REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
AD 201 Boardroom
Monday, January 30, 2012
1:30 – 3:00 p.m.
AGENDA
EMC Mission
To interpret enrollment trends, patterns and projections, student achievement/success data, basic skills student achievement data,
and to inform all institutional divisions and units in meeting CR’s enrollment goals within a framework of collaboration
continued growth and community alignment. The Enrollment Management Committee (EMC) also formulates enrollment goals
consistent with the College’s mission and program review data, develops FTES budget projections, implements, monitors, and
periodically revises the process of student enrollment and retention.
1. Call to Order
2. Approve December 5, 2011 Meeting Minutes*
3. Action Items
3.1 Revised Three Year FTES/TLU Projection from EMC to BPC
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Budget Outlook
4.2 2011-12 FTES Projections
4.3 Draft Summer Schedule Guidelines
4.4 TLU Allocation Concept
4.4.1 Strategy for TLU Semester Distribution
4.5 Summer 2012/Fall 2012/Spring 2013 Schedule Development Timeline
5. Reports
5.1 Update on 50%
6. Future Agenda items
6.1 Enrollment Management Plan
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Boardroom
Monday, December 5, 2011
1:10 p.m.
NOTES
PRESENT
Rachel Anderson, Jeff Cummings, Paul DeMark, Anna Duffy, David
Gonsalves (phone), Kathy Goodlive, Sheila Hall, Angelina Hill, Pam
Kessler, Mark Renner (phone), Keith Snow-Flamer, Ken Strangfeld,
Bruce Wagner and Danny Walker.
ALSO PRESENT
Jenn Bailey, Michael Regan
ACTION
SUMMARY
NOTES
EMC summary notes of November 21, 2011, were approved as
presented.
DISCUSSION
TLU
ALLOCATION
SUBCOMMITTEE
Jeff reported that the subcommittee met and discussed a variety of
issues to move forward on. He also reported that the subcommittee
gave several items to Angelina to collect information on. The
subcommittee is working to establish TLU basics and trying to
compress and gather information to make sense of all the different
types of data we have. He noted that they are trying to get an idea
where we are and where the current TLU allocation is. Jeff also noted
that the subcommittee is looking at where students are and where they
should be based on degrees and certificates.
Discussion ensued regarding whether criteria has been determined and
Jeff stated that the subcommittee is looking at student needs as criteria
and if they are where they are because they are receiving adequate
counseling or because they are being offered the courses required to
advance. It was noted that approximately 10 percent of our students
are completers and according to ARCC data our persistence level is
low. Discussion continued regarding the definition of “completers”
and it was noted that a completer can be a student who has completed
a degree or certificate program but can also be defined as someone
who completed the requirements to transfer and someone who
satisfied their educational goals.
There was discussion regarding students having the capability of
doing their own degree audits and how important it would be to have
another transcript evaluator on staff.
There was brief discussion regarding the next scheduled EMC
meeting and it was decided that an additional meeting be scheduled
for January 30.
It was noted that there has been discussion about getting a full year’s
schedule into Datatel and the advantage of this would be the ability to
view the schedule as a committee prior to releasing it to students. The
disadvantage would be that people might think that the schedule
would be final when actually it would only be preliminary.
FINAL REVIEW
AP 5055
ENROLLMENT
PRIORITIES
Keith reminded the committee that College Council will be taking a
final look at “AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities.” There was discussion
and it was noted that the recommendation from the committee for
priorities would follow those mandated by the state. Pam asked who
would be speaking out against priority being given to those groups not
mandated by the state.
INITIAL SPRING
SECTION
DEMAND
It was noted that courses that are available for the general population
and continuing students appear to be full. We will be reviewing the
data to determine how it will impact TLU allocations for summer and
it will be forwarded to the subcommittee. Bruce noted that percentage
is not the only thing that is important but we should be looking at the
number of seats available and what sites are filling. Pam stated the
Judy Hinman asked that it be noted that English courses in the 101
corridor and night classes are not filling as quickly as on the main
campus. Pam also stated that there is insufficient faculty to teach
English. Bruce also noted that there are departments that would like to
offer mores courses.
