CTE Committee Meeting Minutes
April 10, 2014
1:00 – 3:00 p.m.
Meeting Attendees: Peter Crabtree (Laney); Leslie Blackie (Laney); Don Petrilli (Laney); Windy Franklin
(BCC); Katherine Bergman (BCC); Karen Engel (District) – KE; NON COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Michael
Goldberg (COA – ACWIB One Stop Director); Mark Martin (DSN – Laney College); Louis Quindlen (Laney)
The agenda was followed in reverse order and then jumped around.
1.
Grant proposal update: CTE Enhancement 40% update; DOL Apprenticeship grants being
prepared for Advanced Manufacturing and ICT.
2. ETPL Next Steps – agreement that the district/colleges will add a surcharge onto the actual cost
of programs in order to cover the cost of a shared administrative person at the district.
3. Career Centers/Employer Engagement – KE to see about loading the intermediary funds ASAP.
Colleges will go with slightly different titles for this function/position. But follow the guidelines
set by CPT Executive Committee.
4. ASCCC CTE Leadership
a. Data requirements for CTE are getting out of hand! ACCJC, Perkins, Industry Advisories,
SLOs, PLOS, etc. We need some kind of matrix or better tool that synthesizes all of the
data reporting requirements on CTE programs
b. MKB reported on the CCCCAOE Data Dinner and the work of Kathy Booth on this issue.
c. NEXT STEP: KE will check with Julie Sinai and SB 1070 Data Committee on who is
working on this. And how we might connect to it. Kathy Booth working on this?
i. Is Launchboard the answer? Does it actually help facilitate the work they have
to do as faculty? Are there faculty on the LaunchBoard work team? Are the
colleges using Equity money to hire Researchers who would be responsible for
entering LaunchBoard data?
ii. KE to check on faculty input in shaping the Launchboard. It seems to MIS
focused. Not a useful tool for faculty.
iii. From a faculty perspective the data reporting is intense:
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College
1. Curricunet – update curriculum
2. Task Stream all of the assessment data (across all PCCD?)
3. LaunchBoard –
4. Other grant outcomes and deliverables.
5. It’s getting too hard. Lots of faculty are just choosing not to participate.
Just teach.
iv. This is reality we have to figure out. A summary matrix of what is being asked of
faculty would be helpful
5. MM: CTE programs have MORE of this than GE…..fewer teachers in each department. More
outcomes to track. More relationships (employers to navigate).
6. Marketing:
a. Write a memo stating that the COMmittee decided that each college will contribute
$15K of their extra $46K of CTE Enhancement Fund will be used to implement the CTE
Committee’s marketing strategy: $5K from each college will be dedicated to work on
the District CTE website….and make sure their linked….
b. KE to draft the memo and ask each college to take it through their CTE shared
governance process….
c. CTE Committee members in charge of taking it to their CTE Dean/Committee or both to
advocate for it…..And copy DEC?
7. CARRYOVER –
a. KE to find out when these things are due to the college business offices
b. KE send a link to the form that details the process…..
RESCHEDULE NEXT CTE COMMITTEE MEETING TO MAY 1
Berkeley City College
College of Alameda
Laney College
Merritt College