REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
New Boardroom
October 15, 2012
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: 10/1
3. Action Items
4. Discussion Items
4.1 Expectations for Accreditation Team visit (President Kathy Smith)
4.2 Breakdown of Spring Schedule Projections (Angelina Hill/Bruce Wagner/Keith SnowFlamer)
4.3 Spring schedule development timeline/ DREG dates (Tiffany Schmitcke/Kathy
Goodlive)
4.4 FYE Program Framework (Juana Tabares)
5. Reports
5.1 Recommended Course Scheduling Guidelines October 4 Email (Keith Snow-Flamer)
6. Future Agenda items
7. Announcements
8. Adjournment
CCC Confer Information
Dial your telephone conference line: (888) 450-4821
Enter your passcode: 298495
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the Enrollment Management Committee (EMC)
Wednesday, October 1, 2012
NOTES
PRESENT
Rachel Anderson, Jeff Cummings, Paul DeMark, Kathy Goodlive, Sheila Hall,
Angelina Hill, Pam Kessler, Dave Gonsalves (phone), Anita Janis (phone)
Keith Snow-Flamer, Bruce Wagner and Danny Walker.
ALSO PRESENT
Melissa Ruiz (phone), Tiffany Schmitcke, Lynn Thiesen
ACTION
REVIEW SUMMARY
NOTES
The summary notes from 9/12 and 9/17/2012 were approved as presented.
REVIEW CURRENT
FTES/TLUS
There was discussion regarding two FTES scenarios; one if the tax measure
fails and the other if it passes. If the tax measure fails the FTES cap that we
need to hit is 4465. If the measure passes the cap would increase by 395 FTES
bringing it up to 4860 for the 12/13 fiscal year. We currently are at 2091 FTES
for fall. It was noted that in previous discussions the committee has agreed to
the 4465 FTES target.
Bruce Wagner stated that it would take a very robust spring enrollment to meet
the higher enrollment cap. He also stated that in the relative recent past we
have met that approximate number of FTES and it would help the district’s
budget significantly if proposition 30 does pass and we are able to meet the
higher cap.
Pam Kessler expressed concern regarding the possible decision to go after
more FTES and if it is a sustainable goal for the college. Discussion continued
regarding “right sizing” the college and it was noted that districts throughout
California are trying to meet cap unless they have a reduction strategy in place.
Dr. Snow-Flamer commented that we should plan our enrollment to weather
any other fiscal storms that come up; if we have to grow or shrink we need to
be able to plan for those eventualities.
The committee continued discussion regarding the lack of guidance from the
chancellor’s office. It was stated that smaller districts don’t have the elasticity
that larger districts have because they do not have large reserves or a large
number of students waiting for admittance. It was expressed that if the tax
measure passes hopefully the district will have two years to meet the higher
cap.
It was agreed that at this time the district will go with Scenario 1, assuming the
tax measure will fail.
REALLOCATION OF
TLUs FOR SPRING
There was discussion regarding strategies for the reallocation of TLUs for the
Spring semester and a handout showing the current TLU categories was
reviewed by the committee.
It was suggested that the district have an aggressive marketing campaign to
recruit faculty and students for the Spring semester. Paul DeMark agreed and
asked for a small group of volunteers to form a sub-committee.
Bruce Wagner stated that he would like to have input from the deans regarding
what courses to schedule for Spring. He also noted that we need to be cautious
about cancelling sections that have a decent fill rate. Discussion ensued
regarding what fill rate we’re looking for and it was noted that an 80% fill rate
is what we should shoot for. It was stated that it may be difficult to maintain
the current enrollment criteria and if a course is 70% full that is still very good.
There was also discussion about the possibility of offering a free or subsidized
bus pass for students. It was noted that this has been done in the past but it was
not sustainable.
There was discussion regarding Distance Education and how the FTES are
accounted for. Lynn Thiesen stated that stricter regulations are coming from
the Department of Education for online courses to prevent financial aid fraud.
She advised that we be aware and cautious if we decide to increase our online
offerings.
De-registration and how it affected the percentage of students dropped
between the first week of school and census was discussed. It was noted that
de-reg has actually reduced the number dropped and if we had the resources it
would be beneficial to run it more often.
SPRING SCHEDULE
DEVELOPMENT
TIMELINE
The Spring schedule development timeline was reviewed and it seems to be
working well. Tiffany Schmitcke noted that if changes were to her by October
12 she could have the schedule open and viewable two weeks before priority
registration.
De-reg dates were discussed and it was agreed that de-reg should actually start
earlier than it is presently scheduled to. It was suggested that de-reg begin on
November 28 and occur every Wednesday except for holidays. It was also
suggested that the de-reg dates be widely publicized with posters and
advertisements as well as emails.
ENROLLMENT &
PERFORMANCE
COMPARISON
Angelina Hill presented a handout on Enrollment and the Performance of Face
to Face vs. Online Enrollment data. She noted that success in online vs. face
to face classes at CR is similar to the state, with performance about 10% lower
in online courses. She also noted that there seems to be more of a decline in
success in vocational courses, but overall our retention is quite high.
FUTURE AGENDA
ITEMS
It was suggested that clarification of FTES and online offerings be a future
agenda item.
ADJOURNED
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m.
SUBMITTED
lw
Email to Deans/Directors on October 4, 2012
All,
After review and discussion of the summer 2012 and Fall 2012 FTES enrollments, budget
scenarios, initial review of the TLU allocation framework, and projected FTES numbers, the
EMC recommended, and cabinet accepted, that the college make every effort to build the spring
schedule to reach the FTES capacity of 4,465. The EMC further recommends that the appropriate
administrators balance the following:
1. We schedule high FTES generating courses based on the Keppner/Cummings/Anderson
course prioritization model developed last spring
(http://inside.redwoods.edu/strategicplanning/enrollmentmanagement/documents/EMCT
LUAllocationtoCabinet3212.pdf);
2. We continue to prioritize transfer, vocational and basic skills course scheduling that
aligns with student needs as shown in Appendix B of the TLU framework;
3. We strategically cancel low enrolled classes without sacrificing student access to the
curriculum;
4. We reallocate TLUs from low efficient courses/areas to areas that can generate FTES;
5. We aggressively market the schedule;
6. TLUs must be allocated to allow student access;
7. The District has set a goal of less than 10 percent cancellation rate for credit courses
programming for the College. It is important that the deans/directors and course
scheduler review trend data by section basis during the planning process. Examining the
historical trends will ensure that the same sections are not scheduled and cancelled for
multiple semesters in a row;
8. We should try to maintain an overall 80% fill rate. For the courses with one section,
courses with a fill rate of less than 70 percent should perhaps be offered less often – not
every semester. For the courses with multiple sections, the appropriate administrator
should examine all courses with less than 70-80 percent fill rate to determine if there are
too many sections being offered by course at comparable times; and
9. We implement a weekly (every Wednesday) DREG process beginning November 14
except if the DREG occurs on a college holiday.
The EMC asks that the deans and/or directors responsible for course scheduling review their
spring course offerings and consider reallocating unused TLUs to areas that can use them to
reach our FTES goal. Please let Tiffany, Bruce and I know if we can help with the reallocation
process.
Keith and Bruce
Co-Chairs of the Enrollment Management Committee