Las Positas College Page 5
Enrollment Management Committee
March 9, 2007
Minutes
Las Positas College
Enrollment Management Committee
(Draft) Minutes
March 9, 2007
Room 2205, 12:30 p.m.
Present: Kevin Ankoviak, Jeff Baker, Neal Ely, Laurel Jones, Martha Konrad, Pam Luster,
Amber Machamer, Philip Manwell, Jason Morris, Carlos Navarro, Birgitte Ryslinge,
Mike Sato, Alaine Taa, Gina Webster
Absent: Karen Halliday, Bob Kratochvil, Sylvia Rodriguez
1. CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 12:33 p.m. by Mike Sato.
2. SET AGENDA
Mike Sato noted item #9 could be consolidated within item #7. Item #9 was changed to Academic Senate Basic Skills and Mandatory Assessment presentation update. By consensus the agenda was approved with changes as noted.
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: It was moved by Dr. Manwell, and seconded by Pam Luster, to approve the February 2, 2007 minutes as written. Approval was unanimous.
4. WEEKEND COLLEGE: ECOLOGY 10 and ECOLOGY 20 – Nan Ho, Barbara Zingg
Nan Ho and Barbara Zingg spoke on behalf of the Biology Department about concerns with regards to the scheduling of an Ecology 10 and Ecology 20 course in the Weekend College advertisement in the Schedule of Classes. As of December 2006, the Biology Department planned to offer Ecology 10 in a both a Distance Education (DE) and regular format during the day on T/TH beginning at 9:30 a.m. In that semester the Weekend College also offered it on Friday evenings. For Spring 2006, it was planned that Biology 20 would be offered in the DE and regular formats in the daytime beginning at 9:00 a.m. The Weekend College offered the same course on Saturday morning. Ms. Ho expressed concern on behalf of the department that no one was contacted about which course(s) might be better scheduled, she was not aware of the Weekend College offerings. Both Ms. Ho and Ms. Zingg requested assurance that the Weekend College courses will not supplant already planned offerings. Academic Senate minutes dated April 13, 2005 were referenced as a means by which to recall the history and intention of the Weekend College, as well as support the original statement that administrator assurances would be provided.
It was reported DE Ecology 10 class enrollments have shown good enrollments, whereas the 8:00 a.m. time slot tends not to fill well. The Biology 20 course is a new offering which could generate more WSCH with no cost of a laboratory class and has been holding steady. Also, given impacted laboratory space, this is one of two (2) lecture only courses. It is unclear why the Weekend College Program is offering two Biology courses, because they fill the same General Education requirement. Mike noted the concern about communication and indicated more effort should be placed on contacting the appropriate faculty members within the disciplines when scheduling issues arise which pertains to their department. Concern was raised as to whether or not a Biology 20 course should be offered in the spring if Ecology 10 is offered in the fall and doesn’t fill. There was a brief discussion about the possibility of doing a three (3) hour lecture course. Ms. Ho indicated she has taught this before and would be able to provide additional insight into it. The question arose as to how the situation can be resolved.
The Biology Department proposed the following:
1. To offer already planned courses.
2. Any Biology courses offered in the Weekend College schedule would be “in addition” to their planned courses.
3. Low enrollment in any Weekend College courses in Biology will not adversely affect the Biology Department in any college wide decision making processes that use enrollments, WSCH, FTEF, and other such metrics.
4. Ecology 10 will no longer be offered at the 8:00 a.m. time slot. This will be reflected in future discipline plans and in class scheduling.
5. The Enrollment Management and college processes be reviewed and revised in an effort to provide more timely communication as well as allow the discipline to provide feedback when programs directly affect the department.
Mike noted Weekend College enrollments have been low, but it his opinion that we are committed to keeping them on the schedule at this point, and the administrator assurances should be honored. He also pointed out the dilemma about how to add them at this time when our allocation has been dispersed already. Dr. Jones commented and indicated we will probably continue to see low Weekend College enrollments in both courses (less than 20). If FTEF has to be added, she indicated she would likely support doing so, if that is how the committee decides to proceed. She did suggest the Biology Department look into creating an Environmental Science course or something similar as Ecology appears to moving in a different direction statewide. There was a brief discussion about potential impactions at 9:30 a.m. time slots, which developed into a discussion about whether or not we would be “robbing” from one to pay for the other if both classes are done. It was noted that if Ecology 10 doesn’t go in the Fall, it probably would not make sense to put Biology 20 in the Spring. It was suggested Sylvia Rodriguez could identify which students in a class were part of the original cohort, which could assist in making a decision about how to proceed.
It was recommended that a mailer be created and distributed to weekend students requesting feedback about the Weekend College. Dr. Ely emphasized that whatever is decided upon, an obligation should be to have at least one (1) lecture available rather than directing everyone to DE courses. Learning styles are important and should be kept at the forefront in process as we move forward. In closing, Dr. Jones summarized the options available (for Fall) per the discussion:
1. We allow the adding of course as requested by Biology Department and take a chance on fill rate and see if “breaks even.”
2. We leave the Weekend College course, and inform Biology Department there is no FTEF.
3. The Biology Department is allowed to add in extra course(s) regardless of whether or not the Weekend College course fills, and remove one course and take off FTEF from somewhere else.
Dr. Ankoviak inquired if the Weekend College received its own FTEF allocation. Mike reported it has not; it has been included with disciplines putting as a section in their discipline plans. Dr. Ankoviak noted it equates to .4 FTEF. He suggested adding it back into the discipline plan. There was some uncertainty as to whether or not this was in the purview of the committee. Dr. Ely reported there is more than likely .4 FTEF already “pulled out” within his division. Dr. Jones proposed putting forth a recommendation from the committee.
