REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
New Boardroom
March 18, 2013
1:10-2:40 pm
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. Review Summary Notes from: February 25, 2013
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
Revised Enrollment Priorities AP 5055 to Board
Summer Schedule FTES Projection
BPC Information: Budget/FTES 2013-14
Discuss Summary of Survey Results
5. Reports
6. Future Agenda items
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment
CCC Confer Information
Dial your telephone conference line: (888) 450-4821
Enter your passcode: 298495
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
New Boardroom, February 25, 2013
1:10-2:40 pm
EMCMission
Tointerpretenrollmenttrends,patternsandprojections,studentachievement/successdata,basicskillsstudentachievementdata,andtoinformall
institutionaldivisionsandunitsinmeetingCR’senrollmentgoalswithinaframeworkofcollaborationcontinuedgrowthandcommunityalignment.The
EnrollmentManagementCommittee(EMC)alsoformulatesenrollmentgoalsconsistentwiththeCollege’smissionandprogramreviewdata,developsFTES
budgetprojections,implements,monitors,andperiodicallyrevisestheprocessofstudentenrollmentandretention.
1. Meeting called to Order. Present: Bruce Wagner, Angelina Hill, Rachel Anderson, Jeff Cummings, Tiffany
Schmitcke, Anita Janis-phone, Danny Walker, Keith Snow-Flamer, Sheila Hall, Anna Duffy, Michelle Blucherphone, Barry Tucker, Pam Kessler, Crislyn Parker-notes; Guest: Dave Holper
2. Review Summary Notes from February 11, 2013: Approved as stand.
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Feedback on revised TLU allocation model:
 Based on the P1 reports collected by the Chancellor’s Office, target FTES went down by eight. The
“high” target estimate was revised from 4509 to 4500, and we are aiming for a .8%, instead of 1%,
increase. Note: EMC recommends a target to Budget Planning. When the budget is built, the
projected FTES target (4500 for 2013-14) is included. 4500 is the base number. We can still aim for
the 1% increase, if efficiencies can be increased.
 Faculty recommendation will be a 52/55 associate faculty ratio. Agreed that we will shoot for higher
FTES for fall (60/40), and then work with spring.
 Discussion whether it is better planning to recommend funding higher FTES, (4600 for example. Fall
is the opportunity to capture higher FTES, and make changes later. Efficiencies are lost to gain FTES
in the spring. Our opportunity to increase FTES this budget year is through efficiency. Our fill rate for
spring is less than 65% after census. Agreed: we need to work on persistence; summer FTES should
always be extra; and shoot for higher growth during the academic year.
 Last year we were cautious because of the pending tax initiative. Discussion whether enrollments may
increase because the new academic buildings will be open and accreditation issues are less looming;
or that these factors will equalize decline, but not contribute toward growth.
 Keith will make corrections to TLU spreadsheet, based on 60/40 fall/spring. Key faculty will be hired
to increase efficiencies.
4.2 Integrated Planning Committee Planning Process and Committee Self-Assessment Survey:
 Summary provided by March 31:
4.3 Strategies to improve Student Access and Success:
4.3.1 Class scheduling framework that supports student access, makes the most of room utilization, and
maximizes FTES generation (supporting document):
 Dave Holper expressed some concerns about scheduling for English in the new buildings. He
suggested setting strategies for a scheduling framework. Another concern is gas prices for both
associate faculty and students. Dave is asking for a 50/50 compromise - half the english courses
offered three days a week and half four days a week.
 Student access concerns: 1.5 hour blocks are the norm. Blocks over that time can create an inability
for students to attend other classes. Suggested four-unit classes offered three days a week would
improve room efficiency. Most efficient is four-day week for four-unit classes.
 Only evening sections will be offered two days a week. Evening officially begins at 4:30pm. Three
days a week for five unit classes is difficult and it is recommended to discourage them.
 Discussion regarding different strategies for student access: With three fewer rooms available for
scheduling once the new academic buildings come online, Keith and Rachel are researching
1 


Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
New Boardroom, February 25, 2013
1:10-2:40 pm
underutilized rooms (i.e. AT 132). A tour of rooms will be conducted with Kathy. LRC 105 is being
repurposed. The DSPS room is available after 2:30 and SS 109 is being used for English.
Schedule more classes beyond the historical 10 – 2pm timeframe for better efficiency. Research shows
retention is higher the more students are on campus.
The committee discussed the time blocks, Saturday and/or Friday-Saturday options based on past
success, and surveys and agreed to stay with the 1.5 hour blocks. Programmatic exceptions will be
discussed, but deviations will not be based on personal preferences. The vice-president and deans
have the right of assignment.
Regarding time blocks for classes at McKinleyville and Arcata high schools, it was suggested all
scheduling should be within CR time blocks. ASC meetings follow regular CR classes.
4.3.2 FYE program implementation:
 At the beginning of this discussion, it was noted there will be more Friday activities in the fall with no
student services; which will be problematic. Same issue with more evening classes. Felt we can’t offer
evening class if students do not have access to the library and student services.
 FYE committee is spending time on processes, from completing the application to the first week:
Advising, protocols, placement, and orientation aspects. Discussion on how to schedule the large
number of GS6 classes
 Looking at 15 sections of GS 6. Due to scheduling challenges, there was discussion whether GS6
could be offered as a large format class. There was some agreement this could be good, using the
same text and breakout sessions. A suggestion to combine Hum1 with GS6, which would involve more
of the college in the first year experience. There is disagreement whether an online option would be
feasible; some felt many students need the face to face assistance. There was also a suggestion to
incorporating a financial literacy segment in GS6.
5. Reports
5.1 Closing the Loop: FTES Targets from BPC to EMC
5.2 Status of electronic SEP process:
 Currently advisors are the only one who can change student education plans (SEPs). By summer,
students will be able to both develop and change their SEPs Web Advisor. This will allow us to track
how planning was done for the SEP.
 In future it would be nice to link student plan to terms; currently not possible because the academic
calendars are approved one year at a time. Discussion that other schools inform when courses are
offered via the catalog. We have not due to possible changes from site to site. Conceptually possible
to tie the student SEP location and include when courses are offered.
5.3 Student program changes in Webadvisor—Summer 2013: see above
5.4 Update on 2012-13 enrollment: 89 short of budgeted FTES; 189 including summer; 33.6 sections;
added 10 since last projection)
6. Future Agenda items: March 18: Discuss summary of survey results; Revised Enrollment Priorities AP out
for constituent review.
7. Announcements: Planning Summit, Saturday, April 6, 2013
8. Meeting Adjourned. Next Meeting Monday, March 1, 2013.
2