The Role of Academic Senates in
Enrollment Management
The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
Adopted Fall 1999
1999
- 00 Educational Policies Committee
Hoke Simpson, Chair, Grossmont College
Lacy Barnes-Mileham, Reedley College
Elton Hall, Moorpark College
Kate Clark, Irvine Valley College
Mary Rider, Grossmont College
Ian Walton, Mission College
Robert
Porter, Saddleback College, Student Representative
1998
- 99 Educational Policies Committee
Janis Perry, Chair, Santiago Canyon College
Linda Collins, Los Medanos College
Eva Conrad, Moorpark College, CIO Representative
Elton Hall, Moorpark College
Mary Rider, Grossmont College
Hoke Simpson, Grossmont College
Kathy Sproles, Hartnell College
Ian
Walton, Mission College
Table of Contents
Abstract 1
Introduction 2
Background and Scope 3
Current Regulation and Statute 4
Enrollment Management and Emerging Themes in Higher
Education 4
Enrollment Trends in California 6
Enrollment Management Considerations 7
Enrollment Management Strategies 9
Role of the Local Academic Senate 15
Recommendations for Developing and Evaluating
Enrollment Management Plans 16
Summary 17
Glossary of Enrollment Management Key Terms 18
Bibliography 20
ABSTRACT
This position paper of the Academic Senate provides
the background and scope of enrollment management as it is defined and
practiced by educational institutions. Emerging themes in higher education, and
enrollment trends in California, are used to frame enrollment management
considerations. A variety of strategies for managing over- and under-enrollment
are presented. The paper concludes with the role of the academic senate in
developing and evaluating enrollment management plans. A glossary of enrollment
management key terms is included at the end.
INTRODUCTION
Whether in times of scarcity or abundance of student
demand for courses, faculty must become involved in the development of
enrollment management decisions that protect students’ access and nurture their
success in the learning environment. An expanding student population that is
increasingly diverse must be assured access to college and opportunities for
success. This paper will focus on
academic implications of enrollment management. The paper seeks to equip faculty
with essential terms and concepts and to clarify the role of academic senates
in enrollment management decision-making.
The paper reviews relevant regulation and statute, and
provides the background and scope of enrollment management as it is portrayed
and practiced by educational institutions. Enrollment management considerations
are framed by discussions of emerging themes in higher education and enrollment
trends in California. A variety of strategies for managing over- and
under-enrollment are presented. The paper concludes with observations on the
role of the academic senate in developing and evaluating enrollment management
plans. A glossary of enrollment management key terms is included at the end
that will assist local academic senates in consulting collegially in enrollment
management issues at the campus and district levels.
Faculty have long seen the need to shape the critical
discussions that inform enrollment management decisions. In Spring 1998, the
Academic Senate passed the following resolution:
S98
17.02 Enrollment Management
Whereas there are many community colleges that are
currently unable to meet their growth targets for enrollment, and
Whereas enrollment management and establishment of
floors for class sizes have a serious impact on student success, and
Whereas the administration of many community colleges
are developing plans to control enrollment by such activities as creating
contingency plans for using 4000 and 5000 accounts to pay for enrollment
shortfalls, creating mega-divisions that temporarily generate increased
enrollments and freezing block grants and new hires,
Therefore
be it resolved that the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges
direct the Executive Committee to write a position paper that contains
guidelines for local academic senates to assure that they are thoroughly
involved in decision-making involving enrollment management.
BACKGROUND AND SCOPE
Two papers recently adopted by the Academic Senate for
California Community Colleges provide valuable information and recommendations
that can be applied to the development of effective enrollment management plans
at the local level. In fact, Program Review: Developing a Faculty Driven
Process, adopted in April 1996, and Program Discontinuance: A Faculty
Perspective, adopted in April 1998, are essential resources for informing
the discussion about enrollment strategies. A central theme of both papers is
the need to develop a local academic senate position regarding issues that are
intrinsically curricular, involving student access and success. While some
faculty may not always recognize it, enrollment management is also such an
issue.
In A Guide to Enrollment Growth Management in the
California Community Colleges (1992), the Community College League
of California (CCLC) defined enrollment growth management as “strategies used
to address the problems created by the enrollment or potential enrollment of
too many students to be served by the available resources.” While CCLC focused on over enrollment,
currently enrollment management also is used to address declining enrollment.
