Jack Friedlander: The Next Steps for SBCC Continuing Education

Achieving the Vision Task Force will work to create a fee-based, self-supported program that will meet the needs of all students

By Jack Friedlander | Published on 10.31.2011

(10)

A priority of Santa Barbara City College is offering a comprehensive and vibrant Continuing Education (CE) program that is responsive to the needs of the community at a time when state funding to support credit and noncredit education is being substantially reduced.

Dr. Jack Friedlander

In these difficult economic times, the California Legislature and the California Community Colleges’ Board of Governors have to make difficult choices and are placing priorities on funding certain categories of courses.

On the credit side, these include work force training, basic skills in English and math, and preparation of students for transfer to four-year colleges and universities. Continuing Education (noncredit) courses considered critical are basic skills required for work force and/or college preparation and short-term vocational certificates for employability or job advancement. The Legislature and Board of Governors are putting a lesser value on other noncredit categories of courses by funding them at a lower rate than those identified as priority areas or by not paying for them to be offered.

SBCC remains committed to offering — as we have for nine decades — a robust Continuing Education program dedicated to serving the learning needs for all students. The value of such a well-rounded program is immense. For instance, the arts are a substantial part of the vitality of this community. Outside the classroom, our students support the arts in any of a number of ways, such as attending performances, volunteering their time and financially supporting arts-related organizations. Taking Continuing Education classes also provides students with physical and mental health benefits, including socializing with peers. These individuals stay engaged and contribute to our society in significant ways.

Achieving the Vision for Continuing Education

So what is the next step for SBCC Continuing Education? I recently announced the formation of the Achieving the Vision for Continuing Education Task Force. It will be made up of members of various college and community stakeholders. Much of the work of the task force will be done in work groups that will allow for greater opportunities for community involvement in this effort.

The Achieving the Vision Task Force will be charged with identifying:

» A comprehensive Continuing Education program through a combination of state-supported classes, fee-based classes, and classes and learning experiences supported by external donations.

» Models and strategies for creating and providing the administrative support required to offer a fee-based, self-supported program.

» Strategies and approaches to attract external funds to enable the college to offer learning opportunities that the state will not support or that would be too expensive for many individuals to cover the total cost of the learning experience (e.g., Mind Supermind, current events speakers’ series).

The task force is charged with submitting its recommendations to the college superintendent/president by June 15, 2012.

Center for Lifelong Learning

An important component of the task force is to develop a proposed plan for creating the Center for Lifelong Learning. The center will be a self-supporting entrepreneurial program within the college charged with offering as full a range of fee-based and externally funded classes and programs as possible to meet the demand of such offerings.

Since the Center for Lifelong Learning would be self-supporting, there is no limit on the number and types of classes and programs it could offer. The program would not be subject to the attendance accounting rules and regulations the state requires the classes it supports to follow. The center can truly be a reflection of what the community wants and perceives as its learning needs and is willing to support from enrollment fees and/or donations.

Community Support

Throughout this process, fundraising will be an important component. The Achieving the Vision Task Force will be asked to create a proposed plan to develop and implement the organizational structure needed to generate external support for student scholarships and Continuing Education classes and programs, including those programmed through the Center for Lifelong Learning. Continuing Education will work closely with our Foundation for SBCC to coordinate requests, activities and strategies to develop a CE Endowment campaign.

Next Steps

There will be many opportunities for community stakeholders to participate, share ideas or provide financial support. Beginning in December, click here to check the Continuing Education Web site throughout the winter and spring terms for updates on the work of the task force and how you can contribute to assist the college in achieving the vision for our Continuing Education Division.

— Dr. Jack Friedlander is SBCC’s acting superintendent/president.

Comments

Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.

» Joan Livingston on 10.31.11 @ 05:19 PM

All community college trustees in the state got a letter yesterday from State Senator S. Joseph Simitian (Palo Alto/Santa Cruz).

He is requesting community college boards of trustees pass his enclosed resolution to support State Constitutional Amendment 5 (SCA-5) that allows local parcel taxes to be passed by a 55% majority for the benefit of K-14 education instead of the constitutionally required 2/3 voter approval for new taxes.

