more individuals with
industry-valued credentials. That convening will happen
over the next two days, but really focused around how do we ensure that we’re doing more within
and across our systems to begin to address these issues. I would implore that, as we look at the Master
Plan for California, that we take into consideration its interdependence to these other systems and how it will interplay and not create potentially
superficial barriers that create stumbling blocks
for many of our young adults. I also want to give kudos to the California Community Colleges System, who I think has been receptive to, and through the Strong
Workforce initiative, has really begun to respond
to the needs of employers and to be much more focused around how do we become much more demand driven. I want to point to a
regional best practice, getting back to the
regional best practices, around where we’re starting to see some of that good work
beginning to happen. Earlier this year, the LA Chamber, in partnership with the LA
Economic Development Corporation, the Southern California
Leadership Council, the Center for Education Excellence, and the 19 LA community colleges launched what’s called the Center
for a Competitive Workforce. The whole notion of the Center
for a Competitive Workforce is really focused around how
do we begin to put together the architecture system to really have a continuous feedback loop
between our community colleges and our business and industry partners so that we are being much more intentional about meeting business and industry needs. The focus of the Center is around three core pillars of work. The first is looking specifically
at research and analysis. While I think many of us have seen, in several different iterations, what the demand side of
our regional economies, what is driving labor needs in our region. Often times what we don’t know is: What’s the supply side look like? How is it that our community colleges, in this particular instance, and I’ll elaborate that in a moment, is able to produce the labor force that our employers are seeking? And how are we not only ensuring and strengthening that alignment, but also being able to be clear about where those gaps exist? The Center, just in the last few weeks, released its first report illustrating what the top 20 occupations
are in the LA Basin, coupled with how our
colleges are providing that supply side for our employers. The second pillar of work
will focus specifically on the formation and engagement
of six industry councils. These are the six industries that are in high demand in the LA region, ranging from health services,
information technology, aerospace, bioscience,
advanced transportation, entertainment and digital media arts, and I always forget one, it’ll come to me. So there’s six councils that will bring business and industry leaders together to provide that continuous feedback loop that will guide the community colleges, not only in validating this industry data, but also being able to get
to competencies and skills that are required within
these occupations, as well as help guide curriculum models that then the community
colleges can use moving forward. The third last pillar of work is really focused around
how do we systematize and begin to provide those
business industry partnerships so that the colleges
themselves are being able to interface directly with our employers to provide those work-based
learning opportunities, internships, things that are going to help bring learning to life
for our young adults. I did not get to my recommendations, but I’ll go ahead and pause there. (laughing) – Thank you.
– You’re welcome. – We’ll prompt you during Q&A. I’d like to introduce Josue Garcia. Jeremy Smith from the
State Building Trades was scheduled to be here today and reached out yesterday
to say he was ill. So at about 4:30 yesterday
afternoon I called Josue and said hey, what are you
up to tomorrow morning? So thank you for filling in in a pinch. I would love to hear about
what’s happening on the ground with some of your members,
and what’s working out well. – [Josue] Sure. – Yeah, go ahead. – Well, good morning everyone. You explained the reasons why I was late, I had to move my schedule around. Thank you very much for
having me, by the way. It’s always a pleasure to
talk about construction and opportunities in construction. My name is Josue Garcia, I am the CEO for the Building and
Construction Trades Council. That is nothing more than
26 construction unions. I cover Santa Clara and
San Benito counties. We have over 3,000
members that I represent. I started my career as a
roofer, and now I’m the CEO. So when people ask me if
I started at the bottom, I go no, I started at the top as a roofer. (audience laughing) That’s how I started, right at the top. That’s how you do it. When I was invited, and
I knew about the meeting, when I was invited and I read
the title higher education, most people don’t think that in construction we are highly educated. Not only educated, but highly trained. We just finished this
building I think a year, or maybe a little bit
longer than a year ago. If you walk around, look at the details, it’s a beautiful building. Obviously, you don’t see
the behind the scenes, or behind that sheet rock, we
have to put things together in a very organized way, very technical. We’ve been training for
generations, for decades. Just in Santa Clara
County, we spend over 15, one five, $15 million a year training our certified men and women in the construction industry. That’s money that comes from us. That’s money that doesn’t come
from any government agency. That’s our money that we keep
reusing to retrain ourselves. We get entry level people, men and women, and then we bring them through
the apprenticeship program. We go to school for five
years, two nights a week. And we don’t mess around, if
you miss one night, you’re out, because we have to be very
professional about it. We train all the way from
how to empty garbage cans, ’cause people has to learn how to do that and there’s nothing wrong with it, all the way to reading blueprints, CAD programs with computers,
and how to manage projects, how to do estimates, how to
do many different things. In the industry, more and more we are seeing the need for more training. We do the technical
training, using the tools, we do that, as I explained. We have training centers
throughout the state actually. We see this more and more
that we need more training in between management and labor. ‘Cause we have the construction workers, blue collar workers, then
you have the management, the architects and the
engineers with white collar. We think that, at least in construction, maybe in more industries, you need to have a lighter shade of blue
and a darker shade of white because of technology, we are using technology more and more. Then, of course, we do the
training with the tools and how to measure and all those things, but we also need other technical skills. To learn those skills,
right now we are partnering with the three colleges in my area: Foothill-De Anza College
District, San Jose-Evergreen, and West Valley Mission College District. They are working on what they called, and we requested, stackable credentials. Because we go to school for five years, and by the way, every
time we go to school, we are earning college
credits at the same time. Because we go to school for five years, I cannot go to a journey-level person and say congratulations, you
just finished five years. Can you take another four years? The answer will be no,
thank you very much. Now I’m starting to have a
family, and all these things. We are thinking about, stackable credentials can
be three months, six months. Then they can take them as they
have time and stack them up, and at some point have a college degree, a university degree. So we are doing that. We, in the building trades,
have a non-profit arm that is in charge of getting
construction into education, all the way from K-12 and colleges, and then bringing education
into the industry. We go to the classrooms and teachers and school personnel camps
through the construction industry so they can learn what
we do and how we do it. We are learning from each other. I think that’s been very successful. Just to give you an idea, in the summertime we hire paid internships for high school students, and they make more than the minimum wage. One thing that I have
learned from the students, some of the students want
the money to go to the mall and go to the movies, and buy an iPhone. I just threw out a commercial there. (audience laughing) I’m sponsored by, I will not say the name. (audience laughing) But some students actually want the money to help mom and dad with food or rent. I learned that throughout
managing these programs and I go that’s very cool. Just to finish up my presentation here, I’ll share a story from a mom that came to me one time when
we had a hands-on career fair. She said, “Mr. Garcia, are
you the person in charge?” I go yeah, how can I help? She said, “Well, I have two kids. “I have this kid right here with glasses “and he loves school,
homework, he just loves school. “And I have that little kid having fun “with the sparks off a grinder.” She said, “I was concerned what his, “I know he’s gonna have a
college degree and be successful, “but what is this other kid going to do?” She said, “Now I know
what he’s going to do.” You can imagine how my parents felt when I told them I wanna be a roofer. Now that they see me as a CEO, they say, “You made the right choice.” (audience laughing) I was talking to a group
of 300 parents and kids at Alum Rock School District,
I was talking to the kids, and I told them, listen, you have to do everything
mom and dad tell you to do. And the parents were, “Yeah!” If mom and dad tell you
to pick up your shirt, you pick up your shirt. If you have to take the garbage
out, you take the garbage. All these things, and I
became the parents’ hero. Oh man, finally, Josue for governor. Yeah, for president. (audience laughing) Then I said, listen to them except when it comes to your future, do what you think you
are called to do for. If your destiny is construction,
go for construction ’cause it’s very rewarding. Thank you. – Thank you Josue. (audience applauding) I feel fortunate to have been here to hear the fifth candidate for governor of the state of California, and we heard it here this morning. – Yes.