For colleges that are actively seeking additional students, the term
“enrollment management” is synonymous with marketing, recruitment, and
retention efforts. Michael G. Dolence, in his book, A Primer for Campus
Administrators (1996), describes the term as follows:
Strategic Enrollment Management is a comprehensive
process designed to help an institution achieve and maintain the optimum
recruitment, retention and graduation rates of students, where optimum is
defined within the academic context of the institution. As such, SEM is an
institution-wide process that embraces virtually every aspect of an
institution’s function and culture.
The public universities in California have
historically managed over- and under-enrollment by raising or lowering the
academic standards for admission. Since community colleges are committed to
open access, scheduling and course offerings have been used as the principal
mechanisms for controlling or enhancing growth.
It is clear that enrollment management increasingly is being utilized to
address a broad range of college policy and processes including matriculation,
curriculum development, instructional delivery and style, and student services.
All of these must be placed within the proper institutional context.
Local academic senates are in a position to frame and
articulate the philosophical context of enrollment management from a faculty
perspective. As such, this paper defines the term as follows:
Enrollment management is a process by which students enrolled and class sections offered are coordinated to achieve maximum access and success for students. All enrollment management decisions must be made in the context of the local college mission and educational master plan in addition to fiscal and physical considerations.
CURRENT REGULATION AND STATUTE
When seeking to make recommendations on or revise
local policy, it is important for local academic senates to refer to
established Education Code statutes and Title 5 Regulations. While there are no
regulations that address enrollment management per se, the following
statutes and regulations that govern matriculation, admissions and priority
registration can be informative:
Education Code §76000, §§78031-32, Admission to
College refers to who can be admitted to community college in and outside
of the established district and how inter-district recruitment can take place.
Title 5 §55520 ff: Describes matriculation regulations
which preclude using “any assessment instrument, method or procedure to exclude
any person from admission to a community college.”
Title 5 §56232 ff: Provides for priority registration
for Extended Opportunity Programs and Services (EOP&S) students.
Title 5 §58106 identifies factors that justify
limiting enrollment. These include:
prerequisites, health and safety considerations, facility limitations,
faculty workload, availability of faculty, funding limitations, constraints of
regional planning and statutory or contractual requirements.
Title 5 §58108 permits enrollment priorities based on
“special registration assistance” for disabled and disadvantaged to provide
equal educational opportunity, and a priority system for student enrollment
that is established pursuant to legal authority of the local board of trustees.
Further, the regulations identify that no registration procedures shall be used
that result in restricting enrollment to a specialized clientele. Enrollment
priorities may be established pursuant to legal authority by the local board.
Local academic senates need to be mindful of the
potential impact of enrollment priorities on different segments of the
community and on students with differing educational needs and priorities.
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT AND EMERGING THEMES IN HIGHER
EDUCATION
The appearance of enrollment management as an
administrative technique in California community colleges coincides with an
extended period of educational under-funding. The low level of per student
funding, which became characteristic of the California community colleges in
the last two decades, negatively impacted the participation rate of California
adults in community colleges and has set in motion difficult choices relative
to educational offerings. The removal of requirements for district residency in
the early 1980s created a free flow system in which neighboring districts
compete for enrollment. State mandated caps on enrollment have functioned to
regulate the flow of students through the institutions, while funding for
growth and cost of living increases have not kept pace with the increasing
needs being experienced at the local level. Enrollment management should be
placed in this context: a set of strategies to address how to apply often
inadequate resources toward realizing the multiple missions of California
community colleges.
While state funding of California community colleges
began to rise again in the mid 1990’s, reflecting the improved state economy,
the chronic under-funding of the California system has left a legacy of
institutional inadequacies. The techniques of enrollment management have been
honed as methods not only to modulate enrollment but also to manage
institutional priorities.
Two themes emerge in current California higher
education literature: (1) the continuing importance of student access and
success and (2) the newer mantra, productivity and efficiency. Faculty must
provide a definition of these terms as they relate to enrollment management.
The mission of the community college system is to provide an “open door” to
anyone who can benefit from a college education. To assure that the door is
open wide enough to accommodate and support everyone, community colleges
provide a comprehensive curriculum of transfer, vocational, general education
and basic skills courses.
Recent demographic projections of a coming “tidal
wave” of new students (estimated by the California Postsecondary Education
Commission at nearly one-half a million in the next decade) have led to
predictions that California institutions will be overwhelmed. According to this
argument, the state simply will not be able to accommodate all of these students
with the same traditional approaches. Faculty (both in California and
nationally) have been encouraged to modify programs and offerings in order to
compete effectively with private proprietary schools or distance education
consortia which are cited as threats to the continued survival of community
colleges. Fears of a “market share war” are sparked as a means to convince
faculty that their future is uncertain unless they are more “market driven.”
