REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
AD 201 Boardroom
Monday, November 21, 2011
1:10 – 2:40 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 November 7, 2011 Meeting Minutes*
3. Action Items
3.1 Approve FTES/TLU from EMC to BPC (Bruce and Keith)
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Co-Chair meeting with the President
4.2 Draft 2011-14 EM plan (Keith and Bruce)
5. Reports
6. Future Agenda items
6.1 How does the college improve student success, retention, persistence, and access?
6.2 How should the college Incentive basic skills improvement?
6.3 How do we improve completion?
6.4 Academic Program Demand
6.5 What alternative ways are there for the college to view and offer basic skills?
6.6 What does it mean to be college ready?
6.7 Are there PRC data that falls within the EMC’s purview for discussion?
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Boardroom
Monday, November 7, 2011
1:10 p.m.
Draft
NOTES
PRESENT
Rachel Anderson, Jennifer Bailey, Jeff Cummings, Anna Duffy,
Kathy Goodlive, Sheila Hall, Angelina Hill, Anita Janis (phone),
Allen Keppner, Pam Kessler, Mark Renner (phone), Keith SnowFlamer, Ken Strangfeld, Juana Tabares, Bruce Wagner and Danny
Walker.
ALSO PRESENT
Roxanne Metz
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
NOTES
EMC summary notes of October 17, 2011, were approved with
corrections.
EVALUATION
RUBRIC
Sheila explained the revisions to the evaluation rubric. It was
moved/seconded (Cummings/Walker) and carried unanimously to
approve the revised Evaluation Rubric.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
SUMMER TLU
ALLOCATIONS
Rachel reported for the subcommittee working on the
recommendation that based on what was moved from this spring and
what summer is going to look like there will be a system in place to
determine what needs to be done for summer to best serve students.
Jeff stated that it was his understanding that we have allocated all the
TLUs that we had for spring and the ones that were moved (50) would
be what we had to work with for summer.
Keith asked how the committee can best address the summer schedule
and the best way to schedule it. Discussion followed regarding last
summer’s schedule being too lean and enrollment being down. It was
also noted that last summer’s schedule was not advertised until very
late and that may have impacted enrollment. Discussion continued
about when summer classes should start and end how many TLUs we
are willing to have taken out of next year’s budget.
There was discussion regarding the 50 sections that were cut from the
spring schedule and what the process was for determining the courses
that were cut. It was noted that this sort of thing seems to happen
every semester and that as a committee we should be reviewing the
schedule before it is released so that feedback can be provided.
Committee members asked that if the cuts to schedule were not being
discussed today that a special meeting be called to discuss this issue.
Rachel noted that the subcommittee needs guidance so that the FTES
target can be met. She will make a list of areas/items that the
committee would like guidance on and Keith will present it to cabinet
There was discussion regarding the 50 sections that were cut from the
spring schedule and what the process was for determining the courses
that were cut. It was noted that this sort of thing seems to happen
every semester and that as a committee we should be reviewing the
schedule before it is released so that feedback can be provided.
Committee members asked that if the cuts to schedule were not being
discussed today that a special meeting be called to discuss this issue.
Rachel noted that the subcommittee needs guidance so that the FTES
target can be met. She will make a list of areas/items that the
committee would like guidance on and Keith will present it to cabinet
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FALL 2012
SCHEDULE
BLOCK
IMPROVEMENTS
Jeff reported that the subcommittee met and concluded that with
moving into the new building there will be changes and classroom
allocations will need to be more clearly defined. At this time no
changes to the schedule are being recommended. There was
discussion about what impact will be on scheduling by having two
less classrooms in the new building than we currently have. There was
also discussion regarding the mid-day labs being a scheduling
problem.
REVIEW OF
FTES/TLU
Bruce reviewed the handout that he developed and sent out before the
meeting. There was a discussion regarding midyear budget cuts and
Bruce and Keith have been working with Barb Franklin regarding
cutting overload and stipends out of the Associate Faculty budget.
