ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CPC

ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CPC

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING OF

October 26, 2005

1:30 p.m.

President’s Conference Room

Attending:      

Administration –Nancy Carson, Bobby McNeel, Bob Richards, Luis Rosas, Ann Tomlinson

Faculty – Nabeel Barakat, Lauren McKenzie, Susan McMurray,  Joyce Parker, Evelyn Portis, Pamela Watkins, Mark Wood, Jim Stanbery, Bradley Young

Absent:

Administration - Charlie Bossler

Classified –Hovsep Kotelyan, Traci Liley

Classified Manager - Carla Mussa-Muldoon

Faculty – King Carter, Wendy Hollis, Joy Fisher, Stanley Sandell

Students

Nabeel Barakat chaired the meeting.

I.          MINUTES

Minutes of the October 12, 2005 meeting were accepted as presented (M/S/A Lemon/Young).

II.  UNIT PLANS AND ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT

A list of classes, which are included in the Spring 2006 schedule but have not been updated or provided to Lauren McKenzie, are indicated by a check mark on the handout distributed by Mrs. Carson.  Courses with no check mark are not an issue.

An action item, concerning wait lists for the entire district, is on the District Academic Senate agenda for 10/27/05.  In the Chancellor’s consultation last week, the matter of wait lists was discussed.  Apparently the District is attempting to use district policy across the board.  Q-Is enrollment management a local administrative matter? 

Chairs, at Harbor, have always used wait lists as an enrollment management tool.  It could be detrimental to change now.  If the class limit is set to 35 with no wait list, as students drop the class, no openings refill.  With a wait list this does not happen.  Wait lists were discussed at the October 6, 2004 Division Council meeting:

         The idea of having students phone in to register without a wait list was discussed.  Would this heavy demand on the telephone registration system bring it down during peak hours?  If the instructor does not arrive early to the first class meeting, with a sign-in sheet, there can be big problems and hard feelings.  Standby lists bring order to impacted classes.  Mrs. Carson offered that in high demand areas, classes could have higher limits; be allowed to double, and then split.  Communications voiced concerns about class sizes of 40-50.  They prefer to have 35 with a wait list of 10, stating that this seems fair to both students and faculty.

It was pointed out that regardless of any district policy, the system remains flexible enough to tailor to specific divisions.

III.    CONNECTING THE UNIT PLAN TO COURSE OFFERINGS IN REACHING       COLLEGE GOALS

How could a division increase enrollment by 5%.  Suggestions include: 

-  Offering classes to meet community needs, including occupational programs

-  Offering more classes at times that students can take them, i.e. Friday night, Saturdays and Sundays

-  The addition of more on-line offerings

-  Classes could be offered in the evenings from 4-7 p.m. and 7-10 p.m., allowing a student to take two classes in a single evening

-  Chairs are to include a late start nine week program for Spring 2006

A good discussion for members would include how the state funds the college.  The FTE student target is 753.47, revised to 702.4 as the target for the year, including fall, spring, winter and summer, or 9,000 students each semester.

Some areas are producing beyond their target goals, and, of course some below.  Consider this: 3.5 x 5 = 17.5 x 2 semesters = 35 FTES per year per each full time faculty.  Seventy-seven faculty x 35 students = 26.93 target production.  Ten regular faculty x 35 students = 350 FT equivalent students per year.  To compensate for reassigned time, others need to increase their enrollment.  At this time we show 77 regular FT faculty and 100.3 hourly.

One hundred and seventy-seven x 35 students x 2 semesters = 6204.62.  We still have to try to get to 7704.  Can we make the target through a healthy winter session?

Cost of full time faculty vs. hourly is also an important factor to consider.  A regular faculty member costs approximately $7,000, including benefits per average three hour class, whereas an adjunct would cost an average of $4,200.

Each division is going to want to project and develop their own targets.  In divisions, such as Mathematics, Physical Science and Technology, where Mr. McKenzie has full time people assigned in programs, which have not been producing healthy FTES, a thorough review needs to be undertaken (viability study).  How many programs can the College afford to continue to carry?  There is no recommendation to get rid of programs, but rather a request that the problems be addressed.  We cannot afford to continue “business as usual.”

Chairs will have to have a plan as to what the division will be teaching five years in the future.  This is a question the Accreditation visiting team may be asking. 

Portable classrooms are again requested.  Mrs. Carson, Mr. Wood, Mr. Mc Neel and Mr. Rosas have all recommended that CORE recommend to CPC that this be done.  Mr. Barakat took the Academic Cluster’s recommendation to the Academic Senate during its last meeting.  Members want the current minutes to reflect that the requested number of portables be eight (M/S/A, Young/McKenzie).

IV.  ADJOURNMENT

Meeting calendar for fall 2005:

November 16

December 14

All meetings begin at 1:30 p.m., in the President’s Conference Room.  (*Meeting added after initial calendar was set.)