Community query:

(1) Would you support a parcel tax to fund this newly proposed SBCC Center for Lifelong Learning in order to continue the SBCC tradition of free or low-cost adult ed classes for local residents for classes the state of California no longer supports from the state general funds?

(2) Do you approve of SCA-5 lowering the current two-thirds majority required for new parcel taxes to 55% if these new parcel taxes benefit K-14 education?

NB: a parcel tax assesses each parcel with a fixed dollar amount tax; unlike local bond measures which attach a tax rate per $100,00 assessed valuation.

Currently, local bond measures benefiting K-14 require only 55% majority which was passed a few years ago in a special legislation under the leadership of Jack O’Connell

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 10.31.11 @ 07:35 PM

No and No to both questions

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» SB Citizen on 11.01.11 @ 08:20 AM

Also No and No. We have instigated these higher thresholds for very good reasons. If the need really there then 66% of the vote will be achievable.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 11.01.11 @ 02:05 PM

2005 marked a watershed year when serious state-wide challenges affected our local SBCC Adult Ed programs. The state budget issues in 2008 exacerbated this already serious challenge.

In 2005, the California Department of Education published the History of Adult Education in California which surveyed both needs and resources allocated to this important state need. It is a fascinating read and I recommend it to anyone wanting to track this issue and the changes we have been witnessing in Adult Ed these past few years: http://www.caadultedhistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=book

This comprehensive 2005 study concluded there was a disconnect between state adult ed needs and and state adult ed funding allocations. The report also included an ominous observation that disproportionate funding was benefitting an “affluent coastal community” where adult education needs were few, compared to other areas in the state were the adult education needs were far greater.

Along with this Dept of Education study in 2005 came stricter adult ed compliance guidelines for state funding authorization. In 2005, SBCC embarked upon a wholesale survey of its classes to ensure proper compliance with the new guidelines.

Corrective actions were taken where necessary: some classes had to be converted to fee-based classes and some classes conforming to the new guidelines enjoyed continued state support. This process is still going on as the vast array of local SBCC adult ed classes become integrated with the state computer systems for better compliance tracking.

That is why we are seeing changes every term in the SBCC Adult Ed offerings as classes move into different and more appropriate funding categories. This remains a work in progress and we ask everyone’s patience as we work through the backlog of class offerings on record; one of the largest in the state.

Under the guidance of the former SBCC board of trustees, scholarships were set up to help adult ed students continue taking classes they enjoyed which under new state guidelines became fee-based. The scholarships were successful and met their goals every term. Generous donors also stepped in to fully fund some classes, so enrollments stayed high and most former adult ed class needs were met.

Now on to the challenges we face in 2011: The recently published preliminary state Chancellor’s Office Board of Governors “Student Success Initiative” presents even further challenges for adult education in California.

They continue to prioritize the state’s critical adult education needs today are adult basic skills, workforce training and short-term vocational programs that get adults quickly trained for new occupations. But they also take things a step further and actively de-emphasize other less workforce critical adult ed funding categories.

Consequently, these Student Success Initiative panel recommendations can materially affect our own traditional SBCC adult education programs that have received significant state funding in the past for such classes as older adults (arts and crafts), parenting (parent-child workshops), nutrition (cooking classes) etc. While some of these programs will continue to be funded, they are not being prioritized for funding under the recommendations of this state task force.

**See SBCC Continuing Education website for more details about these new funding requirements. Close to 50% of our current SBCC Adult Ed course offerings fall into these now less prioritized state funding categories.

If these task force recommendations are followed at the state level, SBCC will be asked to restructure its local Adult Ed offerings yet again in face of these continued state funding challenges.

In response to these possible new adult ed funding challenges, SBCC is now proposing, as Dr’ Friedlander’s article points out, the creation of this self-funded SBCC Institute for Life Long Learning which asks the local community to come forward with time, money and energy to build this new adult ed program from the ground up.

This also means having the opportunity to take local control of the Life Long Learning Institute’s direction, programming and continued presence in our community, which has long loved adult education and considers it an elemental part of the fabric of our lives.

