Response to Mendocino Coast Educational Master Plan draft dated October 4, 2010
By Barbara Rice, Trustee Area 8
Looking at just the list of ten recommendations in the education master plan for the
Mendocino Coast, it is hard to imagine that the plan generates such a negative visceral
response in me and other residents of the Mendocino Coast. The points themselves are
admirable: additional, as well as, guaranteed two-year transfer programs; access to new
professional/technical training programs through distance learning technology;
technology-oriented career training in the natural sciences; innovations in rural education
for the health care field; expanded partnership with the high schools to improve basic
skills and college readiness, and increased opportunities for college-level coursework to
be completed while in high school; collaboration with neighboring colleges to expand
access to English as a Second Language instruction and pre-nursing coursework; and
establishing a local taxing district to provide autonomy over future facilities
development. These are laudable goals, so what is wrong with the plan?
The plan fails on both content and process. Process problems include:
Composition, selection and participation of committee members;
Subcommittees that never met; and
Lack of broad-based dialogue.
Content problems include:
Narrow perspective and parental tone;
Insufficient and inaccurate data;
Inadequate analysis of center/community needs and strengths; and
Incomplete conclusions.
The process chosen to develop the local education master plan, though not intended to
alienate the community, was designed in such a way as to most certainly accomplish
exactly that. The community members were chosen for their political connections, while
others with passion and involvement with the college were purposely excluded. There
were no public announcements of the meetings, no efforts to invite visitors, and minutes
were distributed months late. Avenues to gather broader community input were not
designed into the process. When finally offered, the response time for input was initially
limited to less than 15 hours before the plan was to go before the board for final approval.
The presentation of the plan to the community was figuratively and literally ‘top-down.’
The president and staff spoke down to the community from the stage of an auditorium
designed to hold over 800 people. As a consequence, the 80+ people who attended
during a dinner hour meeting on a Friday evening felt insignificant, and in fact, their
comments were cut-off before all who desired had spoken.
Each of the four EMP meetings was dominated by presentations from college staff from
Eureka. Local input from the community members seemed more tolerated than
encouraged. Local faculty and staff input were nearly nonexistent. Only one student was
involved and she was there for only one meeting. Three subcommittees were formed to
address Allied Health Occupations, the Marine Science Technology program, and Art
Entrepreneurship. These subcommittees never met. The process seemed designed to
allow the college a reasonable argument that they provided an opportunity for local
involvement, but in actuality, they limited and controlled that input as much as possible.
Most illustrative of this absence is the fact that there was no involvement from the
campus Marine Science instructor or local employers of students from the Marine
Science Technology program.
The EMP document is appalling both for its content and lack of content. The tone is
condescending, parental, and blaming. This criticism is clearly illustrated by the
statement on page 1: “The Mendocino Coast Education Center has not effectively met
the needs of the local population…” The proper perspective for this statement should be
to acknowledge that it is College of the Redwoods’ which has not effectively met the
needs of the local [Mendocino Coast] population. The Center has never been
autonomous and has never been allowed to direct its own future. It has always been
controlled by administration in Eureka and it is this administration which should maintain
responsibility for allowing the campus to decline dramatically during this past decade.
The data provided in the ‘Assessment of Current Environment: External Scan’ is so
appallingly inaccurate as to render the entire report worthless. There is no excuse for
using county-wide data rather than Mendocino Coast-specific data simply because “it is
difficult to determine without recent zipcode-level census data.” Although zipcode-level
data is not available more recently than the 2000 US Census, this old data about the coast
presents a more accurate picture of the local area than do data projections at the county
level. Considering the glaring differences between Mendocino County and Mendocino
Coast data, as illustrated in the numerous examples below, county-wide data is deemed
useless when making decisions about the Mendocino Coast. Of course, another
alternative would have been to wait until December 2010 when 2010 census data results
become available.
Regional Demographics
Population
According to the 2000 Census, the population of the 6 coastal zipcodes (Westport, Fort
Bragg, Caspar, Little River, Mendocino and Albion) directly served by the Mendocino
Coast Center is 15,141, not 15,928.
Ethnicity
2000 Census Ethnicity=Hispanic:
Mendocino County
Mendocino Coast
16.5%
12.48%
2000 Census Ethnicity = Native American:
Mendocino County
6.6%
Fort Bragg
3.3%
Mendocino Campus
3.0%
Poverty
2000 Census Poverty Rate:
Mendocino County
15.9%
Mendocino Coast
14.4%
California
14.2%
Thus, the coast’s poverty rate in comparison to the state is just 1% higher, not 25% higher
as stated in the report. And, for perspective, both the Mendocino Coast and County have
lower poverty rates than Eureka City with 23.7% and Humboldt County at 19.5%.
Unemployment Rate
June, 2010 Unemployment Rate
Mendocino County
10.8%
Fort Bragg
12.1%
Humboldt County
11.0%
Del Norte County
13.5%
California
12.2%
While specific unemployment figures for the Mendocino Coast are not available, it is
more likely that the figures for Fort Bragg are closer than the county figures. Thus, it is
likely the coast unemployment figures mirror those of the statewide average and are not
significantly lower as implied in the report.
