CCCCIO Fall 2015 Conference
SCHEDULING FOR STUDENT
SUCCESS
CCCCIO FALL CONFERENCE 2015
Craig Justice, Ph.D. (Economics)
Vice President for Instruction
Irvine Valley College
Past President, CCCCIO
cjustice@ivc.edu
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
2
 Tools Demonstrated Today:
 Room Utilization Report (EXHIBIT 1)
 Scheduling Course Summary Report (EXHIBIT 2)
 Targeting by Department (EXHIBIT 3)
 FTES Reconciliation Report (EXHIBIT 4)
 The Punch Line:
 We need an easily monitored dashboard that shows if goals and
targets are being met and an easy tool to add/delete sections of
courses to hit targets.
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
3
 The Goal:
 Build a multi-term “student-centered schedule” that:





10/25/2015
Offers sections throughout the day, across the week,
evenings, and online
Is based on students’ preferences and data about their
needs (work schedules, educational plans, etc.)
Utilizes classroom space optimally
Is efficient in terms of WSCH/FTEF or FTES/WFCH
Is automated with opportunities to adjust
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
4
SCHEDULING: THE REALITY
 The Reality:
 Course scheduling is often a manual, iterative process not fully-informed by
data and prone to expedient, but not optimal, solutions



Room utilization challenges (e.g. the “Thursday night gap”)
Uncritical use of schedule roll-overs that don’t adapt to trends and changes in
students’ needs
Domination by faculty preferences over students’ needs (or, “the Nordstrom
schedule”)
See Exhibit One (Room Utilization-BSTIC 103)
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
5
Utilization Report
EXHIBIT 1: Room
•
•
•
•
10/25/2015
BSTIC 103: A 60-seat, auditorium style classroom with excellent multi-media.
Shows use of the room by any single department or all departments
A quick, easy-to-read visual to find gaps in scheduling
Note Thursday evening gap - speculation as why this happens more on Th?
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
6
DEPARTMENT-LEVEL DATA
 The Goal:
 Hit an FTES Target that is consistent with 30+ enrollment per section
 The Growth Rule:
 In departments with high fill-rates (say, 80% and up), add one section of
highest-demand course
 The Data:
 Dean reviews data about fill-rates, room utilization, and FTES targets with
their Department Chairs.
See Exhibit 2 (Scheduling Course Summary Report)
10/28/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
7
Scheduling Course Summary
Irvine Valley College - Spring 2016 - Social and Behavioral Sciences
Coop-Ed Work Exp Excluded
Cancelled Sections Excluded
School
Department - Course ID Section ID
Social and Behavioral
Anthropology
ANTH 1
63030-Gabriella, Wendy
63035-Loeffler, Chris
63055-Staff,
63070-Loeffler, Chris
63075-Gabriella, Wendy
63100-Loeffler, Chris
63105-Gabriella, Wendy
ANTH 2
63050-Payton, Jim m ie
63080-Gabriella, Wendy
63085-Gabriella, Wendy
63090-Gabriella, Wendy
ANTH 2 H
63060-Loeffler, Chris
ANTH 3
70055-Loeffler, Chris
ANTH 4
63065-Clifford, Rob
Sec
Count
Excluded
Sections
203
14
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
12
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
Net
Sections
Cens
Enroll
191
13
7
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
1
0
0
1
1
1
1
Max
Enroll
8,541
689
358
60
45
40
40
73
40
60
231
40
73
73
45
20
20
40
40
40
40
Avail
Seats
8,541
689
358
60
45
40
40
73
40
60
231
40
73
73
45
20
20
40
40
40
40
Fill
Rate
Census
FTES
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
SPRING 2015
17
657
783
84%
FALL 2015
15
631
724
87%
ACTION EXPECTED: Add one section of Anthro 2 in an available prime time module.
Capacity w ill rise to 734 and fill-rate should reach 80%.
3.88
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Potential
FTES
Census
Faculty
FTES /
Contract
Potential
Hours
FTES
#VALUE! #VALUE!
210.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
30.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
18.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
6.00
#VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE!
3.00
#VALUE! #VALUE!
0.00
#VALUE!
0.00
ININSTR0005
10/25/2015
6:49 AM
Page 1 of 1
TOT
OSH
397.00
12.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
6.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
3.00
TOT
WFCH
Waitlist
Count
607.00
42.00
21.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
12.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
Note: Anthro 2 had an 89% fill-rate inf FA2015.
Sections cut from 6 to 4 (-82 seats).
EXHIBIT 2: Scheduling Course Summary
•
•
•
10/25/2015
Note total section count for Anthro: SP2016=14, FA2015=15, SP2015=17.