50% LAW
There was discussion regarding the 50% law and how the district can
meet compliance. Discussion occurred regarding whether the EMC
should request quarterly reports from the business office or whether it
is within the EMC’s prevue to monitor this.
REPORTS
SUMMER
SCHEDULE
COMMITTEE
TIMELINE
Keith asked for feedback on the guidelines for the Summer Schedule,
what the timeline and who the audience will be. He noted that he and
Bruce are meeting next week to work out the guidelines and begin to
looks at courses for degree/certificate completers, and for new
students. He also noted that there will be a limited number of BSI
courses offered and the spring demand data will be considered. The
budgeted number of sections for summer was also discussed.
EM PLAN
SUBCOMMITTEE
Sheila reported that the subcommittee seems to be seeing a lot of
overlap of the goals and they are working to refine them into strategies
and activities.
Michael reported that his subcommittee has a core group and also
several consultants. They will review the first two goals and redefine
them.
Pam asked for Sheila and Michael to send back to the committee how
the goals have been redefined.
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED
lw
Budget Outlook
CR Revenue Forecast @ Jan 2012
2011-12
2012-13
Best case
2012-13
Worst case
Preliminary Draft
Tier 1 Mid year cut
Tier 2 Mid year cut
Total Cut
140,000
336,000
476,000
Governor's Jan 2012 Budget
CO Deficit Factor
540,000
GRAND TOTAL CUT
1,016,000
336,000
336,000
336,000
140,000
336,000
476,000
1,200,000
1,676,000
Note: This is a preliminary revenue estimate based on the Governor's January, 2012
budget proposal. The Governor will provide a May Revised Proposal in May, 2012.
FTES/TLU Projections (Revised)
Scenario 1: FTES, / TLUs (no growth in 12-13 year)
Current
2011-12
Resident FTES
3 Year Targets
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
4,760
4,760
4,855
4,952
246
258
271
285
2
2.30
2.30
2.30
5,008
5,018
5,126
5,237
77
77
77
Total Calculated Sections
1,700
1,734
1,769
Total TLUs needed
7,650
7,803
7,959
Total Fulltime Faculty TLUs
3,465
3,465
3,465
300
300
300
3,165
3,165
3,165
176
181
185
Associate Faculty Instructional TLUs
4,309
4,457
4,609
Total Instructional TLUs
7,650
7,803
7,959
703
703
703
997
1,031
1,065
3 Year Targets
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
Non-resident FTES
Non credit FTES
Total FTES
Fulltime Faculty
Total Fulltime Faculty Reassigned TLUs
Fulltime Faculty Instructional TLUs
Overload Instructional TLUs
Fulltime Faculty Calculated Sections
Associate Faculty and Overload Calculated
Sections
Scenario 2: FTES/TLUs (289 decrease in 2012-13)
Current
2011-12
Resident FTES
4,760
4,471
4,560
4,652
246
258
271
285
2
2.30
2.30
2.30
5,008
4,729
4,832
4,936
77
77
77
Total Calculated Sections
1,597
1,629
1,661
Total TLUs needed
7,186
7,329
7,476
Total Fulltime Faculty TLUs
3,465
3,465
3,465
300
300
300
3,165
3,165
3,165
176
181
185
Associate Faculty Instructional TLUs
3,845
3,983
4,126
Total Instructional TLUs
7,186
7,329
7,476
703
703
703
893
925
958
Non-resident FTES
Non credit FTES
Total FTES
Fulltime Faculty
Total Fulltime Faculty Reassigned TLUs
Fulltime Faculty Instructional TLUs
Overload Instructional TLUs
Fulltime Faculty Calculated Sections
Associate Faculty and Overload Calculated
Sections
Assumptions/Notes/Calculations
Assuming no Growth in the number of fulltime faculty