Recommendation: The LPC College Enrollment Committee recommends the two (2) sections (Ecology 10, Biology 20) be added to the Discipline Plan of Biology for the Weekend College and .4 FTEF will be accommodated for within the already accepted discipline plan, and we recommend a letter be drafted and mailed to the cohort. (Approved unanimously)
5. ENROLLMENT/DEMC REPORT
Current LPC enrollment numbers are as follows:
FTES (Spring): 2,773.01, and the projected estimate is 2,933. Total yearly projection is 6,606.
WSCH/FTEF (Spring): 458
Chabot WSCH/FTEF is currently 428.
A District Enrollment Management Committee (DEMC) report was distributed. It reflected both Chabot and LPC enrollment numbers. The main difference between the numbers reported by Las Positas and those reported by the district is due to the inclusion of non-credit in the Las Positas report. Dr. Ely inquired about the Spring 2007 FTES discrepancy between the number reflected on the DEMC report (2718.90) and the current number (2773.01) our college report reflects. Dr. Jones responded and indicated there are a couple reasons for this. First, we pull the data on different dates; secondly there is no consistent reporting method for both colleges, as well as the district, so the representation of enrollment numbers between the colleges and district is of concern. The need for one district wide consistent data gathering tool is much needed, preferably one which generates one standard form for all parties. Martha Konrad commented and provided a brief historical perspective of how the data for our enrolment report is gathered. She explained that besides Swoxen and other tools, data from the P320 Report is used to build in updates, which is done twice after the semester is over. She indicated corrections should be made based on the P320’s no matter what the estimates are; there should be a P320 correction.
On the enrollment side, LPC will be receiving three (3) FTEF from Chabot from what was supposed to be summer planning. It will be transferred to LPC. It was also discussed whether or not there would be additional Fall FTEF that would come to LPC because it was not planned in their Fall schedule. No decision has been made on this but additional dialogue is expected. Overall, it was a challenging meeting and discussion but it is anticipated that many positive accomplishments will eventually come to fruition based upon the discussions beginning to happen.
On another note, Dr. Jones reported the previous recommendation put forth by the CEMC regarding waitlisting will be going forward.
Regarding the schedule Jennifer Aries would like to know what the mail out dates are for the summer and fall for advertising purposes.
6. SPRING DRAFT AGENDA UPDATE
A handout outlining the Spring draft agenda was distributed. Mike Sato briefly explained the document and noted items in progress, completed, and yet to be worked on. It was requested that a review of the Claris information obtained in May as it pertains to enrollments be added. All requests and/or changes should be submitted to Mike.
7. SPRING ENROLLMENT REVIEW & “DAY OF WEEK” SCHEDULING ANALYSIS UPDATE
A Spring Enrollment Summary 2002-07, and “Day of the Week” scheduling report was distributed. Mike Sato clarified the data is meant to reveal trends, as there are growth concerns at both colleges. He explained in the past few years, up until now, each semester FTEF has grown faster than the
FTES. The current trend appears to indicate that we have been growing more in FTEF, which means a loss in productivity.
Dr. Jones provided additional insight in the processes at work regarding productivity and growth. She explained that generally 500 WSCH/FTEF is usually the “break even” number for most colleges. What is not factored in is what we are able to get as growth dollars that in addition may give us more than we would have had with a 500 WSCH/FTEF efficiency. She emphasized the need to be careful in each year that we are in a year the state will fund us for our growth, because when you don’t get funding you don’t want to be low in efficiency, you want to be high in it. The trend the last two years has been additional monies on the table, which actually ends up making more money in the long term. When a point is reached where the state isn’t going to do that anymore, we need to look at it very heavily. Another point to consider is that we are part of a district that is looking at trying to get as much growth dollars also in comparison to a college that is having trouble meeting base. The goal is to get the District at a level we want that works for both colleges. This would be another good time to look at efficiency models. The outcome would mean automatically getting funding and not having to compete for it. It was clarified this is a small portion of a much larger picture, which the data is not wholly reflecting.
It is anticipated LPC will see growth for approximately one (1) to two (2) more years, at which time re-evaluation will be necessary. Pam Luster spoke about various scenarios, opportunities, and impactions, specifically as new buildings come online. Also, we will have a tool for scheduling to generate scenarios, which will allow for the running of simulations of what our WSCH/FTEF will look like. She indicated there will probably be a “state of flux” with WSCH/FTEF for awhile.
A discussion ensued about Chabot dynamics in the context of efficiency. Dr. Jones pointed out part of the reason we are struggling with this is because at a very late notice we are told what additional growth we have to make, which leads to the planning portion of our Discipline Plans getting “stretched.” It was noted that another way of framing this is that we are bearing the burden to grow, but we are growing at every opportunity. It was emphasized that a key component is to plan growth in a strategic and smart manner.
Dean Ryslinge inquired about the time of day summary. Specifically pertaining to 8 a.m. time slot and fill rate percentages versus a 9:30 a.m. slot. If data is correct, it might mean the issue is not the time slot. There was discussion regarding time slots and fill rates. It was highlighted loss of enrollments in the evening is an area where we have loss WSCH/FTEF efficiency. There is definitely a trend of evening loss. It was suggested discussions with Jennifer Aries about potential marketing niches each semester to lure evening students back should occur.
Mike Sato provided an explanation of the “Day of Week” report and noted it reflects fill rate and average class size depending on when the course was offered. It indicates that students appear to
be drawn to M/W/F, which is a consideration as the schedule is developed. In conclusion, Dr. Jones noted room efficiency will play a part, and dynamics will change once scheduling software is fully up and running.