– At San Jose State. – I’ll use it to announce my candidacy. I’m raising money starting right now. (audience laughing) – And there’s a lot to be
said for starting at the top. But seriously, I think it
points out the diverse needs, again, of the state of California and how we need to train all, all our students, all our young people, because we need them all, at every level. Just one quick question to Barbara. I think as we look at the completion rate in community colleges and CSU, big stumbling blocks for college kids. The legislation that we just passed at both CSU and community
college, your comments? Getting rid of–
– Mandatory remedial? – Yeah, getting rid of remediation for CSU and allowing community colleges to do more than just one test to
determine their placement. – We were so down with that. (audience laughing) I meant to say, but was speeding to keep it to my seven minutes, a couple of things about, I pointed out a lot of the problems. I want to echo what you just heard about the kind of
progress that’s been made. 10 years ago, when the EDGE
Coalition started pounding away about remediation, we really felt like a voice was necessary here. That’s been a huge change. Clearly in the capital now, people understand that
we have a real problem and are pretty savvy about
what the solutions are, which I think is exciting. The same things in terms of career ed. I was saying that we, as a
state, have undervalued it. Whenever the Student
Success Task Force was, when was that, five years ago? – 2008. – Two major topics were
remarkably not taken up, one was remediation and the
second one was career tech, in any way. But as you all know, that was remedied. Four members of the EDGE
Coalition, including me, sat on the Board of
Governors CTE Task Force, and Strong Workforce Task Force, right. The Chancellor’s Office has been, for the last eight years or
whatever, for a long time, really pounding away on
improving our offerings in career tech, on lifting its profile up. Since those task force recommendations, the chancellor has obviously
made a really serious effort to begin the implementation
of some of them. Some of them are more complicated
than others, as you know. The plea on our part is not to say that nothing good is going on, but to say we’re on a roll. 10 years ago, when I said we started talking about remediation, for example, the fact of the matter was that
we didn’t know what worked. We knew we had a real problem, but we, the royal we,
all across the country, weren’t sure what the most
effective solutions are. And we’re still refining it
more and more, of course. But on many of these fronts,
we’re getting a lot smarter. I think that we need to
just keep on top of it, and as Hans said, frankly
just to repeat myself, we need the data. Through the data, we really
are able to figure out which of these interventions
are more or less effective, because otherwise we really
are just making up policy based on whoever tells the best story. – Alma, I want to give you the opportunity to hit on some of the other points that you wanted to touch on. – Sure, and many of which have
already been mentioned today, but I definitely think are worthy of being even further accentuated. I think the Hans point, to
the degree that we are able to develop or create a
state-level coordinating entity. I would say, in part also to support many of the regional efforts
that are currently occurring and have already begun to be implemented through the Workforce
Development Strategic Plan, through the Community
College Strong Workforce. I think recognizing that there’s a lot of good regional work happening, and how do we continue to
double down on it and support it so that it is not only bringing business and industry to the table, as my colleagues from the
prior panel referenced, but it is working across systems to begin to address these issues. I think also exploring ways in which we can support investments
in these efforts, which not only incentivize
coordination and collaboration, but also maybe exploring
investments in sector partnerships where we are being much
more industry-driven. We can’t emphasize enough the need for a longitudinal data system, whether that be at the
state, or at the very least, ways in which we could
again support the work that’s happening at the regional level. Then I would make one last pitch, and I think my colleagues again from the prior panel touched upon this, but somehow when we ask
employers repeatedly what is it that they seek, it always comes back to the same thing, foundational skills, essential skills. I think we take for granted that somehow that is organically taught. I would ask that we really look at ways in which we are assessing how young adults are mastering those competencies and how they’re able to
demonstrate those competencies, ’cause irrespective of
occupation, industry, it is absolutely paramount
to their success. – Thank you. Josue, a quick question for you. We have a housing crisis in California. The state has passed a series of bills that begin trying to address it, as well as transportation infrastructure. We’re going to be doing a lot of building over the next couple of decades. What do you see in terms of, you mentioned that you
oversee 30,000 employees, is that enough? Do we need more to meet
the needs that we have? And are there some challenges there? – Yes, the answer is no, we
don’t have enough people. We need more for sure. Just in Santa Clara County, you see the buildings going up. High tech companies
have become developers, so that adds more to the workload. We don’t have enough, and not
only construction workers. We need more construction workers, but we also need the middle management that I mentioned earlier. What I hear from contractors
and from developers, they call me, “Josue, I need a contractor “to do this project.” So I call contractors, can
you give this person a bid? And they said, “No, ’cause
I don’t have workers.” I can provide the workers,
I can train the workers. They said, “No, I’m talking
about the middle management.” That’s why we came up with the
idea of stackable credentials so we can bring that journey-level person that we trained to the second level, because if we don’t have
the middle management, even if we have the workers,
if the funding is there, nobody’s gonna manage this project. Projects don’t come out of the ground. So yeah, anything that we can do to help the middle management part. – [Marc] I appreciate that. Yes, please? – One last plea, I said
this in my testimony, but I would really be thrilled if this committee would
see within its purview adult education as well as what we traditionally think
of as higher education. Because adult education really is adult, it’s post-secondary, and it’s been forever kind of an orphan in our system, I think. Whether we place it with
the community colleges, it’s not their core mission. We put it in the K-12, it’s
not their core mission. I do think other states,
not lots of other states, but other states are doing
a better job than we are in terms of integrating it, and it is a critical pathway
in for so many Californians. It has a complex set of missions itself. Anyway, I urge you guys to
keep it in your, you know? As part of your work. – [Marc] That’s a great point. – If I can add, any help
that anybody can give us in getting into high schools so we can start talking
to kids at an earlier age. We are fighting the parent mentality that construction is not
a good career, but it is. – Yeah, thank you very much. Thank you to everybody on the third panel. (audience applauding) Now is the opportunity for public comment, and I know that some of my colleagues, at least one of my colleagues has to leave to catch a flight, so let me just say now
thank you both so much for coming from Riverside,
for coming from Stockton to participate in today’s panel. My colleagues who were
earlier and had to run off to other obligations,
but thank you very much for taking the time to be
on the Select Committee and for taking it so seriously. Thank you.
