EL CAMINO COLLEGE
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT MEETING
DATE: April 18, 2013
Present: F. Arce, R. Bell, W. Garcia, I Graff, C. Jeffries, G. Miranda, C. Mosqueda, B.
Mulrooney, J. Nishime, J. Shankweiler, R. Smith, J. Soden, C. Wells
Other Guests: Richard Gonzalez, Joe Holliday, Rachel Williams
The meeting began at 2:32 p.m.
I. INFORMATION
A. Notes of April 4, 2013: Distributed and reviewed.
a. Correct meeting date to April 4, 2013.
b. Page 2, C, 1 – replace ‘of an HTP course’ with ‘offered’ in the last sentence.
c. Notes approved as amended.
II. DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Formal vote on AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities
1. The committee passed AP 5055, Enrollment Priorities: 11 – yes; 0 – no; 0 – abstain.
B. Enrollment Management Procedure Timeline
1. Must be implemented in mid-April for Summer/Fall 2014 registration.
2. Need feedback from ITS – dates and if any steps are missing.
3. Errors in today’s press release regarding in-district students for Fall 2013 should be
corrected: assessment was listed after Educational Plan, which should be taken
before meeting with a counselor. It is also recommended to schedule counseling
appointments online instead of by phone. Students are encouraged to follow the
three steps for Fall 2013; steps will be required for Summer/Fall 2014. How to code
students who completed the three steps will be determined as part of coding process.
4. Hope to complete timeline by the next meeting.
5. Discussed concerns about how students fill out their application information.
C. Opening discussion on In-District Cohorts and Criteria Guidelines
1. Student Group Application for Priority Registration is the same document used late
2011. Application asked for student group information, demographic information
(criteria to be in student group and benefit to college), criteria (extra- or co-curricular
activities required, challenges, alternative or options if priority registration is not
granted, etc.).
2. Discussion:
a. 2011 process and results. Proposal was made to register learning communities
through a process versus priority registration.
b. Why reduce priority registration numbers? Historically, ECC leads the number
of priority registration groups compared to other colleges. There were 3,821
students from mandated priority groups from ECC and Compton in Spring
2013; 2,470 students from other priority groups.
c. Early registration has been effective in rewarding successful student behavior.
For example, FYE program efficiency study determined FYE students are three
times more likely to earn a degree and three times more likely to transfer. FYE
students are more likely to pass math class the first time.
3.
4.
d. Concern that a larger part-time student population will be created without
enrollment priority. Granting access to groups will deny other students access.
e. Suggested investing in what is working and address what is not working.
f. Time - how long students should have priority registration.
g. Criteria – how do groups prove extra-curricular or co-curricular activities? Very
few groups follow criteria.
h. Impact on continuing students – suggestion made to see how many in each
priority group and how expanding or shrinking groups will impact continuing
students.
i. Measure performance – does program have verifiable impact on student
success? This could be added criteria.
j. Groups (i.e. HTP) would get courses designated for their group but not
guaranteed more than that - students could take longer to transfer or graduate.
k. May need to consider potential increase in priority groups in the future when
setting the policy.
Current priority groups: ECC Honors, Compton TRIO, F-1 Visa, Compton Athletics,
ECC Athletics, ECC ASO, Compton ASB, ECC Puente, ECC Project Success,
Compton FYE and ECC FYE. Committee must present clear rationale to keep the
current groups.
Recommend making no changes for now until total conversion to Student Success
Act. A compelling argument to advocate students having priority registration would
be to show percentage of successful students in cohorts. Recommendation was made
to compress into three groups: extra-curricular/co-curricular groups (i.e. athletes and
ASO), learning communities and other mandated groups (i.e. TRIO, F-1 Visa).
D. Automatic Granting of AA/AS Degree
1. Degrees would be automatically granted to students who qualified for a degree but
did not submit an intent to graduate. A college-initiated intent/policy; students would
be notified of degree awarded.
2. Discussed reasons how automatic granting of degree would affect students (i.e.
financial aid eligibility, insurance). Many transfer students do not realize they earned
a degree.
3. Automatic granting would increase success in the number of degrees and certificates
awarded. Students would accumulate unnecessary units if degrees were not granted.
4. Recommend each program discuss how automatic granting of degrees would affect
their students (impact analysis) and look at procedures in place at other colleges.
III. NEXT MEETING
The next Enrollment Management meeting will be held on May 9, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. in Library
202.
The meeting adjourned at 3:58 p.m.
2