Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Monday, March 7, 2011
1:10 – 2:40 p.m.
AGENDA
E M C M i s s i i o n
T o i n t e r r p r e t t e n r r o l l l m e n t t t r e n d s , , p a t t e r r n s a n d p r o j j e c t i o n s s , , s t u d e n t a c h i i e v e m e n t / / s s u c c e s s s s d a t t a , b a s s i i c s k i l l l s s s s t u d e n t a c h i e v e m e n t t d a t t a , a n d t t o i i n f f o r r m a l l l l i i n s s t t i i t t u t t i i o n a l l d i i v i i s i i o n s s a n d u n i i t t s s i i n m e e t t i i n g C R
’ ’ s e n r r o l l l l m e n t t g o a l l s s w i i t t h i i n a f f r r a m e w o r r k o f f c o l l l l a b o r r a t t i i o n c o n t i i n u e d g r r o w t t h a n d c o m m u n i i t y a l l i i g n m e n t .
.
T h e E n r o l l l m e n t M a n a g e m e n t t C o m m i i t t t t e e ( E M C ) ) a l s o f o r r m u l a t t e s s e n r r o l l l l m e n t t g o a l l s s c o n s i i s t t e n t t w i i t t h t t h e C o l l l l e g e
’ ’ s m i i s s s i i o n a n d p r r o g r r a m r r e v i i e w d a t t a , , d e v e l l o p s s F T E S b u d g e t t p r r o j j e c t t i i o n s , , i i m p l l e m e n t t s s , , m o n i i t t o r r s , , a n d p e r i i o d i c a l l l l y r e v i i s e s t h e p r r o c e s s o f f s s t t u d e n t e n r o l l l m e n t t a n d r e t t e n t i i o n .
.
1.
Call To Order
2.
Approve February 23, 2011 Meeting Minutes*
3.
Action Items
3.1
FY 2011-2012 Course Schedule
3.1.1
Schedule – Printed Comments
3.1.2
Schedule – Proofing Process
3.2
Task Force Recommendations
3.2.1
Virtual Campus TLU & FTES Counting
3.2.2
101 TLU Allocation
3.2.3
Further Guidance of Scheduling
4.
Discussion Items
4.1
ARCC Data*
4.2
Re-examine late registration and the disadvantages to students
5.
Reports
5.1
Update on EMC Actions and the communication process*
6.
Announcements
7.
Adjournment
(* denotes attachment)
PARTICIPANT DETAILS
> Dial your telephone conference line: (888) 886-3951
> Enter your pass code: 308897

Eureka: 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, AD 201 (Board Room)
Monday, February 23, 2011
1:10 p.m.
Final
NOTES
PRESENT
SUMMER
SCHEDULE
Mara Chaykin, ASCR, Zach DeLoach, David Gonsalves (phone),
Kathy Goodlive, Melissa Green, Anita Janis (phone), Allen Keppner,
Pam Kessler, Geisce Ly (phone), Mike Peterson, Tiffany Schmitcke,
Keith Snow-Flamer, Danny Walker and Bruce Wagner.
ALSO PRESENT Lynn Thiesen
MINUTES The minutes from the February 7, 2011 meeting were approved as presented.
ACTION ITEMS
An update was provided by members of the Summer Schedule Task
Force regarding how classes were chosen for summer. It was noted that the list of projected classes and the FTES course update from
Zach were reviewed, a list of projected classes and FTES course yield projections, fill rates scenarios were also used to see what to expect in the summer. Keith noted that this is the first time a cross section of people have worked together to create this schedule. Pam was pleased to see the decision making process was transparent and tied to the budget.
There are currently 85 sections planned for summer with approximately 15 reserved for calculated sections to implement in needed areas. There were no evening classes proposed by area coordinators and historically there have not been many.
There was discussion regarding the possibility of closing some of the sites for the summer. At this time it appears that only the Arcata site will be open and for only one class for which the instructor will have the building and classroom keys.