– Thank you. – We’ve allotted 15
minutes for public comment. I will stay until everyone is done, but if people can keep their comments as brief as possible, that would be great ’cause we wanna hear from everybody. Also, please feel free to reach out to my legislative director, Ellen Green, who is the point person for my Select Committee
on the Master Plan. If you send Ellen an email,
she can add you to the list so you’re kept in the loop on the progress that we’re making and on future hearings. We’re happy to hear from you and happy to discuss our efforts. We have a sign-in sheet, so we’re gonna go by the
sign-in sheet that I have, and first up is Dr. Michael Kirst, who’s a Stanford University
professor emeritus of education, and also president of the California State
Board of Education. Dr. Kirst, thanks for joining us today. – Thank you for having me. I’m appearing as my professorial position at Stanford University,
where I just completed a book called Higher Education
and the Silicon Valley: Connected But Conflicted. This is a very deep study, since 1970, of the relationship between
the changing economy in the entire seven county Bay Area and the colleges and the institutions. What we see here is a very rapid turnover, particularly for adults, and I want to reinforce
Barbara’s comments about this. The economy changes so quickly that there’s so much
need for adult education, and the Master Plan never really thought about this in any depth, and I think you’re gonna have
to face that and study that. The second point that has
not come up at all today, we found in the seven county Bay Area 350 institutions of
post-secondary education. I’d call them entities perhaps. We included truck driver schools, beauty colleges, but many of them that serve the technical area. Of those 350 institutions in the Bay Area, 30 are public schools. That leaves 320 private
institutions out there. Only 1/3 of the institutions
that are operating out there, mostly in the adult education space, are in the federal database called IPEDS. A lot of them are just
springing up everywhere. That’s because the supply
of education for adults in the seven county Bay Area
does not equal the demand, and there’s all these
private institutions, for profit and non-profit,
filling in behind them. I think what you need
to do is think about, we probably can’t afford
to double the space of San Jose State or
the community colleges. We need to think about then how you’re going to
leverage and understand this non-public higher education sector heavily serving adults between 25 and 55, how you’re going to include
that in the Master Plan and make up for the thinking that is not in the current
Master Plan about this area. Thank you. – Thank you very much, and thank you for submitting comments also in writing ahead of
time that we all received. They’re in our packets. Judy Miner, chancellor of the Foothill-De Anza
Community College District. Hi Judy, thanks for joining us. – Thank you so much for
holding this hearing. You saw a slide that showed 16 states that offer more degrees than California. They are among the 23
states in the country that authorize their community colleges to offer baccalaureate degrees. I would hope that in the long term, as you’re developing the Master Plan, you think about the appropriate expansion of the community college role in career technical education programs that are not otherwise offered by any of our public
entities in California. And in the short term, I would hope that you would also consider supporting the legislation that Jerry
Hill will reintroduce in the upcoming session for us to extend the sunset date for the current pilot and to expand the pilot
in community colleges. You may recall that one of
the slides that Hans showed indicated, even with the efforts underway to increase the number of
baccalaureates to be awarded, we’re probably gonna be looking at nearly 900,000
baccalaureates as a shortfall. The 2.1 million students in the California community colleges can certainly be an essential group to contribute to closing that gap. Thank you very much. – Thank you. Next we have Maureen O’Connor, president of Palo Alto University. – Thank you very much
for this opportunity. I really appreciate being here. The private non-profit
universities represent about 25% of all undergraduates and about 52% of our graduate
students in the state. We please want to be included, we’re delighted to have been included. In the last 12 years at
Palo Alto University, which is a specialized,
unique, niche university where we specialize in psychology and counseling and mental health, in all of the discussions
you’ve had today, if the workers are not mentally healthy, mental health is not addressed, behavioral health is not addressed, then none of the work
that you do will succeed. We feel that we fill a
very, very important niche. Most of our students are
coming from California and are staying in California, so we’re just delighted to be a part of it and please keep our sector
in mind as you do your work. Thank you. – Absolutely, thank you very much. David Palter, from the Silicon
Valley Leadership Group. – Chair Berman, thank you
for holding this hearing here at Silicon Valley,
and to President Papazian and the San Jose State University
students that are here, thank you for hosting us. The Silicon Valley Leadership Group and its 400 member companies is committed to expanding
economic opportunity and to diversifying the STEM
pipeline in Silicon Valley. In keeping with these goals
and what we’ve learned today, we hope that this committee will consider the following legislative options to better align industry
and higher education. First, encourage curricula coordination within and between the three tiers of our higher education system so that students moving
between these institutions can follow clearly articulated educational and training pathways. Second, and this sort of speaks to the poll of HR professionals that Nicole mentioned
about applied skills, but we’d encourage you to
address the institutionalized, but increasingly anachronistic divide between academic and career
technical education divisions, integrate academic and CTE classes into CC and CSU departments, and encourage applied learning as a foundation aspect of all curriculum. Last, and of equal importance to these changes on the higher ed side, is that the committee
considers incentivizing employer engagement with schools, shifting industry norms
from simply, for example, hosting interns in their third
year at a four year school to working closely with
students throughout the year and at every post-secondary level through apprenticeships, dual training, or similar work-based learning. Again, thank you so much
for your willingness to engage in these issues, and for launching this much needed forum. – Thank you very much, David. Next up we have Isaiah Avila-De La Cruz, who’s a student, I don’t know if it’s here at San Jose State or at another school, but I hope we’ll find out. – One second. California State University East Bay. – [Marc] There we go, all right. – Just down the street. One in 10, one in five. Would you like to know the effects of an ineffective Master Plan? Like most, I worked this morning. Unlike most, I started at 2:00 a.m. Like most, I’m a student. Unlike most, I have four jobs. Like most, I commute. Unlike most, I had to commute this morning from Modesto here to San
Jose just to make it, ’cause this is how
important this means to me. Four jobs, four classes, straight As. As a student parent, my
priority is my daughter. I stay focused because of her. However, it is increasingly tough to remain focused on
both herself and myself when we have a growing student burden. That student burden is called debt. Let’s talk about priorities for debt. Priorities in California has seemed kinda reside along the
prison-industrial complex. We’ve seen 23 prisons spawned since 1980, as opposed to only one UC
during that same time period. Where is California’s priorities? We’ve seen a shift of the
state away from students and more towards things like prison. One in 10, one in five, I
mentioned that number earlier. One in 10 students in the
CSU system are homeless. One in five students don’t
have enough food to eat, including myself. As a matter of fact, on my
campus we created a food pantry to help lessen the effects that
this growing student burden has had on our population. As you see, we have grave consequences when we don’t prioritize our students. It brings up an important moral question. This question is, how moral is it to let our students
