STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION – TOPIC SUMMARY

Topic: Growth Management Update

Date: April 22, 2010

Staff/Office: Camille Preus and Susan Violette, CCWD

Action Requested: Informational Only Adoption Later Adoption Adoption/Consent Agenda

ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD: An update on the work of the Community College Growth Committee.

BACKGROUND:

In August of 2009, the Oregon President’s Council (OPC) held a retreat to discuss growth management of enrollment. A Growth Committee was formed it included three community college presidents, three chief financial officers, CCWD’s Commissioner and the Executive Director of the Oregon Community College Association. The members of the committee are:

Greg Hamann, President Linn Benton Community College

Jim Middleton, President, Central Oregon Community College

David Rule, President, Rock Creek Campus, Portland Community College

Bev Brandt, Vice President, Umpqua Community College

Renee Ferguson, Dean for Administrative Services, Rogue Community College

Julie Huckestein, Chief Financial Officer, Chemeketa Community College

Camille Preus, Commissioner, CCWD

Andrea Henderson, Executive Director, OCCA

The OPC direction to this committee follows:

In coordination with CCWD, develop options to strengthen stability of funding for college(s) with level enrollment (or growth below the State average) balanced with providing resources for funding students “where they are” and energizing growth. The Presidents recognized that “holding harmless” may not be an end result. Examples of options are:

·  In periods of declining resources during time of dramatic growth, the system may need to establish a threshold level of growth at any single college which will be included in the distribution model.

·  Establishing a minimum FTE reimbursement rate (which may result in less available for growth)

Update: The committee has been meeting monthly since September 2009, most recently on April 1, 2010. During this time the committee identified principles and ran several scenarios of growth management strategies. At its October 1, 2009 meeting, the committee adopted the following principles for growth management.

·  Stability/predictability

·  Policy will work in low/flat/increased funding

·  Collaboration rather than competition

·  Statewide access

·  Incent sustainable growth (means deter unfettered, unfunded growth)

·  Policy change(s) remain w/OPC & SBE

·  Understandable to decision-makers (local boards, legislators, etc.)

·  Dollars follow students

·  Maintain local decision-making

The committee focused on using a cap on the FTE that would be funded through the CCSF Distribution Formula. After considering many scenarios the committee focused on scenarios with a 5% and a 10% cap on actual enrollment growth for presentation to the OPC. The committee also looked at variations of how the CCSF distribution formula calculates reimbursable FTE. Currently, reimbursable FTE are base on a three-year weighted average. The committee also considered a two-year weighted average which would speed up the effect of a cap on enrollment.

The Growth Committee presented its principles and capping scenarios to the Oregon Presidents Council at their meeting held on December 11, 2009. The minutes from this meeting follows:

“Jim Middleton provided the group with a matrix showing where Oregon is now (“weak state commitment to education as key to state vitality”). The group discussed the model and where they would like to see Oregon fall in the quadrants. They talked about various ways to move forward including how to increase the funding level and redistribute the pie. Rule provided the group with a model showing various scenarios should a cap be considered as a possibility. The group asked that the committee continue its work and develop additional models assuming various caps and include as many variables as possible.”

POLICY QUESTIONS:

At their April 1st, 2010 meeting the Growth Committee developed a revised proposal to present to the OPC at their meeting to be held on April 9th. The proposal focuses on benchmarking the number of FTE funded to changes in state funding. For example, if funding is decreased by 10%, the number of FTE funded through the formula would be limited to 10% of the previous year. The second part of the proposal is for the State Board of Education to determine whether additional growth above the funding level benchmark will be allowed.

The following exhibit displays the Growth Committee’s April 1st proposal:

Growth Committee Proposal - April 1, 2010
1) Benchmark CCSF funded FTE to level of LAB funding to maintain funding per FTE at EBL level.
2) State Board of Education decides if any growth above base funding per FTE will be funded.
CHANGE IN FUNDING
Calculation of Benchmark to Funding Level / LAB
Base Year / EBL 5% increase
GRB / Final LAB Funding / Increase
/(Decrease) from EBL
Funding / $ 600,000 / $ 630,000 / $ 540,000 / (14%)
Funding Per FTE
(before benchmarking) / $ 2,000 / $ 2,100 / $ 1,800 / (14%)
BENCHMARKING FTE TO FUNDING LEVELS
Base Year / Year 2
College / FTE Funded / FTE Funded
(reduced by 14%) (1) / Actual FTE / Unfunded FTE / SBE Growth
Allowance (2) / Adjusted FTE Funded / Final Unfunded FTE
A. / 100 / 86 / 105 / 19 / 3% / 88 / 17
B. / 100 / 86 / 90 / 4 / 3% / 88 / 2
C. / 100 / 86 / 110 / 24 / 3% / 88 / 22
300 / 257 / 305 / 48 / 265 / 40
(1) This maintains the base level of funding per FTE at $2,000
(2) Would allow funding per FTE to decreasebelow EBL level

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: None

1