These contradictory injunctions—we will be overwhelmed
by demand as the new tidal wave hits, versus we are losing students and will be
left in history’s dustbin—are both cited in support of turning to increasingly
business-minded approaches for the management and rationing of educational
opportunities. The concern for compressed calendars, year-round schooling,
increased reliance on technology mediated instruction to reduce the need for
“bricks and mortar,” are all examples. While these can be critical and
appropriate strategies for ensuring that working students and their families
are accommodated, faculty must raise the essential question of the educational
needs of students and communities and not be stampeded into hasty reforms for
the sake of productivity and market share.
Faculty have been increasingly told they must become
more concerned with expanding the capacity of their colleges and the number of
students “produced.” This is most evident in the output approach utilized by
the Partnership for Excellence originated by the Chancellor of California Community Colleges. The
Partnership measures are largely capacity measures (numbers of students
completing degrees and certificates, or the number or rate of students
successfully completing courses and persisting term-to-term). These speak to
the numbers of students moving through our institutions, rather than the
quality of the education they experience while there.
Similarly, we are told that private proprietary
institutions are more “flexible” and able to “deliver” education more
efficiently. They cater to student “demand” to get through faster and with a
minimum of “extra” requirements. Here the pressure to move students through—as
contrasted with making the most of their opportunities while there—is based on
a posited competitive shortage rather than an overabundance of students.
Faculty should be cautious in responding to such
generalized injunctions toward increased productivity and capacity in the name
of enrollment. While access must be safeguarded, indeed enlarged, for it to be
meaningful, faculty must insist that it be access to quality educational
experiences.
Curricular decisions need to be made on the basis of
the best educational interests of the students and communities we serve. While
economics of enrollment and productivity are central to access, without a
grounding in a core commitment to excellence, promises of access are
potentially bankrupt.
ENROLLMENT TRENDS IN CALIFORNIA
Enrollment in California community colleges is
affected by the state’s economic cycles. During good economic times (such as
1979-82, 1987-1992, and 1995-98), the colleges received additional funding and
were able to increase enrollments. However, during the most recent recession
(1992-95) the community colleges’ systemwide cut over 9,000 course sections and
reduced enrollments by about 160,000 students. As Thomas J. Nussbaum,
Chancellor of California Community Colleges, stated in Important Historical
Data, Trends, and Analysis Relevant to Full-time/Part-time Issues—A Working
Paper (1999), “…The overall historical context depicts a significantly
underfunded system that has been forced to reduce access during times of
economic downturn.” In Chapter One of The
Challenge of the Century (CPEC 1998), Recommendation 1.8 indicates that the
Governor, Legislature, and respective governing boards should prioritize access
if rationing is required in the future because “…the State does not provide
sufficient resources to support access for all who could benefit from
postsecondary education.”
According to The Higher Education Update (98-5)
the California Postsecondary Education Commission (CPEC) “estimates that demand
for higher education is expected to increase by nearly one-half million
students by the year 2005—a figure that appears to be beyond the capacity of
our higher education institutions to accommodate through traditional means.”
There is no argument that the centrality of education—particularly beyond high school—is the essential
component that will guarantee California’s future success. There is also no
question that faculty have played the key role in the delivery of the skills
and knowledge that are required. What faculty do in the classroom has always
had a powerful impact on the making or breaking of students’ college
experience. In the future, what faculty decide outside the classroom may be as
important for students who otherwise would be denied access. Community college faculty, like members of
other professions, must take on expanded decision-making roles and
responsibilities to ensure enrollment opportunities are available to all of
California’s citizens. It will be the decisions made at the local community
college level that will determine whether the unsettling recommendations made
by CPEC are ever necessary.
ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
Other enrollment management considerations include,
but are not necessarily limited to, the following items:
Enrollment Cap, Growth and FTES Goals
Enrollment is also influenced by the state
establishment of an enrollment cap and the funding mechanisms affected by the
cap. An annual cap for community college growth is set during the state budget
development process. When enrollment caps limit funded enrollment, enrollment
management is practiced whether or not an enrollment management policy is in
place.