starve, our future starve, when our state is so obese in its wealth? Not only does it make sense
to not let students starve, but it makes cents, and
yes, I’m talking dollars. Our studies have shown that for every $1 that we invest into the CSU, we receive $5 back in taxpayer money. That’s a five to one ratio. Some of you may invest in the room, I do. I’m no Warren Buffet, but five to one return is pretty awesome. So I have a question:
what excuse do we have not to invest in our future? Not to invest in our workforce? Not to invest in the
intelligence of our students? – [Marc] If you could just wrap it up, I’d very much appreciate it, thank you. – Let’s promote education,
not allow starvation. The Master Plan has been dead,
let’s bring it back to life. Free higher education for all, thank you. – Thank you, Isaiah. (audience applauding) And let me briefly take
the opportunity to say, those were some very good points. We’re gonna be having one
whole hearing on student needs, and a lot of the issues
that you brought up are gonna be discussed there. We’ll make sure, if we get
your information, that you know when we’re gonna be having
that hearing and where. Then the last hearing’s gonna be talking about budgetary issues, including the cost of higher education. Just ’cause we didn’t talk
about those issues today, doesn’t mean that we won’t be, because those are very important issues that we’ll be addressing as a
part of this Select Committee, so thank you for bringing those up. Erica Diaz, also a student. – Hello, my name’s Erica Diaz. I am a student here at
SJSU, I’m a second-year. Sorry, this is my first time talking. – [Marc] Thank you for coming. – Much of this discussion is focusing on building the workforce
beyond graduation, however, we’re not seeming to focus on one of the roots of the issue, which is approaching this
from a student debt lens. The reality is that
students are too focused on paying off their student
debt after graduation. We need to get back to the Master Plan, and not continue to normalize
student debt and high tuition. Last year it was my first year in college and I was receiving the maximum
financial aid I can get, however I still had to
take out two student loans and my parents couldn’t help me, because they were making
under 12,000 a year. That pretty much stressed me out a lot, and that was just my
first year in college. I was still trying to figure out all the things I had to do. I’m just here today to express my concerns and my support for the Master Plan, specifically in regards
to free higher education, because I feel once we
stop really worrying about paying off our tuition, we can start focusing on
building our career skills, because that will allow
us to be less focused on other things we
shouldn’t be stressed about. I’m actually a representative
of SQE here on campus and we’re having a
student speak-out outside after this whole event. You are all invited to
come, and thank you. – Thank you, Erica. (audience applauding) Next up we have Thomas Vu from AICCU, and I do not know what that stands for. I probably should’ve… – No worries, I’ll clarify that. Good afternoon chairman and members. Good morning, good afternoon. My name’s Thomas Vu and
I’m with the Association of Independent California
Colleges and Universities. We are the organizational voice for 78 private non-profit colleges and universities in the state. Our president, Kristen Soares, testified before the first committee
hearing a couple months ago. As discussions around
the Master Plan continue, we ask that you keep in mind that the independent
higher education sector has long been a partner to the state, especially around issues of
access for low-income students and in workforce development. We play a key role in
providing capacity and access, both locally and state-wide. This is particularly important as the UC and the CSU continue to have issues of overcapacity at their institutions, and the state continues to
have a shortage of workers in key fields, as was mentioned, in education, healthcare, and STEM. Together, our institutions educate over 187,000 undergraduate students, or about 22% of all
undergraduates in the state, as President O’Connor mentioned, and over 152,000 graduate students, making the sector the leader in producing the state’s
advanced workforce. I just wanted to hit on one last point, the topics of access
and workforce are tied. As mentioned by California
Competes and PPIC, we need to improve access for the state to be able to reach its goals
in workforce development. The sector educates over
27,000 Cal Grant students, and these are students
from low-income families. The state needs to produce every
single baccalaureate degree that it can get, so it behooves the state to invest in these students and to help them attend a
private non-profit institution, especially as the public institutions are having capacity issues. Thank you. – Thank you very much, Thomas. Next up we have Elena, I think it’s Yick? From the League of Women
Voters of California. – Thank you, and good morning. My name is Eleanor Yick
and I’m here representing the League of Women Voters of California. I hope to make you aware,
and members of the audience, that the League recently
completed a three year study of public higher education in California. As chair of that 15 member committee, which represented all geographic
segments of our state, I took the liberty of making a hard copy for each member of the commission up here and gave them to Ellen so
she could distribute them. It was really thrilling
to sit here this morning and hear so many of the issues that we addressed in our study are being represented
or being spoken about by all of our speakers this morning. Our study addressed, certainly the demographics of California and how different it is
today than it was in 1960. We also addressed the
issues of equity and access, funding and affordability, preparedness, opportunities, and barriers
to student success. Lastly, the study does support the idea of a coordinating body to overlook our higher education system. And as someone who was in public education for 42 plus years, I do have this dream that eventually here in this state we will look at our education
system as one system, preschool through 16. Thank you. – Thank you, Eleanor. Next up we have Katherine Abriam-Yago, and I definitely got that wrong, from the faculty here at
San Jose State University. – Hi, my name is Kathy Abriam-Yago. I’m a faculty member
here at San Jose State. I’m also the former director
of the School of Nursing. I have taught here for over 32 years, so I believe in public education. I’m committed to the students and to see the changes
have been wonderful. What I wanna say here is that, there is evidence that
shows that hospitals and institutions that provide
care for our communities, those hospitals and institutions
have better outcomes because of baccalaureate prepared nurses. My concern is how can we provide a streamline of transfer and education from our community college,
our associate degree nurses, to the baccalaureate program? Currently right now, we have a project with our community college, Evergreen, where in their last year as students in their nursing program, they can come and take some of the courses so when they’re finished
with their associate degree, they come directly into
our baccalaureate program. It’s such a wonderful class to have students from these programs. There is a trend right now
that baccalaureate nurses are the type of nurses that our institutions would like to hire. For some of our associate degree students, they may not be hired right away, or if they are hired, the
institutions will say, “You need to go back and get
your baccalaureate degree “within one or two years.” That’s the trend right now
for that to continue that. The opportunities also for those in these positions for leadership, diverse leadership in these
institutions are in need. That’s important. My last comment is thank you very much. Our school was involved with a pilot study for the doctorate nursing
practice the past five years. We are making changes,
we’re delivering healthcare in different models, and I thank you. The bottom line is what
a commitment you have, because it’s gonna be so important to do what’s good for
the state of California and our diverse community, so
thank you for your service. – Thank you very much, Kathy,
really appreciate that. We’ve got about 10 more
folks we’d like to speak. The next up is Lillian Taiz from the California Faculty Association. – [Lillian] That’s Taiz, like taser. – Excuse me, Taiz. – Hi, my name’s Lillian Taiz and I’m the political action chair for the California Faculty Association, and a now retired faculty member from California State