Analysis indicates that seat capacity in Anthro 2 has fallen from 313 in FA2015 to 231 in SP2016, a reduction of
82 seats.
Anthro 2 had a fill-rate in FA2015 of 89.1% with 6 sections offered. Add here.
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
8
DEPARTMENT-LEVEL: ANTHRO
 The Reality:
 Courses get scheduled by the chair, reviewed by Dean. Does the Dean
provide effective leadership to address challenges in the department (e.g. thin
adjunct pool) while pushing to make the targets?
 The Dean’s Analysis:
 Dean must effectively assert management rights: Not scheduling a section
that would get 25-30 students denies access and suffers opportunity cost of
2.5-3.0 FTES revenue.
See Exhibit 3 (TARGETS BY DEPARTMENT)
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
9
TERM
TOT
SEC
ADD
SEC
CTR
WFCH
OL OSH PT OSH LL OSH TS OSH
TOT
OSH
TOT WFCH
CEN
FTES
WSCH
FTEF
ENRL
SEC
CRS
FILL
RATE
FTES
WFCH
WSCH*
FTEF*
0
528
576
0
39
41
0.0
88.8
91.1
0.00
1.18
1.28
0
619
671
FTES
SEC
FTES
SEC
Department: Anthropology - ADD 1 SECTION OF ANTHRO 2TO INCREASE ACCESS BY 45-60 SEATS
Sp 16
Sp 15
Sp 14
14
17
19
1
30
30
30
3
9
9
9
12
18
0
5
4
0
0
0
12
26
31
42
56
61
0
66
78
0.00
3.88
4.11
0.00
3.88
4.11
By adding only sections of courses that have 80%+ fill-rates, student demand (based on prior terms) is enhanced.
UNKNOWN FACTORS: has student demand changed?, does adding one more section of a popular course diminish enrollment in other courses?
In scheduling practices at this time, there's only one way to find out: experimentation.
This "VPI REVIEW" is discussed with the deans, who have in their goals (related to their evaluation)
"reaching FTES targets for their departments." Each has had staff development training using
"Crucial Conversations" by Patterson, et al. When all else fails, management rights can be asserted;
however, it's best when faculty understand the objectives and goals and become advocates of
scheduling for growth and creating a student-centered schedule.
EXHIBIT 3: Scheduling Course Summary
•
•
•
10/25/2015
Note total section count for Anthro: SP2016=14 ( was FA2015=15, SP2015=17).
Analysis indicates that seat capacity in Anthro 2 has fallen from 313 in FA2015 to 231 in SP2016, a reduction of
82 seats.
Anthro 2 had a fill-rate in FA2015 of 89.1% with 6 sections offered. Action: add 1 section.
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
10
DEPARTMENT-LEVEL: ANTHRO
 Have a Crucial Conversation:
 The Dean’s conversation with the department chair is crucial because the
outcome matters so much to both
 Use the Growth Business Rule:
 A net addition to sections of a course need not be fully enrolled the first
semester it’s offered. (Use fill-rates of 80%, not 95%) to trigger the addition)
 Use block scheduling:
 Block scheduling minimizes students’ scheduling conflicts
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
11
SCHEDULING OUTCOMES
 Outcome 1:
 A two-year (four-semester) schedule created in the scheduling Information
Management System (IMS)
 Outcome 2:
 Data-infused business rules built-in to schedule lead to “optimal” schedules
 Outcome 3:
 Once a “student centered schedule” is generated, proceed to the staffing step
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
12
COLLEGE FTES TARGETS
 College Targets: If departments and divisions reach their targets, the
college will too (usually)
 Resident FTES: Monitor for apportionment
 Growth Targets, Summer Shifts
 College-size Thresholds (SB 361)
 Non-resident (NR) FTES: Target for NR tuition
 If NR students are a target population, the college should schedule to serve
their needs
See EXHIBIT 4 (FTES RECONCILIATION REPORT)
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
13
FTES Reconciliation Report
Irvine Valley College
ATEP Included
ININSTR0023
10/24/2015
5:20 PM
Page 1 of 3
Full-Time Equivalent Students: by Academic Year (Scheduled Terms)