Assuming 2.8 FTES per section
Calculated Sections= 4.5 TLUs per section
Scenario 1 assumes no growth in FTES target in 2012-13 and 2% annual resident increase in 2013-2015
Scenario 2 assumes 289 FTES target reduction in 2012-13 and 2% annual resident increase in 2013-2015
Table 3 (Informational Only)
Projected % of increase
in salary
Type
Current
2011-12
Contractual Release/Stipend Cost
Overload Cost
Coaching
stipends
Other
stipends
Contractual
Release
General
fund
Grant
Funded
2.50%
3.00%
2.00%
3 Yr Projection Release/Overload Cost
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$
31,680
$
32,472
$
33,446
$
34,115
$
61,310
$
62,843
$
64,728
$
66,023
$
611,300
$
626,583
$ 645,380
$
658,288
$
163,513
$
167,601
$ 172,629
$
176,081
$
11,446
$
11,446
$
$
11,446
11,446
2011 – 2012 Projected Resident FTES as of January 25, 2012
Summer
Fall
Spring (projected)
Total (projected)
Target
Below Target
67
2,387
2,118*
4,572
4,760
188
*given that we expect 97.4% of current FTES at census; based on spring 2011
Approx sections needed for
summer
72
DRAFT Summer Schedule Guidelines
1. Schedule high FTES generating classes
2. Two eight week sessions: Session 1 May 21-July 27; Session 2 June 18-Aug 10
(depending upon available funding)
Session 1 will hold basic/remedial classes English 150 and Math 120 (10 weeks)
Session 2 classes will be geared toward recent high school graduates and the
summer bridge Math 301,302, 303
3. Schedule enough classes that have a census date on or before June 30 and ends after July
1 to meet the 2011-12 FTES target
10 week session 1—05/21 – 07/26 census date = 6/4 FLEXIBLE FTES
8 week session 1—05/21 – 07/12 census date = 5/30 FLEXIBLE FTES
4 week session 1—05/21 – 06/14 census date = 5/23 MUST CLAIM FTES IN 2011-12 YEAR
4 week session 2—06/18 – 07/12 census date = 6/20 FLEXIBLE FTES
8 week session 2—06/18 – 08/09 census date = 6/27 FLEXIBLE FTES
4. Do not offer classes in the 101 corridor sites
5. Look to offering the courses moved from the spring schedule only if it makes sense to do
so
6. Focus on online courses and courses that are traditionally impacted during the academic
year.
7. Look to online for Mendocino or Del Norte students as a possible substitute for low
enrolled traditional classes
Draft Summer 2012 Schedule Development
January 30
February 7
February
14
February 15-17
February 21-24
February 27
February 28
February 29March 2
March 5
March 5
March 5
EMC review and recommend proposed summer schedule guidelines to Cabinet
Cabinet approve and/or revise EMC summer schedule guidelines
recommendation
Proposed sections due from Deans to Tiffany Schmitcke and site schedulers
Section data entered into Datatel— Tiffany Schmitcke and site schedulers
Review/correction of data by Deans
IR run simulations to determine FTES projection
Cabinet review FTES projections and review/revise/approve summer schedule
Corrections made to the schedule-- Tiffany Schmitcke and site schedulers
Summer schedule available on WebAdvisor—Tiffany Schmitcke
Anticipated date of printed desk copy schedule availabile
Begin priority registration process
Draft Fall 2012/Spring 2013 Schedule Development
February 6
February 7
February 13
March 2
March 5-23
EMC approve TLU concept for implementation
Cabinet review and approve TLU concept for implementation
TLU concept released for implementation—Deans/Directors/VPs