DISCUSSION
ITEMS
FY 2011-12
COURSE
SCHEDULE
TASK FORCE
Pam asked about summary costs and start and end dates for summer and how the budget will be affected. She also noted that Judy
Hinman, English Division Chair, has expressed concern with the high number of TLUs allotted for English 1B and 350. Tiffany and Kathy stated that they understand that the projected number is too high; however, it has to be entered in Datatel this way and will be adjusted later.
It was unanimously approved on a motion by Geisce Ly, seconded by
Pam Kessler to approve the draft summer schedule and begin loading it into Datatel.
Bruce noted that the task force has not yet met and things are moving slowly due to course requests not coming in from area coordinators.
He also noted that the draft of the 2 year schedule that Zach sent out this morning is very useful and everything of most importance is on the first page. When the task force meets it will look at what to do based on the information provided—fill rates, FTES maximization.
FTES: 4950 resident 5182 total for 2011/12 continue with further decrease by 4.5 percent if the budget continues to be bad.
Next Steps – Reconcile 2 year course schedule put together by Bruce using the FTES projections.
Bruce and Keith have been requested to send email to faculty to let them know that we’re moving forward with the 2 year schedule and this will get things moving so that the schedule can begin to be entered in Datatel. It was noted that faculty are very concerned that this is all “out there” and that they will not be officially notified until the last minute.
The fall schedule will be requested from area coordinators using the following guideline:

Based on 2 year schedule

Subject to cuts

Must have days, times, and locations
 area coordinators send to deans and then to Tiffany
Bruce noted that the CRFO contract states that the schedule starts with area coordinators but this doesn’t seem to be this way it’s done at other campuses.
Tiffany would like all VC classes to go to someone before going to her.
Bruce asked that the campus deans create their schedules and then

MULTIPLE
MEASURES send around to area coordinators for double checking. Geisce agreed.
This is more informative and might prevent a few problems as well as promoting communication and cooperation across the district.
There was brief discussion regarding faculty stipends. It was noted that the Distance Education stipends allocated for this year were clearly not enough. There also seems to be numerous PRME stipends for AJ and Health Occupations.
There was discussion regarding the need for the Fall Schedule to be available to students on April 4. It was noted that it is necessary because students are being advised about what classes they should take in the summer based on what they will need to take in fall. It is also important in determining Student Education Plans.
Further discussion took place regarding the process for determining how TLUs are allocated and who decides where the allocations will go. Keith stated that the task force should make a recommendation on how this process should be done. The following topics were also discussed:

Location should be a separate issue when allocating TLUs

Set allocations for main campuses only; determine/fine tune sites later

What is best for student success

Anita’s concern regarding how DE courses are being counted and the impact on the Del Norte campus

Percentage of DE courses currently offered

Further cuts to the Mendocino campus would be detrimental
Pam provided a brief update from the English department regarding
Multiple Measures.
Bruce noted that the Multiple Measures committee has been doing a lot of work on a matriculation survey and first draft of logic for multiple measures.
Zach and Bruce stated that the Accuplacer data showed no correlation between scores and how well a student did in that math course and there was no real correlation between high and low scores.
Pam stated that generally the English Department feels that when a student isn’t doing well in a class, Accuplacer has clearly indicated this. It seems that students do not take the placement exam
(Accuplacer) seriously and they don’t understand the consequences of this. Somehow the importance of the Accuplacer test needs to be scripted so that students know how crucial it is in determining their correct placement.
Bruce also noted that the Math Department is trying to come up with their own version of a placement test to replace Accuplacer.
Pam stated that the Multiple Measures instrument will be used only to

SCOTT LAY
EMAIL
ARCC DATA
INSTITUTIONAL
EFFECTIVENESS
MEASURES
INSTITUTIONAL
PLANNING
NARRATIVE
AND MODEL
FUTURE
AGENDA ITEMS
ADJOURNED
SUBMITTED help the students whose assessment scores are borderline.
There was brief discussion regarding the email from Scott Lay that provided an update on the State Budget.
Zach provided a brief overview of the ARCC data and the cohorts that it is pulled from. This data includes students who completed courses, basic skills and worked up to transfer.
Pam questioned how valid the cohorts were noting that she doesn’t understand the reference to ESL courses as they have been eliminated.
This is a bogus statistic because there is no ESL program at CR.
She also noted that persistence is a real problem for us as a college.
This could be addressed through a reformed matriculation process.
We’ve never really addressed it as a college and we can’t afford to have such lousy persistence.
There was discussion regarding the definition of persistence and what we have to do to boost our persistence rate. It was suggested that we look at a peer group or state indicators to determine what a good persistence rate would be.
The IEC has added a lot of other indicators to the scorecard and hopefully will have it back to EMC next week.
The IEC approved the Planning Narrative and BP/AP 3250, and the
Planning Model and forwarded it to College Council. An IEC
Planning Summit will be scheduled at the end of March
Printed Schedule – Comment section
Fall 2011/Spring 2012 schedule
The meeting adjourned at 2:40 p.m. lw