Target for 2015-2016 = Growth of 5.0% over 2014-2015 Annual FTES (Academic Year)
ACADEMIC YEAR
TOTAL
FALL
FTES
4,445.89
4,693.75
9,139.64
0.00
0.00
TOTAL
SUMMER
TERM
FTES
0.00
Res ident
3,985.20
4,201.78
8,186.98
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3,985.20
Non-Res ident
460.69
491.97
952.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
460.69
2015-2016 (FA15, SP16, SU16)
2014-2015 (FA14, SP15, SU15)
TOTAL
SPRING
FTES
TOTAL FALL
AND SPRING
FTES
Summer B
FTES
(Unshiftable)
Summer B
Summer A
FTES
FTES
(Shiftable)
(Shiftable)
Carry Back
Carry Forward
0.00
0.00
Summer A
FTES
(Unshiftable)
ACADEMIC
YEAR
ANNUAL
4,445.89
4,673.29
4,693.75
9,367.04
4.98
1,142.61
61.07
22.05
1,230.71
10,597.75
Res ident
4,190.23
4,201.78
8,392.01
4.68
1,043.40
59.32
20.95
1,128.35
9,520.36
Non-Res ident
483.06
491.97
975.03
0.30
99.21
1.75
1.10
102.36
1,077.39
2013-2014 (FA13, SP14, SU14)
4,589.52
4,525.28
9,114.80
1.87
943.65
69.66
30.39
1,045.57
10,160.37
Res ident
4,174.80
4,068.27
8,243.07
1.87
866.52
66.21
28.83
963.43
9,206.50
Non-Res ident
414.72
457.01
871.73
0.00
77.13
3.45
1.56
82.14
953.87
4,443.78
4,312.04
8,755.82
2.26
520.34
270.04
13.41
806.05
9,561.87
2012-2013 (FA12, SP13, SU13)
TARGET
9,985
9,741
Full-Time Equivalent Students: by CC320 Fiscal Year
Target for 2015-2016 = Growth of 5.0% over 2014-2015 Annual FTES (CC320 Fiscal Year)
CC320 FISCAL YEAR
2015-2016
Res ident
Non-Res ident
2014-2015
Res ident
Non-Res ident
2013-2014
Res ident
Non-Res ident
2012-2013
SUMMER A
Reported
83.12
FALL
Reported
4,445.89
80.27
3,985.20
SPRING
TOTAL FALL
Reported AND SPRING
4,693.75
9,139.64
4,201.78
8,186.98
SUMMER B
CC320
Reported
Exclusions
0.00
0.00
0.00
CC320
FISCAL
4,529.01
2.85
460.69
491.97
952.66
0.00
4,673.29
4,693.75
9,367.04
1,147.59
95.04
4,190.23
4,201.78
8,392.01
1,048.08
9,535.13
5.01
483.06
491.97
975.03
99.51
1,079.55
283.45
4,589.52
4,525.28
9,114.80
945.52
264.22
4,174.80
4,068.27
8,243.07
868.39
19.23
414.72
457.01
871.73
77.13
4,443.78
4,312.04
8,755.82
522.60
10,615
2014-2015 Gap
221
4,065.47
100.05
772.24
TARGET
463.54
0.00
0.14
10,614.68
10,343.77
2015-2016 Target
9,985
FA2015 ESTIMATE
SP2016 ESTIMATE
PRIMARY TERM TOTAL
4,200
4,400
8,600
GAP (SUMMER 2016)
SU2016 TARGET (GAP+10%)
1,385
1,524
-143
10,758
9,375.68
968.09
0.00
10,050.66
EXHIBIT 4: FTES RECONCILIATION REPORT
•
•
•
•
10/25/2015
To meet our college growth target, resident FTES must reach 9,985FTES.
Our medium-sized college target is now about 9,840 FTES.
IVC is attempting to grow its primary term FTES by focusing on high fill-rate courses.
Summer 2016 will need to grow by nearly 400 FTES over last year to hit our desired FTES Target.
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
14
What’s Next?
 For all of us CIOs:
 Continue to develop tools that illustrate effective scheduling best practices
and share them with CCCCIO.
 For software developers:
 Create automated tools based on scheduling best practices that can be
incorporated into any IMS (People Soft, Banner, DataTel, Workday, et al.)
Thank you.
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
15
Enrollment Management in a
Multi-College District
Sheri Berger
Vice President, Academic Affairs,
Pierce College
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
16
District and College Goals
District
• Maximize FTES
• Maximize Revenue
• Additional Considerations
• District Enrollment Trends
• District Growth Potential
College
• Maximize FTES
• Maximize Revenue
• Additional Considerations
• Strategic Master Plan
• Enrollment Management Plan
• Specialized Programs
• College Enrollment Trends
• Facilities Utilization
• College Growth Potential
• Initiatives
What’s the target?
How did we get here?
 State Influences
 Starts with the proposed Governor’s January budget.
 P2 Reporting
 Reality sets in
 May Revise and Final Budget
 Presidential Level
 Negotiations
 Negotiations
 Negotiations
 Surprises!
Growth Scenarios
How are we doing?
