CTE Committee Meeting Minutes
February 20, 2014
1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Meeting Attendees: Ahmad Mansur (Merritt); Peter Crabtree (Laney); Don Petrilli (Laney); Leslie Blackie
(Laney); Katherine Bergman (BCC); Windy Franklin (BCC); Karen Engel (District) – KE; Louis Quindlen
(Laney, non-committee faculty); Mark Martin (DSN – Laney);
1.
Update the progress on improving Peralta’s CTE SES data that dictates its Perkins allocation.
Faculty mentioned that there used to be surveys of students and an individual in charge of
verifying the data. That these things we discontinued and the District’s allocation has fallen off
ever since. KE explained that IR has been working on getting access to student SES data to
improve reporting, but will ask IR if we CAN WE DO MORE TO VERIFY PERKINS data? By
department by college? Colleges can survey students….KE to check if Nathan can pull CTE
enrollment data by TOP code….and get
2.
KE spoke about her presentation to the Peralta Board and that they asked for her to return with more
information about the “human element” – students impacted, etc. The group discussed and agreed that
more frequent presentations by and about CTE programs, faculty and students would help keep the issues
in the forefront..
3.
Oakland WIB board vacancy. The Committee recommended that KE serve on the Board.
4.
The group discussed the grants management systems improvements that Ed. Services will be building now
that Carmen Fairley will be returning to Ed. Services.
5.
The group discussed the March 6 training on the Launchboard for college data upload point people and
how we can make sure this data is accurate. Ahmad, Katherine, and Char confirmed they will be on the
March 6 webinar. KE will be on as well as IR.
6.
CPT
a.
Don: we shouldn’t be discussing dual enrollment until we have defined our pathways…Don has
not talked to K12 school about how they are going to deliver. At the last CPT regional meeting,
there was a lot of discontent. Faculty not coming again until we define a pathway and how we
can start building it. Faculty very dissatisfied. This should happen the same way we hashed out
the AA-T’s. It took 2 years! But at least the faculty made the decisions and then it was done.
b.
Linnea: her experience has been different. We have been focused on what are we going to do
and let’s just do it. She’s already set up meetings with HS’s. Her concerns are: there’s not
enough focus on allowing and facilating us in having these conversations and hash it out. Also,
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College
they would like to coordinate with the other community colleges. Also would like to do joint
marketing . She has serious concerns about our facilitators. Why are they getting paid – what is
the point of them? Who’s coming up with these philosophical discussions that don’t help us get
They identified who wants to work with whom at each college….they DID it…and the HS’s put
sticky notes, then they talked to each other and paired up, and then you take it from there. This
is not happening in the other sectors. “We don’t do dual enrollment, we do concurrent
enrollment.” HS’s want dual enrollment…..but there’s no coordination. All four colleges have
same processes – HS teachers need to know about it…..help the HS teachers understand how
their students can take a class. Let’s get it done….
7.
c.
The groups are too big in a sector. There are divisions within sectors. Graphic and CIS not
similar, but with MMART and even within those groups there’s divisions.
d.
Katherine expressed disappointment that in ICT the faculty didn’t show up at their more focused
meeting. ICT TA providers ran a lot of things…is communications happening? Let’s not throw out
the whole framework. It’s more about communications….HS and College partners need to
e.
Don: The location of the meetings need to move around….when the meetings are at BCC, we
just promote BCC programs and not Laney programs.
f.
Leslie – health and bioscience is also muddled. She doesn’t need to be there if it’s just about
health.
g.
Mark and Leslie – is dual enrollment really important? Are we doing it?
h.
Linnea – we need to be clear – are we doing dual or concurrent enrollment? And we need to be
clear!! CCCApply, HS form, math and English assessment test?? In order for us to take the test?
Is this true? For SSSSP – do we need to schedule a round of getting them up to our campus and
getting them a counseling apt? We need to know what the requirements are and how they are
getting people into our system. PLEASE
RE ETPL – Deans will create College Pages and create the lists and data to load their programs.
Ed. Services/Finance is hiring an Acctg Tech who can help with data entry starting March 2.
a.
We need COMMUNICATIONS info – maps so that Peralta faculty and counselors know
which WIB/One Stop they can refer people to……a map with boundaries as well as
contact information -
8.
KE to write a cover memo to DEC with Marketing Strategy…..and ask for PIO reinstatement and
funding at each college.
9.
Review of Marketing Strategy:
a.
PIO Officer is #1
b.
Getting good websites!!
c.
Dissatisfaction with the Laney website…..
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College
d.
Where are the pots of money for the billboards? And how did it get decided which programs
would get posted on the billboards? How did that happen? KE to check with Jeff…ask Jeff to
speak to the Committee about this process.
e.
We need to add an item about how CTE could work with SS about how things get communicated
with respect to enrollment…..and there are resources available…..how can we get some of our
messages and initiatives to be reflected into what they are doing….let’s INTEGRATE WITH SSSP!!!
10. SSSSP revised the on-line orientation and registration process and there’s lots of opportunities
(pop up boxes) where we could be providing information about CTE programs….if it’s written by
non-CTE program it could be weird. ACTION ITEM: review what’s on there
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College