Proposed sections due from Deans to Tiffany Schmitcke and site schedulers
Proposed section data entered into Datatel— Tiffany Schmitcke and site
schedulers
March 26-30
Deans/Directors review/proof proposed Fall schedule
March 30
April 2
April 3
April 9-11
IR run simulations of Fall and Spring to determine FTES projection
EMC review proposed schedule against TLU allocation concept
Cabinet review FTES projections and review/revise/approve fall schedule
Corrections made to the fall schedule-- Tiffany Schmitcke and site
schedulers
April 12
Student Services Fall Desk Copy Schedule & Catalog wrap to Paul
DeMark—Shereen Cockrum
April 12
Fall section data extracted into Excel and sent to Printing Services for
consolidation into the “desk copy” schedule booklet—Tiffany Schmitcke
Fall Schedule will be available on WebAdvisor and —Tiffany Schmitcke
Begin priority registration process
IR run annual FTES projection
Cabinet review FTES projections and determine direction for Spring
schedule
Corrections made to the spring schedule—Deans and Tiffany Schmitcke
Spring schedule will be available on WebAdvisor and begin priority
registration process
April 23
April 30
September 7
September 11
October 8-12
November 5
1 TLU ALLOCATION /PRIORITIZATION Degree and Certificate Completion Model Basic Assumptions: TOTAL TLU’s 2012/13 7186 – worst case Transfer / GE degrees/cert = 53.7% CTE degrees/cert = 46.30% (for CTE: 58% from AA, 42% from certificates) 64% of our students complete less than 18 units of CTE / GE concentration 36% of our students complete at least 18 units of CTE / GE concentration General TLU Distribution District Wide Transfer (GE) Education
Needed for Degree (40 units) 50% TLU’s = 3593 TLU’s Degree Specific
(20 Units) 35% TLU’s= 2516 TLU’s Basic Skills
Preparing for college level work 9% TLU’s = 647 TLU’s EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 Athletics‐
Non Degree/ Non BS 4.5% = 323 TLU’s SLSS – (Guidance)
Non Degree/ Non BS .75% = 54 TLU’s Inst. Improvement / Sustainability .75% = 53 TLU’s 2 TLU’s Not Included in the Prioritization Model TOTAL TLU’s 2012/13 7186 NOTE: Online course TLU allocations not considered separately in these calculations. DN MC and KT TLU’s 2011/12 Distribution (reference for % of distribution) 7934 –DN (10%)= 793, MC (7.3%)= 579, KT (2.9%)= 231 Total = 1605 ( 20.23% of total ) 2012/13 <DN 719 + MC 525 +KT 208 > = 1452 Total TLU’s removed ( 20.23% of total ) ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Eureka Only TLU’s = 5734 TLU allocations removed from Eureka: CTE Current Allocation 1310 HERO Current Allocation 764 (CTE areas cannot sustain further TLU cuts and still maintain current programs) Basic Skills ‐ Preparing for college level work 9% of 5734 TLU’s = Athletics‐ non degree/non BS 516 4.5% of 7186 TLU’s = 323 SLSS‐ non degree/non BS .75% of TLU’s = 43 43 Institutional Improvement / Sustainability .75% of 5734 TLU’s = Total TLU’s removed from model‐ 2999 Eureka Only TLU’s = EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 5734 <2999> 3 TLU’s Available for Eureka Transfer + GE Degrees 2735 TLU Distribution by GE Area and Major Requirements TLU’s Available for transfer 2735 Combined Requirements for CSU GE and CR AA Degree major CR CSU D (9units) Area A 9 Units = 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% = 358 TLU’s A‐1 Oral Comm A‐2 Written Comm A‐3 Critical Thinking A(3units) Area B 9 Units = 13.5 TLU’s + 6 lab TLU’s = 19.5 TLU’s 18.9% = 517 TLU’s B‐1 Phy Sci B‐2 Phy SCI –Lab B‐3 Life Sci –Lab B‐4 Math C(3units) Area C 9 Units = 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% = 358 TLU’s C‐1 Arts C‐2 Humanities B(3units) Area D 9 Units = 13.5 TLU’s 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% = 358 TLU’s Polsc 10 Hist 8,9 D1 – D10 Area E 3 Units = 4.5 TLU’s 4.4% = 120 TLU’s A‐E Total 42+ Units = 64.5 TLU’s 62.6 % = 1712 TLU’s Major Requirement: 18 Units = 27 TLU’s +12 lab TLU’s for 2 lab classes = 39 TLU’s 37.4% = 1023 TLU’s 60 Units = 103 TLU’s 100.0% = 2735 TLU’s 39 TLU’s 37.4% = 1023 TLU’s to be distributed based on student completions EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 4 Completer Concentration by Degree ( Where is the need based on student success) NOTE: Approximately 10% of our students district wide complete a degree or certificate The following parameters apply: Averaging over 2007‐07 to 2010‐11 Scaling all degrees/certificates against a 60 unit award Not including Certificates of Recognition Liberal Arts AA Degree break‐down (see last column) 20062007 20072008 20082009 20092010 20102011 % of all areas Liberal Arts: Behavioral & Social Science – AA 15 Liberal Arts: Business 69 121
44%
1 4
1%
Liberal Arts: Business – AA 1 6 11
4%
Liberal Arts: Fine Arts 2 9 12
5%
Liberal Arts: Humanities & Communications 9 42 58
23%
4 6
2%
Liberal Arts: Mathematics Liberal Arts: Science 1 3 7
2%
Liberal Arts: Science Exploration 6 33 50
19%
Areas of emphasis CSU Area Liberal Arts: Behavioral & Social Science – AA B/D 22% B / 22% D Liberal Arts: Business D 1% Liberal Arts: Business – AA D 4% Liberal Arts: Fine Arts C 5% Liberal Arts: Humanities & Communications A/C/D 7.7% A / 7.6% C / 7.6% D Liberal Arts: Mathematics B 2% EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 5 Liberal Arts: Science B 2% Liberal Arts: Science Exploration B 19% Completer Concentration by Degree (Continued) ( Where is the need based on student success) 39 TLU’s 37.4% = 1023 TLU’s to be distributed based on student completions Summary of Completion Concentration TLU’s Area A Total % of Distribution 7.7% = 79 TLU’s Area B Total % of Distribution 45% = 460 TLU’s Area C Total % of Distribution 12.7% = 130 TLU’s Area D Total % of Distribution 34.6% = 354 TLU’s TLU’s Available for transfer 2735 ADJUSTED FOR TRANSFER DEGREE CONCENTRATION CR CSU D (9 units) Area A 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% A‐1 Oral Comm A‐2 Written Comm A‐3 Critical Thinking A(3 units) Area B 19.5 TLU’s 18.9% B‐1 Phy Sci B‐2 Phy SCI –Lab B‐3 Life Sci –Lab B‐4 Math C(3 units) Area C 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% C‐1 Arts C‐2 Humanities B(3 units) Area D 13.5 TLU’s 13.1% Polsc 10 Hist 8,9 D1 – D10 EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 % of completions TOTAL TLU’s = 358 TLU’s 7.7% = 79 439 = 517 TLU’s 45% = 460 979 = 358 TLU’s 12.7% =130 490 = 358 TLU’s 34.6% = 354 714 6 Area E (3 units) 4.2% = 112 TLU’s 112 A‐E Total 2734 Compared to current TLU Distribution: Based on TLU’s Report of CR GE Distribution CR CSU MODEL TLU’s Current D (9 units) Area A 13.5 TLU’s 439 699 A(3 units) Area B 19.5 TLU’s 979 537 C(3 units) Area C 13.5 TLU’s 490 687 B(3 units) Area D 13.5 TLU’s 714 782 Area E (3 units) 112 District Wide Basic Skills‐ 516 650 EMC Sub‐Committee January 30, 2012 Difference <260> +442 <197> < 68> <134>