47.4%
2011 CR Trends over the Last 3 Recorded Academic Years
69.5%
80.8%
56.1%
54.5%
52.5%
83.3%
2009 Report
2010 Report
2011 Report
Progress and
Achievment Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence Rate Vocational
Course Success
Basic Skills
Course Success
Improvement
Rate for Basic
Skills
Improvement
Rate for ESL
Progress and Achievment Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence Rate
Vocational Course Success
Basic Skills Course Success
Improvement Rate for Basic Skills
Improvement Rate for ESL
2009 Report
2002-2003 to
2007-2008
2009 Report
49.5%
72.3%
58.2%
79.5%
57.8%
52.0%
66.7%
2010 Report
2003-2004 to
2008-2009
2010 Report
50.4%
71.3%
61.1%
78.3%
56.5%
47.5%
100.0%
2011 Report
2004-2005 to
2009-2010
2011 Report
47.4%
69.5%
56.1%
80.8%
54.5%
52.5%
83.3%

47.4%
69.5%
80.8%
83.3%
56.1%
54.5%
52.5%
CR Data
State Average
Peer Average
Progress and
Achievment
Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence
Rate
Vocational
Course Success
Basic Skills
Course Success
Improvement
Rate for Basic
Skills
Improvement
Rate for ESL
Progress and Achievment Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence Rate
Vocational Course Success
Basic Skills Course Success
Improvement Rate for Basic Skills
Improvement Rate for ESL
CR Data
47.4%
69.5%
56.1%
80.8%
54.5%
52.5%
83.3%
State Average
53.6%
72.8%
67.6%
77.0%
61.4%
58.6%
54.6%
Peer Average
46.8%
69.2%
61.0%
80.4%
56.5%
55.2%
49.4%

47.4%
69.5%
80.8%
83.3%
56.1%
54.5%
52.5%
CR Data
Peer Low
Peer High
Progress and
Achievment Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence Rate Vocational
Course Success
Basic Skills
Course Success
Improvement
Rate for Basic
Skills
Improvement
Rate for ESL
Progress and Achievment Rate
Earning 30 credits
Persistence Rate
Vocational Course Success
Basic Skills Course Success
Improvement Rate for Basic Skills
Improvement Rate for ESL
CR Data
47.4%
69.5%
56.1%
80.8%
54.5%
52.5%
83.3%
Peer Low
36.2%
56.3%
47.7%
79.4%
41.8%
48.1%
9.6%
Peer High
51.6%
76.4%
74.3%
80.9%
71.4%
62.8%
83.3%