There was also discussion regarding the assumption of 2% growth in
the next couple of years and it was noted that term “growth” should
not be used and it may be better to use terminology such as “reestablish the base” or “establish a new base”.
2011-12 EM PLAN
Keith stated that he would like to have the committee break into
subcommittees to determine how we can move forward on the EM
Plan. The committee provided feedback on several of the goals. Keith
and Bruce will work to incorporate the changes and clean up the
language. The goal is to have a draft by December 5.
GE COURSE
ANALYSIS
Bruce reported that he and Rachel have been working with Angelina
to beef up the website and it is now much more detailed. There have
been a few things identified that are missing or need to be corrected.
The main idea is to be able to compare GE areas and make sure as a
committee that we are offering enough of the right courses and if we
are putting our resources in the right places. He also noted that some
adjustments have been made; cutting back in Social Sciences and
Humanities, Speech may also be too heavy. Committee comments
included:
 Look at what classes students needed historically.
 All departments are told to prepare, some faculty pad, people
are going to defend their turf no matter what.
 What are we going to do if we cut back on the basic skills
courses?
 These courses feed the rest of the college.
 How can we justify the large numbers in Social Science?
Jeff stated that he would like to propose that a group or subcommittee
do a zero based budget approach to determine what the students need.
Bruce volunteered to join the subcommittee and Judi Hinman will also
be asked to volunteer. Jeff will lead the subcommittee and report back
to the EMC with any updates.
2010-2011
RECALCULATION
Kathy reported that she worked with the Business Office and IR on
the 320 Report recalculations. She reported that there has have been
discrepancies with the numbers that IR uses and the numbers in
Datatel. She noted that with the help of IR and the Business Office we
were able to dig in and identify the discrepancies and complete an
accurate report.
PROJECTED
2011-12 FTES
Angelina reported that projections were done once the schedule came
out, and we looked at a course by course level and what the average
fill rate for course is.
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED
lw
Table 1
Assuming 187 increase in 2012-13 and 2% annual increase in 2013-15 for residents
Resident
Non-resident
Non credit
Total
Current
2011-12
4,834
132
2.30
4,966
3 Year FTES Targets
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
5,021
5,121
5,224
139
146
153
2.30
2.30
2.30
5,160
5,267
5,377
Current
2011-12
4750
132
2.3
4,884
3 Year FTES Targets
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
4,937
5,036
5,136
139
146
153
2.30
2.30
2.30
5,076
5,182
5,290
Table 2
Assuming 187 increase in 2012-13 and 2% annual increase in 2013-15 for residents
Resident
Non-resident
Non credit
Total
Table 3
Fulltime Faculty
Total Calculated Sections
3 Year TLU Targets
2012-13
2013-14
77
77
1,763
1,798
2014-15
77
1,834
Total TLUs needed
7,934
8,093
8,255
Total Fulltime Faculty TLUs
3,465
3,465
3,465
300
300
300
Fulltime Faculty Instructional TLUs
3,165
3,165
3,165
Overload Instructional TLUs
Associate Faculty Instructional TLUs
Total Instructional TLUs
Fulltime Faculty Calculated Sections
Associate Faculty and Overload Calculated Sections
176
4,593
7,934
703
1,060
181
4,747
8,093
703
1,095
185
4,905
8,255
703
1,131
Total Fulltime Faculty Reassigned
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
Table 4 (Informational Only)
Projected % of increase in salary
Type
Current
2010-11
2011-12
Contractual Release/Stipend Cost
Overload Cost
Coaching stipends
Other stipends
$
$
31,680
61,310
$
$
31,680
61,310
Contractual Release
General fund
Grant Funded
$ 611,300
$ 163,513
$ 11,446
$
$
$
611,300
163,513
11,446
2.50%
3.00%
2.00%
3 Yr Projection Release/Overload Cost
2012-13
2013-14
2014-15
$
$
32,472
62,843
$
$
33,446
64,728
$ 626,583
$ 167,601
$ 11,446
$
$
$
645,380
172,629
-
$
$
34,115
66,023
$ 645,380
$ 176,081
$
-