California Community Colleges
Board of Governors Meeting
September 10, 2012
Enrollment Priorities: The CSSO Perspective on the Proposed Title 5 Regulatory
Changes to Section 58108
Many districts have already made local decisions to modify registration priorities over the
past several years due to budget cuts, staff reductions, and reduced course sections.
While it is prudent to reward and incentivize student participation in Matriculation services
such as assessment, orientation, counseling, declaring a major and educational goal,
development of an educational plan, and maintaining good academic standing,
Matriculation funding was cut by approximately 60% in 2009-2010. Since colleges have not
been able to backfill the reductions with general funds, support services to assist students
in these areas have been drastically reduced throughout the state. The cuts have not been
restored in the intervening years, and yet we will now be linking all new and many
continuing students’ access to priority enrollment to the very services for which there is
already woefully inadequate funding.
The proposed Title 5 changes to Section 58108 governing enrollment priorities, despite
much discussion around them in a state-wide task force and in Consultation Council,
present serious challenges for colleges. There are two primary areas of concern:
1.
A mandated appeals process will add significant workload to already reduced staffing
levels. The proposed changes require colleges to allow students to appeal their lost
enrollment priority and lost BOG Fee Waiver. Especially given the delay in consequence
for poor academic progress, there will be significant numbers of student appeals, all of
which will require manual processing for telephone, in person and email
communications, assistance with petitions, timely and fair review processes prior to
registration, data entry for reinstatements, etc. Yes, colleges do already have appeals
processes in place; but the magnitude of new appeals of priority enrollment and BOGW
loss will be much greater than anything we now deal with. In effect, this requirement will
be a significant new mandated cost on the colleges, for which no funding has been
identified.
3. Costs to implement these regulations have not been considered nor estimated; no new
funding has been identified. There has been no comprehensive, serious, statewide
analysis of the costs to implement the proposed regulations. As currently written, they
will mandate both one-time and on-going resources to implement. This, during a period
of time in which colleges have endured four consecutive years of budget reductions,
particularly in critical support services and categorical funding has been decimated.
PROPOSED TITLE 5 CHANGES TO ENROLLMENT PRIORITIES
CCCCSSAA COST ESTIMATE
Start-up costs (9 months to implement) – 112 colleges
.50 Programmer @ $80,000/yr
$ 4,480,000
1.5 support staff @ $50,000/yr
8,400,000
One-Time Total
$12,880,000
On-going annual costs – 112 colleges
Manager- or supervisor-level position to handle appeals - $ 2,240,000
- .20 manager @ $100,000/yr
Support staff to manager
1,400,000
.25 support position @ $50,000/yr
Annual On-Going Total
$ 3,640,000
*The above costs include on-campus and within-district consultation with constituent
groups, the development of policies and procedures, the development of technical
specifications, programming, testing, implementation, communication with students and
staff time on appeals.
The California Community College Chief Student Services Administrators
Association urges the Board of Governors to specifically address and resolve
the above concerns before the Board approves the proposed regulations.