ARCC Indicators
CR ARCC Indicators compared to State Indicators (per the 2011 ARCC Report)
Student Progress & Achievement
Completed 30 or More Units
Fall to Fall Persistence
Vocational Course Completion
Basic Skills Course Completion
Basic Skills Course Improvement
ESL Course Improvement
State
2010
51.1%
71.1%
66.0%
76.0%
CR
2010
2010
CR
Rank Percentile
50.4% 33 / 108 69.4%
Quartile
2nd
1st 71.3% 16 / 108 85.2%
61.1% 87 / 110 20.9%
78.3% 33 / 110 70.0%
4th
2nd
61.2% 56.5% 88 / 110 20.0%
53.2% 47.5% 64 / 110 41.8%
47.3% 100.0% 1 / 104 99.0%
4th
3rd
1st
State
2011
53.6%
72.8%
67.6%
77.0%
61.4%
58.6%
54.6%
CR
2011
2011
CR
Rank Percentile
47.4% 79 / 109 27.5%
Quartile
3rd
3rd 69.5% 81 / 109 25.7%
56.1% 99 / 110 10.0%
80.8% 16 / 110 85.5%
4th
1st
54.5% 90 / 110 18.2%
52.5% 77 / 110 30.0%
83.3% 1 / 101 99.0%
4th
3rd
1st
CR vs. State 2011 ARCC Rates
77%
81%
83%
73%
70%
54%
47%
68%
56%
61%
55%
59%
53%
55% State
2011
CR
2011
Student Progress &
Achievement
Completed 30 or More
Units
Fall to Fall
Persistence
Vocational Course
Completion
Basic Skills Course
Completion
Basic Skills Course
Improvement
ESL Course
Improvement
51%
55%
71%
76%
66%
61%
CR vs. State 2010 ARCC Rates
76%
78%
61%
57%
53% 52%
47%
100%
State
2010
CR
2010
Student Progress &
Achievement
Completed 30 or More
Units
Fall to Fall
Persistence
Vocational Course
Completion
Basic Skills Course
Completion
Basic Skills Course
Improvement
ESL Course
Improvement
Indicator
Student Progress & Achievement
Completed 30 or More Units
Fall to Fall Persistence
Vocational Course Completion
Basic Skills Course Completion
Basic Skills Course Improvement
ESL Course Improvement
2011 ARCC Cohorts
Cohorts
(2004-05 to 2009-10)
(2004-05 to 2009-10)
(2008-09 to 2009-10)
(2009-10)
(2009-10)
(2008-09 to 2009-10)
(2008-09 to 2009-10)

Enrollment Management Action Item Summary
# Recommendation/Action
Item
Enrollment Management Plan
IR Status-101 Corridor Survey
EM Scorecard
Employee and Student Satisfaction
Survey Action Plans
Multiple Measures
Action Taken Status
Forward the spring plan to the MC and
Senate for their information.
Forwarded to IR
Forwarded to Cabinet for approval.
Forwarded to the IEC for review and revision.
Forwarded to subcommittee of the
EMC to review and revise the action plans
Forwarded to subcommittee of the
EMC to review and revise
The EMC approved the spring enrollment management plan developed by an EM task force.
Another task force has been created to begin working on the two year enrollment management plan. A request has been forwarded to the PRC for Trends &
Assessment/Planning program review summaries to inform the Enrollment Management Plan. Once developed by the EMC the two year plan will be vetted through the integrated planning committees,
Management Council, Academic Senate, Cabinet, and the Budget Planning Committee.
Task Force members: Pam Kessler, Allen Keppner,
Melissa Green, Cheryl Tucker
Deployment of the survey has been delayed given the lack to an adequate number of staff in Institutional
Research. Dr. Goswami reported to the college in a
December 17, 2010 email that the process to fill the
IR direction position will be started.
Cabinet approved moving forward with populating the scorecard. IR is in the process of gathering the data.
The scorecard has been forwarded to the IEC for review as possible internal strategic performance indicators that are tied to CR’s mission, values and goals.
The EMC approved the subcommittee's work on the spring EM Plan that culminated in a set of achievable goals for Spring semester, with a proposed budget, based on a realistic assessment of the college.
The EMC convening a task force to develop a two year EM Plan for submission the EMC by
April. As part of this work, the PRC will send
Trends and Goals executive summaries of the program review documents to the EMC for inclusion in the 2 year EM Plan.
The college has made the commitment to redeploy a student satisfaction action survey in
April, 2012.
.
English and math faculty and student services staff have worked together on development of multiple measures for English and math placement
The Academic Support Center web-site has been
1