Each college locally sets a growth target, or FTES
goal, usually on an annual basis. This target (and actual local growth from
previous years) is often used in multi-college districts to allocate annual
funds from the district to each college. Within the college, the desired FTES
for a given year will form the backdrop or parameter for expected course and
section offerings. While faculty have generally not participated in discussions
of growth or FTES goals, these goals are critical to the level of access at the
college. These agreed upon goals are integral to curriculum and program
planning, as well as tied to budget decisions. As such, local academic senates
should work with local administrations to establish the process and criteria by
which these larger parameters for enrollment management are set. This can occur
both at the district and the college level.
Full-time and Part-time Faculty
Local academic senates and collective bargaining
agents should note that enrollment management generally has profound implications
for faculty employment. The reform bill AB1725 noted that the use of part-time
faculty in the community colleges should not be primarily to effect cost
savings, but rather should be for programmatic reasons, to enhance or bring
special and current expertise to programs which might otherwise not be
available. This tends to be particularly important in occupational programs
which need to incorporate current business techniques or technologies on a
regular basis.
However, despite AB1725’s legislative intent that 75%
of course offerings should be taught by full-time faculty, California community
colleges have come to rely on increasing numbers of part-time faculty.
Part-time faculty generally are the most vulnerable to contraction and expansion
of course sections, as full-time faculty generally retain rights to “bump”
their part-time colleagues in case of contraction. Part-time faculty lost due
to layoffs may not return to the college when opportunities again appear due to
expanded enrollment. Retention of quality faculty cannot be maintained when
poor decision-making related to enrollment creates continued unpredictability
in program offerings over time. Thus, poor enrollment management undermines
program quality and adversely impacts part-time faculty in particular. It is in
the interest of all concerned—faculty, administrators, staff, but most
especially students—to strive for the most accurate projections and scheduling
practices possible.
Administrative Productivity
Efficient and effective administrative structures are
critical to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are directed to meet the educational
needs of the community. While enrollment management techniques historically
have focused on faculty productivity, local academic senates also need to raise
issues of management and classified productivity. Containment of administrative
costs is a critical component of enrollment management, as the relative funds
available for instruction, library and counseling services for students are
inversely related to administrative costs. Faculty are encouraged to work
collegially with administrators to define and effect appropriate measures of
administrative productivity and outcomes to parallel those for faculty. Just as
instructional cost considerations must be weighed in educational planning and
budget processes, so must the allocation and effectiveness of administrative
and staff FTE. Without such consideration, enrollment management approaches
lack the comprehensiveness that allows for a sustainable college economy.
The state stipulates that a minimum of 50% of
apportionment funds in a given district must be devoted to direct instructional
costs (including instructors’ salary, benefits, and instructional aides). While
this minimum acknowledges that indirect costs (such as registration,
administrative overhead, and plant maintenance) are a necessary component of
college budgets, the Academic Senate has consistently held that 50% is a low
standard. A well-functioning college would devote proportionately more to
instruction.
Alternative Revenue Resources
It is also critical to note that enrollment management
techniques historically have been focused on managing existing
resources. Both administrators and faculty need to consider additional revenue
sources, and academic senates must assume their responsibility for developing
the processes by which such funds will be allocated (Title 5, §53200.c.10). In
addition to expected general and categorical funds, colleges increasingly need
to seek bond measures, grants, partnerships and endowments in order to expand
access and maintain institutional and educational integrity. Administrators are
most well positioned to seek and provide institutional support to pursue such
outside funding. Given the workloads of faculty, administrative support is
essential if grants and other funding sources are to be available for faculty
initiated projects to improve student success.
Collective Bargaining Issues
Enrollment management plans should include the input
of the two faculty entities that best represent the interests of all
faculty—the local academic senate and the local bargaining agent. While
academic senates are to be the keepers of the academic missions of their
colleges, unions can protect both the integrity of the faculty governance
system and protect working conditions of faculty so that quality education can
occur. When unions negotiate working conditions/due process rights, the welfare
issues of the faculty, they create protections for academic freedom, curricular
improvement, and a quality learning environment.
To delineate the functions of unions and academic
senates as they relate to enrollment management, it is useful to think about
the connection between process (union) and standards/criteria (local academic
senate). For example, consider the arena of class cancellation during times of
financial exigency. The process for notifying affected faculty of the
class cancellation or for establishing bumping rights in cases of faculty
reassignment is often the purview of the union, but developing criteria to
determine which classes will be cut is often the purview of the local academic
senate.
The following subjects inherent in enrollment
management are generally considered within the scope of collective bargaining
and can have a significant impact on working conditions:
·
Timelines for
notification of faculty that classes will be cancelled.
·
Class changes
that affect right of assignment.