Educational Attainment:
2000 US Census
Age 25 and Older With High School Diploma or LESS
Mendocino County
45.2%
Mendocino Coast
40.5%
Eureka City
45.1%
Humboldt County
40.8
Del Norte County
55.8
California
43.3%
With No HS Diploma
19.2%
15.3%
18.3%
15.1%
27.5%
23.2%
2000 US Census
Educational Attainment: Age 25 and Older With Bachelor’s Degree or Above
Mendocino County
20.2%
Mendocino Coast
25.5%
Eureka City
16.9%
Humboldt County
23.0%
Del Norte County
11.0%
California
26.6%
Thus, the educational levels on the Mendocino Coast far exceed those found elsewhere in
the Redwoods Community College District.
Political, Economic, Sociocultural, and Technological Factors
College Readiness:
California Department of Education
2008 A-G University Preparation Pattern Completers
Fort Bragg
33.9%
Mendocino
41.4%
Mendocino County
24.8%
Eureka City
27.0%
Humboldt County
17.2%
Del Norte
24.4%
California
33.9%
Thus, this data indicate local high school graduates meet or exceed the state average of
students completing the A-G University preparation curriculum and local students
complete the A-G pattern at higher rates than are found anywhere else in the Redwoods
Community College District.
College Demographics
Age (2000 US Census):
Mendocino County
38.9
Mendocino Coast
43 (weighted average of the zip code medians)
Eureka City
36.6
Humboldt
36.3
Del Norte
`
36.4
California
33.3
The average age on the Mendocino Coast is a full 6 ½ years older than elsewhere in the
district. Thus, it makes sense the average age of the students at the Mendocino Coast
Center would be considerably older than at other instructional sites in the district.
Hispanic:
Mendocino County
Mendocino Coast
Mendocino Campus
16.5 (2000 census)
12.48% (2000 census)
9.6%
Native American:
Mendocino County
6.6%
Fort Bragg
3.3%
Mendocino Campus
3.0%
K-12 school enrollment figures suggest the percentage of Hispanics on the Mendocino
Coast has grown since the 2000 census and stayed the same for Native Americans. Thus,
it appears the Mendocino Coast Center is under serving Hispanic students and serving an
expected number of Native American students.
Institutional Performance Trends
High School Yield Rate
California Postsecondary Education Commission
Fort Bragg and Mendocino Recent HS Graduates Enrolling in California Colleges and
Universities, Fall 2007:
[*anecdotally, it is known that a significant number of Mendocino High School graduates
choose private and out-of-state institutions, which may account for these unexpectedly
low college enrollment figures]
Mendocino High Schools
Fort Bragg High School
Eureka High School
Del Norte High School
56.4%*
63.0%
64.0%
47.9%
Of the above, the percentages of students who enrolled directly into a university rather
than into a community college, were:
To university
To Community College
Mendocino High
58%
17.7%
Fort Bragg
32%
31%
Eureka High
13.5%
51.1%
Del Norte High
20%
27.8%
Of those that went directly to a community college, the percentages that chose College of
the Redwoods were:
Chose CR
Mendocino High
27.2%
Fort Bragg High
43.7%
Eureka High
93.6%
Del Norte
81%
Thus, the college going rate for Fort Bragg High School is fairly consistent with Eureka
High School, while the rate of college attendance for Mendocino High School may or
may not be lower. A considerably higher percentage of Mendocino and Fort Bragg High
School graduates enroll directly into a university than occurs elsewhere in the district.
Students from the Mendocino Coast who enroll in community colleges do not choose
College of the Redwoods as often as happens elsewhere in the district.
More disconcerting even than the use of poor data as a foundation for the plan, is the lack
of local dialogue that went into the planning. None of the three subcommittees formed
ever met. None of the local faculty was involved in discussions about the data and
observations. No one from the natural resources industry was involved on the committee.
And, nearly no time was allotted for the community members to interact at a deep level
about the conclusions college staff had drawn.
Conspicuously absent from the plan is mention of the industries that are known to be a
large portion of the local economy, i.e., the business community, tourism and hospitality,
and art. In addition, there is little mention of the directions toward which the community
is moving. For instance, many view the aging population and recognize an opportunity to
become a health care destination in which boutique medical services are provided. The
proposed Noyo Science and Education Center is never mentioned in the plan, yet if
funded, the Center is likely to increase employment in both the natural sciences and
tourism. And, although the committee minutes reflect inclusion of Arts and Crafts as a
coastal industry, there is no mention of it in the EMP.
This essay is not an exhaustive description of the problems in the draft of the Mendocino
Coast Center Education Master Plan. I believe it should be sufficient, however, to
conclude that the plan is enormously flawed. The best possible course of action now is to
decide to reconvene the committee, expand the membership to cover a broader base,
convene the subcommittees, re-examine data from multiple sources, have thorough and
honest discussion of the facts, and pick up where this draft leaves off. A few of the
unfinished business items for the committee to discuss, in addition to that described
above, are: Mendocino Coast students’ access to high speed internet, the development of
an associates degree in art, internships in the tourism and hospitality industry, and
applicability of the CLARUS Report to Mendocino Coast course scheduling,