EAP
Enrollment Management Action Item Summary
Waitlist procedure
Student Feedback Online Form
AP 5055 Review and Revision
Implemented
Implemented
In Review updated to include more up to date information on preparation for the Accuplacer test and appointments available
The English and math faculty have provided English and math course level descriptions and samples that will be utilized by advisors to assist students who fall within zones between two different courses in choosing the course they would have the best opportunity to be successful in.
Data from IR is being utilized to further analyze the relationship between Accuplacer scores and course success in math for validity purposes and to help inform improvements for the assessment procedures
Recently, the matriculation flow process was mapped to identify key areas of implementation for a continuous improvement plan to move the college towards mandatory assessment, advising and orientation for new, matriculating students. This plan will be put into action incrementally to ensure quality improvements over time that will lead to long lasting results.
Task Force: Pam Kessler, Judie Hinman, Melissa
Green, Mary Grace Barrick, Cheryl Tucker, Bruce
Wagner, Todd Olsen, Amber Buntin
The English and math faculty approved using the EAP in the assessment process. The CCCCO has added CR to the list of schools accepting EAP scores.
Approved and has been implemented for Spring 2011.
Co-chairs of the EMC worked with Maggie to develop the appropriate questions, and has uploaded the form to the website and MyCR site.
When a student fills out the form, an email will be sent to Tiffany. She can then forward that problem if necessary to the appropriate person.
Over the next few weeks, we can observe what kinds of problems are reported, and we can discuss the form further at the next EMC meeting. Any appropriate changes in the form recommended by the EMC can be made at that time.
A small group of EMC members have been asked to review the proposed AP 5055 against the LAO recommendations for enrollment priorities.
Task Force members: Pam Kessler, Allen Keppner,
Kathy Goodlive, Bruce Wagner, Melissa Green,
Cheryl Tucker
2

Summer Enrollment
Enrollment Management Action Item Summary
The schedule was approved by the
EMC and forwarded to the BPC for funding.
A task force was created to develop a district summer schedule with the guidance that we’re looking at offering 100 sections this summer. Initial summer schedule guidelines were created by the Cabinet and forwarded to the EMC for consideration as it developed the schedule:
1.
100 calculated sections
2.
Focus evening courses to 101 Corridor beginning Summer ‘11
3.
High FTES generating classes
4.
Online classes (increase online without stipends (use currently trained faculty))
5.
Lab sciences
6.
Mendo, Del Norte, KT parity
7.
19-20% evening
8.
no evenings in Eureka if possible
9.
Two courses in Southern Humboldt if possible
10.
Look to online for Mendo or Del Norte students as a possible substitute for low enrolled traditional classes
Although the EMC considered Cabinet guidelines, at the same time the EMC understood that one of its key responsibilities is to recommend scheduling, instructional and student support strategies to enhance student access, success, retention, persistence, and goal attainment.
Task Force members: Rachel Anderson (lead), Tiffany
Schmitcke, Barbara Jaffari, Juana Tabares, Barb
Franklin, Zach DeLoach, and Anna Duffy. Keith
Snow-Flamer was the liaison.
The EMC approved a summer schedule that held:
Calculated Sections
Target Calculated Sections: 100
Total Calculated Sections Scheduled: 87
Total TLUS scheduled: 385
Sections in reserve: 13
Projected FTES of Scheduled Sections
80% Efficiency rate: 225.68
85% Efficiency rate: 261.89
Costs
Total cost of 100 calculated sections:
$344,256
Total of scheduled sections: $292,618
2011 cost: $91,686
2012 cost: $200,932
2012 cost of reserve sections: $51,638
Calculated Sections by location:
3

2011-12 FTES Target
Enrollment Management Action Item Summary
In Review
Eureka Area (including VC and 101): 71.6
Mendocino: 4
Del Norte: 7.7
KT: 1.7
A task force has been created to develop recommended FTES/TLU allocations, annual schedule, and other issues associated with the FY11-
12 district schedule. The cabinent provided some initial guiding principles for the committee’s consideration as it develops the schedule:
1.
Target FTES is 4950 resident FTES a.
equal % cut in annualized FTES based on 2010-11 actual (5200)
2.
Number of calculated sections funded is determined by site productivity
3.
Selected adjustments permitted for instructional/schedule integrity
4.
All new program/class initiatives (e.g. EMP driven) may be funded with excess reserves
5.
101 Corridor is considered separate entity
6.
Virtual campus will be a stand-alone division and function like the 101 Corridor as it relates to TLU allocations
7.
Focus evening courses to 101 Corridor
Summer ‘11
The EMC and the task force must balance the question of whether we focus on opportunity (access) or focus on student success. An initial two year schedule has been put together and is being reviewed by the task force.
Task force members include: Mike Peterson, Allen
Keppner, Kathy Goodlive, Zach DeLoach, Joe Hash,
Rachel Anderson, Tiffany Schmitcke, and Geisce Ly.
Bruce Wagner is the liaison.
4