University Los Angeles. We’ve been hearing a lot today about the fact that we’re not going to have sufficient folks
with bachelor’s degrees. What’s so ironic is that
while we’re falling short, we are turning away tens of
thousands of qualified students. That’s just not a good fit. These trends are persisting because we’re not doing a good job creating access to college and making sure that anyone who is qualified
can actually get in. Think about it, right now we’re going to be short
about 100,000 teachers. We’ve got a teacher crisis right now. Where do folks get their
teaching credentials? They get them from the CSU. But all the other kinds of jobs, and I’m sort of glad
to hear the discussion about STEM and liberal arts, because I’d like to see us
get our heads wrapped around the idea of STEAM, not STEM. That includes the liberal arts and all of the other things that help us really make a good job
of running the world. The major thing that I wanna point out is that broad access
to the CSU really has, for generations, been our
state’s secret weapon. This is the thing that makes
the economy work so well. But over the last 30 years, the student body in the CSU has changed. We’ve done a paper
called Equity Interrupted that has demonstrated since 1985, our student body has gotten browner, and that has happened at the same time that we have not been funding it at the same level that we were years ago. I think we have to get our
heads wrapped around that, and what it’s going to mean
to build this workforce for the future with this student body that’s coming through right now. We deeply believe at CSA that higher education meets
the needs of the common good, of businesses, of our society, of our body politic and so on. And in our judgment, now is the moment where we should really be thinking of free public higher education. That is going to help
us overcome the hurdle that is keeping all those
wonderful minds and bodies out of our institutions, and then out of our workforces. We would be delighted to
work with any legislate or any business or any other coalition that is interested in meeting that goal. – Thank you very much.
– Thank you. – Appreciate it.
– And I do still have a bill alive that is a 1% millionaire tax to provide free higher education for the state of California. – Next up is Father Michael Engh, the president of Santa Clara University. – Thank you very much for the invitation. Thank all of you for
serving on this commission. We recognize how important
this committee is. I come from Santa Clara University, one of the three oldest institutions of higher education in
the state of California, along with Notre Dame de Namur and from the University of the Pacific. The three of us started higher education in the state of California
within the first six months that California was a state. So we’ve been involved in higher education from the very beginning of
the state of California. We want to keep reminding the committee and those who testified that
there are four components to the Master Plan for California. The private not-for-profit
sector is continually overlooked, and I wanna make sure that we get, again, emphasize that
we are participating. As was noted earlier, we are educating 189,000
undergraduates at present, at very little cost to the state. For every dollar we get from
the state in Cal Grants, at Santa Clara we put $3.50
more in financial aid, and that’s just in one institution. You multiply that times
the other 78 institutions of the state, and yet we
get very little recognition for our participation in the Master Plan. I’m here to put in a
plug for the Master Plan, to include then the private higher ed. We are working to increase access, we are working to provide
an educated workforce. One example, at Santa Clara we’re building a new STEM facility. $275 million for a new STEM facility to benefit the Silicon Valley, and we get zero from the
state of California, nada. I just wanted to make a little reminder that we are doing our part to prepare this educated workforce. Thank you very much. – Absolutely, thank you, Father Engh. We’re very happy that President Soares from AICCU participated
in the first hearing, and we’ll definitely keep
that conversation going. Next up, I’d like to
introduce Judith Greig from Notre Dame de Namur
University, thank you. – As Father Engh said, Notre
Dame de Namur University is one of the oldest institutions
in California as well. The thing that I’d like
to call to your attention about the institution is,
contrary to the perception that private non-profit
higher education is elite, some of the institutions really are not. Let me tell you about our population. Our current freshman class,
84% are from California. 56% of them receive Pell Grants. 45% of them receive Cal Grants. 50% of them are Latino or Latina. I don’t yet have the first
generation statistics, but they’re between 60 and 70%
over the last several years. For the last couple decades, NDNU has had graduation rates
for Latino and Latina students equivalent to those of our white students, so the 10 year average for
six year graduation rate for our students is 56% for all students, and the CSU’s at 48%. We’re not happy with 56%, we’re
continuing to work on that, but we’re proud of the work we do. We work on workforce issues. 43% of the teacher credential candidates in the state of California come through the private institutions. Of course, the CSU is huge, but the independent sector is
also very important as well. We’ve been working on adult education, non-traditional students. We had one of the early
degree completion programs in California started in 1988. I’m sorry that Member Eggman left. We are working with the city of Tracy to try and address the workforce
needs they have out there. I just end with a reminder about the words that Lande Ajose said about the cycle, better education means better jobs means stronger communities and the whole cycle just continues. Thank you so much to
you and the committee. Thank you so much for sticking around and listening to all
of this public comment, but we appreciate your public service. And thanks to San Jose
State for hosting us. – Absolutely, and thank you for sticking around for the whole hearing. I appreciate that. Next up we have Kim
Geron from Transfer APASS plus the California Faculty Association. – Hi, good afternoon. My name’s Kim Geron, I
teach at Cal State East Bay. I’ve been there since 1999. I’m gonna give a short
faculty perspective. I’m a principal investigator for what’s called the Transfer APASS, or Asian Pacific American
Student Success program. It’s a Department of Education
funded grant program, and our focus is on
Asian Pacific Islanders who transfer from the community
colleges into the CSU. We really focus on Southeast Asia and Pacific Islander students. I bring them up because
the myth is that Asians are generally doing well
in higher education, and while that surely true for a segment, there’s another segment that has some of the lowest graduation rates, so our grant really focuses on that. Those students are very
similar to many other students. 60% of our student at Cal State East Bay are transfer students. Most of them are first
generation immigrants, low SES. To get that group of
students graduated on-time, and career-ready as people
have been talking about, since that’s the focus,
it takes resources. We don’t feel like we
have enough resources. Fortunately, this Department
of Ed grant has us targeting getting students prepared so that they can go into the workforce or go onto careers in
teaching and things like that, but this is outside, if you will, the CSU-funded grant program. My observation is we really
have to address this issue of how do we fully fund the CSU and the UCs and higher education. If we can address that as a state, I think we will go a long
way towards addressing some of the challenges that
others have talked about about increasing our graduation rates. It’s going to take obviously this village and we do a small piece of that. I thank you for your service and thank all the other members of the legislature for your work, but we really have to see
this as an ongoing project, even after the committee
finishes its hearings. Thanks a lot. – Absolutely, thank you, Kim. Funding will be the topic
of the fifth hearing that we’ll have back in
Sacramento middle of next year. I missed a page earlier, so now we have 10 more
people who wanna speak. Rock Pfotenhauer, from the California Community
College Chancellor’s Office? Was I close? – Great job.