 Headcounts
 Enrollments
 Fill Rates
 Quarterly Projections
Fall Demonstration by Accounting Method
Plan for Enrollment Management
 Produced by the Enrollment Management Committee
 A standing committee of the College Council
 Consists of faculty, staff, and administrators across campus
 Aligned with the College’s Strategic Master Plan
 Monitored by the Enrollment Management Committee
 A progress dashboard, created by the Office of Institutional
Effectiveness, presented twice a year to the committee
Enrollment Management at a Single
College… Managing Enrollment and Efficiency
Through A Decrease In Student Headcount
Deborah Wulff
Vice President, Academic Affairs
Cuesta College
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
26
1. In depth analysis of
county/district demographics
2. In depth analysis of student
enrollments and programs
Annual Program Review Data Sets -Analysis
PROGRAM REVIEW DASHBOARD
 Enrollment Division/Discipline/Course
 Student Demand (Fill Rate) Division/Discipline/Course
 Efficiency (FTES/FTEF) Division/Discipline/Course
 Student Success Course Completion Division/Discipline/Course
 Success by Modality Division/Discipline/Course
 Degrees and Certificates Awarded Division/Discipline/Course
 Demographics Division/Discipline/Course
PROGRAM REVIEW DASHBOARD LINKS (DISAGGREGATED)
 Student Demand (Fill Rate) Disaggregated
 Efficiency (FTES/FTEF) Disaggregated
 Student Success Course Completion Disaggregated
http://www.cuesta.edu/aboutcc/planning/research/Program_Review_Data.html
We are like many California Community
Colleges: Traditional Enrollment is Decreasing
Finding & developing tools to help manage
enrollment and maintain efficiency
 Enrollment Management Committee
 Reestablished a Workload Committee
 Developed common terminology
 Reviewed and developed data sets
 Made recommendations
Quadrants
1.
Course Efficiencies
2.
Program Efficiencies
X-axis Fill Rate (80%)
Y-axis FTES/FTEF (15)
Quadrants
Semester
Term
Division
Department
Unmet Demand
Region
FTES
Total for Sections:
FTES/FTEF
FTES
Fill Rate
Median Section Limit
Count of Sections
Program Efficiencies
Quadrant
Workload Committee Recommendation
 Programs located in the lower left quadrant
reveal challenges in scheduling, loading
and efficiency. Departments were tasked
with analyzing Fall 2014 and Spring 2015
schedules, loads, room assignment,
program efficiency and define a plan
for increasing program efficiency.
Developed reporting tools.
Dashboard for Managing Enrollment
Data
Bryan Reece
Vice President, Instruction
Crafton Hills College
10/25/2015
Craig Justice, Irvine Valley College
42
Implementing Enrollment Strategies
Strategies
Data
• Encourage low unit students to take one
more class
• Expand high demand sections
• Recruit from feeder schools with lower
attendance at you college
• Market workforce development related
coursed to local businesses
• Expand concurrent enrollment
• Offer more online sections
• Offer course acceleration sequences
• Expand tutoring center usage
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Student load information
Student contact information
Wait list analysis
Classroom availability
Salary information
Course descriptions
Enrollment data by feeder school
Open seats
Academic support services usage
Finding the Information/Data
Phase 1
Physical Files
•
•
•
•
1,000s of files
Files located all over campus
Difficult to access
Difficult to aggregate
Phase 2
Home Grown Programs
•
•
•
•
1,000s of programs
Digital files in small programs
Difficult to pull data
Difficult aggregate data
Phase 3
Enterprise Systems
•
•
•
•
•
3-5 systems with dozens of bolt-ons
Technical skills to access data
Canned reports are often difficult to read
Customs reports need to be processed by R&P
Systems do not speak to each other
Phase 4
Dashboards and DataMarts
•
•
•
•
Technical skill to code dashboard
All data can be integrated
All data configured to your needs
Dashboards available 24/7
Dashboard Examples
 Current RFTES, Enrollment, and Unduplicated Headcount
 Active Section Enrollments
 High School Enrollment by Fall Term
 Number of Students on Wait List by Section and Course
 Room Number Search
 Open Sections by Late Start Sections and Discipline
 Online Open Sections by Late Start Sections and Discipline
 Emails and Phone for Actively Enrolled Students
 Emails and Phones for Students Enrolled in Cancelled Sections
 Emails of Students Actively Enrolled by Term in Current RFTES
Dashboard Options
Cal PASS Data Mart
• Not available
• Very expensive
Jaspersoft
• Good platform
• $45,000
Tableau
• Powerful, robust, awesome
• $27,000 + $150/end user +
$300/developer
CCCCO Data Mart
 Not available
IBM Cognos
 Integrates with SPSS, powerful, robust
 $26,592 + $6,000 annually
Entrinsik Informer
 Already owned report tool & integrated with
Colleague
 $27,000 less 50% discount
 $13,500 = WINNER!
Group Discussion
 Share something that helps you with enrollment planning,
student focused schedule building, or managing
productivity….