Time, money and energy - we all have something to bring to this challenge. Please contact the Foundation for SBCC and/or the SBCC Continuing Education Division for ways you can help.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» citizenSB on 11.01.11 @ 04:04 PM

Really like the idea of a separate LifeLong Learning ‘college’. Funded completely separate from SBCC. Those that want to fund it can without any commingling of funds.

I also agree—No, No on the 2 questions—lowering from 2/3 to 55% for school bonds and a parcel tax for lifelong Learning.
Sorry but extra taxes should be ones that are so necessary 2/3 of the voters agree and my focus is on college and career training.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 11.03.11 @ 01:34 PM

Who takes SBCC Adult Ed classes;

Source: Nov 3, 2011 Board of Trustees Agenda attachment 3.6 p.6 of 32

Fall 2010: 12,408 students

Older Adult classes: 4,238
Multiple categories: 2,052

Short-term vocational* 1,512
Fee-based 1, 143
ESL: 1, 378

Parenting Ed 932
Basic Skills* 663

Health/Safety 195
Family/Consumer Sci 180

Immigrant Ed 54
Adults with Disabilities 16
Workforce Prep* 0

*State priority classes

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 11.03.11 @ 02:39 PM

Santa Barbara Community College District includes approximately 200,000 persons - over 100,000 are registered voters.

SBCC faces redistricting of its trustee areas to conform with the 2010 census and California Voting Acts requirements. The college is using the following maps which show the overall district population and its distribution into various sub-populations across the district:

There has been no breakdown for adult ed students as a separate sub-population or any indication where adult ed student clusters might exist across the district.

However with the multiple adult ed class locations across the district besides the main Schott and Wake Centers, it has always been our goal to make adult ed classes accessible and equitable.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 11.03.11 @ 03:25 PM

That is an interesting map. Have both the Board’s factions agreed to the map or if is it being pushed through by the new trustees, like what is happening with the Board of Supervisors. Also, it is interesting to see the declining population in Santa Barbara. I wonder what these number would show for the white population in SB during the last 10 years. I suspect the percentage decline for this group would be far greater than the numbers cited in the map.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» Joan Livingston on 11.03.11 @ 10:51 PM

Pending: At tonight’s board meeting, most trustees favored Option Two for SBCC trustees redistricting. At this time, the 2012 will be a single district election with three possible seats up for election:

1. New district for Downtown Santa Barbara/Milpas/West and East sides - 2012 - no incumbent - open seat
2. New district for City of Goleta -2012 - no incumbent - open seat
3. North District - Luis Villegas residing - possible 2012 election

The other districts still do not have final election dates, which will be chosen by board majority vote. The current 2014 incumbents holding seats in these new trustee single districts (roughly described) are as follows:

1. Montecito/Carpinteria - Peter Haslund
2. Isla Vista/Hope Ranch - Lisa Macker
3. Upper East/ Riviera/Mission Canyon - Marsha Croninger
4. Mesa/Westside - Marty Blum

Livingston and Jurkowitz whose terms were up in 2012 has their trustee areas collapsed into the two new districts, held by Croninger and Haslund, respectively who will hold these positions until their terms end in 2014.

Livingston is retiring after 19 years on the SBCC board, but Jurkowitz expressed interest in running again when his term expires in 2012. This would put the election date (2012 or 2014) for the Montecito/Carpinteria district in contention to be decided upon by the board majority vote.

The community will be asked for their input before these new trustee districts are finalized. Go to the SBCC website redistricting agendas and look at Option 2 for more precise boundaries for all seven new districts: two of which will be entirely new, open and incumbent free: Dowtown SB and City of Goleta.

Please follow this for more accurate and final information - this was just the first level decisions looked at tonight. But the time line is working towards new trustee elections for November 2012.

Visit the Community College League of California for more information about the roles and duties of a community college trustee as well as resource information about the California Community College system: http://www.ccleague.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3285

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

» lou segal on 11.03.11 @ 11:32 PM

So are you saying the two trustees (including you) who are up for re-election in 2012 have lost their Districts and would not be able to run even if they wanted to? Do you support this plan?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.