– All right. – Thank you, Rock Pfotenhauer. I chair the Bay Area
Community College Consortium and I’m representing the
Chancellor’s Office today. – [Marc] Thank you. – On behalf of the California
community colleges, I want to thank the committee
for this exploration into the role of the Master Plan, and ensuring that California
is meeting our workforce needs. Our 114 colleges represent
the largest system of higher education in the nation, serving more than 2.1 million students. Community college students represent 2/3 of California’s undergraduate students, and 1/10 of the nation’s
undergraduate population. Nearly 40% of the
community college students are first in their
family to go to college. We’re the primary workforce
provider in the state. Our colleges train 70%
of the state’s nurses, 80% of our firefighters,
law enforcement personnel, and emergency medical technicians. Given the enormity and
complexity of our system, we believe that our performance has profound state-wide
and national implications. Chancellor Oakley recently
issued a clear and urgent message calling for the community
colleges to step up the pace of improvement to better serve students, and to meet California’s
future workforce needs. Specifically, the vision
for success calls for one, increasing by at least 20% annually the number of students
earning an associate degree, a credential certificate,
or a specific skillset, and two, increasing the number of students in career education programs who secure jobs in their
field of study by 15%. In recent years, the legislature has taken important steps
to support our efforts. The 2017-18 budget included
a one-time allocation of 150 million to support
the state-wide implementation of the Guided Pathways framework. This framework will help colleges to redesign academic and
course taking roadmaps for students seeking credentials,
degrees, and transfer. The state budget also provided
200 million for 2016-17, and for 2017-18, 248 million. This is for the Strong Workforce program. This initiative aims to boost
the number of skilled workers produced by the community college system, will help fund colleges to expand and strengthen our CTE programs, increase faculty, improve curriculum, and increase regional coordination across colleges, businesses,
and other groups. Both funding sources
will help our colleges meet the 2022 deadline for
completion of the vision goals. Thank you Chairman
Burman for your efforts, and thank you for staying so long. – Thank you very much,
really appreciate it. Next up we have Yvette Schopp from the Students for Quality Education. – Hi, sorry, I’m also holding my poster for outside later today. I’m one of the students
that is a little older, but I’ve also got caught in what I call the trap of the community colleges, simply because I went through
the community college system and not only was I constantly being told by the advisors there
that I had another class, I had another class, until
I just went to my local CSU and said what do I have left? They’re like, “You could have
transferred like a year ago.” Then that being said, once I
was finally ready to transfer, I was constantly being told, “Oh, there’s a year hold on enrollment. “Oh, we won’t enroll this semester.” I think just having a system in place where we are allowing
these transfer students to have an easier pathway
into the CSU system. Now being a CSU student and
being on my final semester, I’ve really been able
to see how my college has really been affected by
the constant tuition hikes. I go to Stanislaus State in Turlock. We started a food pantry,
it’s about a year now. We started with about 75 students a month. Today we’re at over 200 students a month. All we keep hearing is that we don’t have enough to
supply the food pantry. That being said, the food pantry is filled with only canned goods,
nothing nutritious or healthy, and nothing is really
being done to address that. I think there’s a lot of
issues within the CSU system that also need to be addressed, as well as making a free higher education within the Master Plan. Thank you. – Thank you, Yvette. (audience applauding) Next up we have Rigel Robinson from the UC Student association. – Pronounced it correctly,
thank you so much. Hi, good afternoon, my
name is Rigel Robinson. Just drove down with a handful of other students from UC Berkeley, here on behalf of the
UC Student Association. We’re disappointed that so little of the rest of the hearing committee could be here for public remarks, but we’re honored and flattered that you’re still hanging out with us. We’re here to reinforce
this idea of access, and while we know there’ll
be additional hearings on student needs and finances, et cetera, we wanna reinforce the conversation about how integral student-basing needs and conversations of access
at our public universities are to how well California
higher education can meet workforce needs. Because it seems like too often we talk about access at the state level and within the state legislature, we’re talking about access to enrollment, but not access to matriculation, also the matriculation that students come into these universities hoping to receive. We see time and time
again enrollment increases at our campuses without the
necessary increases in funding to actually account for that, with many campuses far over capacity. Students come in hoping to
major in one thing or another, in highly impacted fields
that our state needs, and they’re not actually
being able to graduate with the diplomas and the
degrees that they came for because of degree caps, because
of increasing year-by-year GPA prerequisites for these degrees. Not because of changing
dynamics in the workforce, but because of the university’s inability to hire more faculty to meet the increasing demand for these fields. We also see major repercussions of this within student basic needs security. It was heartbreaking
to hear the statistics that our colleague from
CSU East Bay recited about homelessness on his campus, which are deeply resonant with the same numbers on our campus. We did a recent survey last spring that indicated at UC Berkeley about 10% of all students
face homelessness for an extended period of
time of up to a month or more during the time that they
are students at UC Berkeley, which is not something
that should be happening at any of our public universities across the state of higher education. The Silicon Valley wasn’t
built because there was a natural resource abundance
of microchips in the area, it was built because we created a fertile crescent, if you will, a Tigris and Euphrates of
public universities in the area. Remind you that
Assemblymember Eggman’s plan would create a $2.2 annual billion fund to essentially abolish tuition across the higher education
sections of our state. And just this last summer,
our state legislature passed a really important gas tax that would raise $5.2 billion
annually for other needs. It’s not a question of
our capacity or abilities to fund higher education
better and give our students and our campuses the resources they need, but a question of political will to do so. As we move into the new budget cycle and the new legislative cycle, we’re really hope that
you can give our students and our higher education institutions the attention they deserve. Thank you. – [Marc] Thank you, Rigel. I’ve got four of you. There’s Joanna Chen, Chris
Yamas, and Varsha Sarveshwar. – Yes. – [Marc] And it looks
like you’re in that order, so perfect, that worked out well. – Yay.
