More state oversight needed for community colleges, report finds (by Erica Perez, California Watch)

     Several bills introduced in the last few years have tried – unsuccessfully – to reform the California Community Colleges system by changing its funding formula or its governance structure.
     Now, the Little Hoover Commission – an independent state oversight agency that investigates state government and follows through with legislation on its recommendations – has renewed the call for such changes, describing the sprawling system as "starved of essential leadership in Sacramento" needed to navigate a current crisis and lead toward a brighter future.
     The commission spent a year studying the community college system and voted 7-1 on a final report. The group's most high-profile recommendation calls for community colleges to take over the task of running the state's adult basic education programs, the bulk of which are currently operated by K-12 school districts.
     But the commission also zeroed in on key governance changes it says are critical. At present, thousands of students who want degrees or certificates leave the system without them, and thousands more are unable to get into the classes they need.
     The California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office should be given more authority and autonomy to oversee and coordinate the 72 college districts and 112 colleges spread across the state, the Feb. 28 report from the Little Hoover Commission said.
     The report also calls for the Legislature to change the community colleges' funding formula so that it rewards colleges for getting students to advance to the next class, complete a certificate or transfer to a four-year university – rather than rewarding them for the number of students enrolled in the first few weeks of class, as under the current system.
     In part because the community colleges grew out of the K-12 system, they are set up in 72 autonomous districts run by locally elected trustees. The chancellor's office in Sacramento provides policy direction for, but lacks real authority to change, the way the districts operate, the report said.
. . .
     California's governance structure "simply prevents the chancellor from being a chancellor," David Longanecker, president of the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education, told the panel.
. . .
     Lawmakers also have introduced bills to change the way the colleges are funded, without success. Under current regulations, the Legislature allocates money to the community colleges by splitting a pool of money guaranteed to the colleges and K-12 schools under Proposition 98. Then, the chancellor's office distributes the money to districts based on a formula tied to the number of students who are enrolled in classes in the third week of the term.
     The commission, like several other critics of the funding structure, said it rewards colleges for maintaining or increasing the enrollment of students early on in the term, without financial consequences when students drop after the third week.
     This creates an opportunity cost – both for the students who dropped out and for students who couldn't get a seat in the class because it was full, the report said. And it's inefficient: Although California spends relatively little per community college student, the state pays 30 percent more per degree and 40 percent more per completion than the national average….