– Joanna. – Good morning, my name’s Joanna Chen. I’m a sophomore at UC Berkeley. I’m studying political economy, media studies, and rhetoric. Today we ask that, with
an increase in admission in UCs, in community college, in CSUs, that there also be an increase
in funding that’s adequate to the amount that we’re
increasing in admission, specifically 25 million
for 2,500 additional slots. And I would like to draw your attention to a very specific example in STEM. It’s been clear that California’s
higher education system has not been idle as the number of degree
graduates in high demand fields, such as computer science and STEM fields, have doubled between 2010 and 2016, however shortages persist and systemic challenges present themselves in preparing Californian
students for careers in STEM, and will certainly
threaten California’s role as a world leader in industries
dependent on STEM talent. To give you some statistics, 58% of Silicon Valley STEM
workforce is foreign-born, and another 24% comes from other states. STEM degrees are growing slower in our state than any other state. It’s 4.8% in California
compared to 11.2% in New York. In order to fix this problem, there must an increase of
admission in our colleges, and therefore, a subsequent
increase in our funding. At a time California is competing with other tech regions for talent, this discrepancy is indicative
of problems inherent within our higher education
system and also our workforce. By increasing enrollment in our schools, we must also increase funding adequately. We must also ensure that there be adequate positions in our workforce that are available to
those who do graduate. As we continue to innovate, we
must also improve our ability to cultivate and utilize homegrown talent and collaborate on education’s
greatest challenge, which is preparing Californian students for the modern workforce, and this can only be done
through an increase in admission and also increase funding adequately. Thank you so much. – [Marc] Thank you very
much, and Chris Yamas. – Good afternoon. While I am a student at UC Berkeley, I transferred from a
California community college. I was really pleased to hear
the concerns voiced earlier regarding community college students and what we’ve been going through. Myself and a majority of my
peers at community college weren’t just preparing for the workforce, but were actively participating in it, having to work part-time or full-time jobs to afford the cost of living while we accumulated the
credits that we needed. Too many of my peers stopped
short of transferring, ending up remaining in service jobs because they didn’t see
financing university education as a viable option for
them or for their family. While my family has not
been able to contribute toward financing my education, I’m immensely grateful to have had the BOG Waiver at community college and federal and state
funding at UC Berkeley, while also continuing to work part-time. Yet with looming education funding cuts on the federal level,
it’s even more important for our state budget decision makers to not simply see free higher
education in California as an abstract ideal or a dream, but as a realistic policy goal that we are entirely capable of reaching. While we should continue
to prioritize support for low-income students in higher ed, we must also protect funding opportunities like the Middle Class
Scholarship from elimination. We must keep college
attainable and affordable for students like us
who have done our part and put in the work to prepare for higher education
and our careers ahead. We hope that the state and UC continue to prioritize the values
of California’s Master Plan as the work of this committee continues. Thank you. – [Marc] Thank you very much, Chris. And Varsha Sarveshwar. – Sarveshwar, yeah. Good afternoon, my name is Varsha, and I’m a second year political
science major at UC Berkeley. Many folks have talked about how we can’t really address
these workforce needs unless we address the
fact that California, over the last couple decades, has really underinvested
in public higher education. There was a lot of conversations
today about internships and the importance of
students getting experience in various professions before
they enter the workforce. I’d like to make the point that most of those internships are unpaid, and it means that a student who wants to work a summer internship is either not working
a full-time summer job or not having the time to
work a part-time summer job. It means that students
who can best prepare for the workforce are the
students who have the most means to not work a full-time
job in their free time. Students who are working
over 20 hours a week doing part-time jobs
during the school year and are still barely able to pay for tuition, food, and rent, cannot prepare for the workforce. As we’ve emphasized today,
we really need to consider that to prepare our
students for the workforce, we need to address
decades of disinvestment in public higher education. Thank you so much for your time. – Thank you very much. (audience applauding) We’ve got four more folks. Thaddeus Bangle, from SCAU 521? B-A-N-G-L-E, Bangle? – [Thaddeus] Yes. – Thaddeus Bangle. Thank you, Thaddius. – Basically, I’m a parent
alumni from San Jose State. I went to Gavilan Junior
College, San Francisco State before transferring here back in 1989, and graduating in 1992. I am basically kinda disappointed because I don’t feel like the
emphasis is on the students. I don’t think we’re
addressing the fact that, back when I was going to school here, when I transferred from
San Francisco State, which was $300 tuition, and I transferred to San
Jose State, it was 289. And they were building the SJSU Rec Arena, I don’t know if anybody
knows where that is. The important thing was it was affordable. You could actually work
your way through school without taking out loans. I wasn’t that talented. There were talented students
here, but that one wasn’t me. I had to work part-time, live
at home, and go to school. But we were able to obtain my degree, to get a job here,
without any student debt. The food here was good. When I went to San Francisco State, I wasn’t really too crazy
’cause it was the Marriott, but it was quality of food, and I understand that the
students are suffering. That’s one of our needs is you have to have food,
you have to have sleep. I know we have homeless
teachers and students. We had full-time faculty, or
faculty that would be commuting from San Francisco State to San Jose State and working in human resource
out in the private sector. I don’t think that we’re getting that. I think that our quality
education is falling. If you don’t address the students, which should be the focus,
it’s not going to improve. You’re still going to have a lack of people to be able to employ, quality people to employ. You have to take care of your students. Back in 1990, I believe it was ’90, ’91, the economy took a downturn. Now I’m not happy about them laying off the painters at San Jose State, but it was a focus of we are
going to provide classes, because they had to cut a
certain amount of classes too, but we’re gonna provide classes and we’re not gonna raise tuition so that we can provide
what we’re supposed to be, which is higher education
for the students here at San Jose State University, and throughout the CSU at that time. I know it has completely
gotten away from that. I know from the construction. I know just looking. I lived in Mary Park for a semester before coming back to San Jose State. It’s a box, but it was a nice box. There was two of us to
it, but it was simple. And it was paid for by my family, by generations of people before
me that lived in California. Now it seems like we’re repaying for a new system that
has glass all the way from the top to the bottom
at UC Santa Barbara. This is not needed. First of all, at Santa Barbara you just need an overhang
and some beautiful weather. This is overdone. I will finish up real quick. But if you do not get the tuition down, you do not get the quality food up, to be able to live for
faculty and students, then we are going to fall short and this is basically
posturing, if you will. – Thank you very much.
– Thank you. – Appreciate it. Next up we have Beth Malinowski from the California Health and Advocates, and then we’re gonna
have Amy Hines-Shaikh, and then Austin Webster. – Hi, thank you for staying, and thank you for having
this session today. It’s great listening to all the speakers, and coming towards the end, I’ll try to keep my comments short. I’m not up here as an education expert or as a current student, but providing another
industry perspective. Again, I’m with the
CaliforniaHealth+ Advocates. It’s the advocacy branch of the California
Primary Care Association, statewide association representing federally qualified health
centers and community clinics, serving every single county,
roughly 58,000 employees, and caring for about 6.2 million patients. Really appreciate the
specific focus of today and having employer panel up here. A number of years ago, when
our association leaders, our health centers, corporations
started coming to us and saying, “We need you
to address workforce.” It was new for the association. As we started pealing back the layers, and we’re still actively doing that, we uncovered that really at
the center of the concerns and challenges our
employers are facing today are challenges in the educational system. In particular, a number
of things rose to the top. We saw, as a number of
folks have spoken to today, that we have this challenge
of both preparing the workers that we need right now,
healthcare is constantly changing, so we have to make sure we’re training the workers we need today, while at the same time trying to imagine and prepare for the
workforce of the future. I know that’s a near impossible task, but I think through closer collaboration we can do that really well. For those today that spoke in particular about the need for a coordinating body to really drive the Master Plan and to create a better intersection, not only across the different segments of the educational system, but also bring the employers, especially healthcare employers into it, I think it’d play a
really substantial role. As an association, for
the past couple of years we’ve been trying to tackle creating individual relationships with our CSU and UC and
community college partners, and that’s terrific, but
trying to do it together would make things a lot easier and I think would go a lot further. I also just want to acknowledge
and provide some feedback, an additional perspective on some of the student comments in the past hour. – [Marc] Briefly, if you could. – Yes, sure, of course.
– Thank you. – We started doing focus groups with students who care about healthcare. Every one of those students said the same thing these students did today, our ability to see the light in the tunnel to become a healthcare professional comes down to our student debt burden, comes down to our ability to get transfer between our schools, ability to get the classes we need, address enrollment challenges. I just wanted to highlight that, even from an employer perspective,
we’re hearing that too. Again, anything we can do to be assistants to your office and to this
effort, we’re happy to be. Thank you for your time. – Thank you, Beth, I very
much appreciate that. Next up I have Amy Hines, and Amy, help me with the
last part of the Hines. – Shaikh.
– Shaikh, thank you, from Reclaim California
Higher Education coalition. – Coalition, correct. Chair Burman, and Ellen, hi. Thank you very much for
staying to hear our comments. My name is Amy Hines-Shaikh, I’m the higher education director for the Reclaim CA Higher
Education coalition. We are a coalition of
over 20 organizations, students, staff, faculty,
and community members over the three segments
of public higher education in the state of California, the community colleges,
the CSUs, and the UCs. Our most valued partners are the students, the SSCCC makes up 2.2
million of our members and the UCSA, who our
partners were just here, they represent about 240,000. We represent in total about
three million Californians from the tip to the tail of California. We’re all in a mission trying
to get back to the Master Plan for Higher Education in
the state of California. We’ve been in existence
since October 31st of 2014. We just recently put out a position paper called The $48 Fix, which is
how to make tuition and fees completely free in the
state of California. We are about to re-release it with new franchise tax board numbers. Almost all of our partners have individually met
with you or your office. We’re, as a coalition,
hopefully gonna be able to do that soon, or very shortly. I basically wanted to use this, since I’m one of the last two speakers, just to say all of this
is tied to affordability, and affordability is just one
of three pegs of the stool. It’s affordability,
accessibility, and quality, and our plan would do all three of these. I hope to talk to you more
about that in the future. Thank you so much. – [Marc] Looking forward to it. Thank you, Amy. Last up, we have Austin Webster
from the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges. – Thank you, Chair Burman. In the interest of time, I’ll be brief. Austin Webster, on behalf
of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges and the California Community Colleges Association for Occupational Education. I would echo a lot of the comments that have been made by the students and the faculty groups here today. Wanted to quickly go over two things here, and that’s that there have been a lot of emphasis on
the community colleges throughout this whole
workforce conversation. We are definitely happy to be
a part of that conversation, but would like to remind
folks that as we move forward we should really continue to strive to provide additional
resources to the colleges so that we eventually
get to the same level as our sister segments. That’s both for the
students within our system and for the institutions themselves. Workforce education continues to be a very strong focus within the colleges, but we would just ask
that everybody is mindful that there’s a very
volatile funding source, both within the state
and the federal level when it comes to CTE, and
that we keep that in mind as we continue to increase expectations. Again, we thank you for
holding this hearing, as well as this series. We look forward to being a continued part of the conversation. – Thank you, Austin, I
really appreciate that. And thank you to everybody,
everyone who came, my colleagues who attended earlier, everyone who stayed till the very end, only 47 minutes longer than we planned. I also really wanna thank
San Jose State University, President Papazian, and the team, the staff that have been
helping out behind the scenes, making sure that everything’s operating and everybody can participate,
both in person and online. Really appreciate y’alls help. The public and the audience
and those watching online. Our third hearing will be in 2018, probably in February, please stay tuned. If you haven’t given us your information, do that so that we can keep you up to date on what’s going on and when
the next hearings will be and what the focuses will be. You can also visit my, we have a dropdown for the Select Committee
on my assembly webpage. It’s I’m sure nobody wrote that down, but Google Marc Burman state assembly and look for the dropdown at the top menu. And with that we’re adjourned. Thank you everybody, really appreciate it. (audience applauding)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *