Enrollment Management: Why Instruction Matters to Us Presented by: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

ACBO Fall Conference 2013

Enrollment Management: Why Instruction Matters to Us

Presented by:

• Dr. Anna Badalyan – Dean of Institutional Effectiveness
• Dr. Mary Gallagher – Vice President Administrative Services

Professor Joseph Ratcliff – Department Chair, Kinesiology

Who We Are

• LATTC is a community college south of

downtown Los Angeles

• Almost 90 years old
• FTES of approximately 12,000 (credit and

non-credit)

• About 90% of our student test into basic

skills and below

• At ground zero on the economic and

educationally disadvantaged scale

What We Do

• Over 80% of our courses taught by full-time

faculty

• 54% of our budget is spent on instruction
• 75% of the program offerings are Career

Technical Education

• Over $1.5 million annually spent on

instructional supplies and equipment from the general fund

If you believe - you can do it too!

The Budget and Instruction

• Instruction is who we are and what we do
• Hourly instructional spending can be the easiest line

item to reduce when budgets are cut

• Without monitoring hourly instruction can present

an overwhelming expense

• It takes the cooperation of Academic Affairs and the

Budget Office in order to strategically manage enrollment

• Deans and department chairs work together on the

schedule of classes

Reducing the Class Schedule

• 2008-09 faced with a budget deficit classes were cut across the board

2007-08 Actual 2008-09 Projections as of 11/5/08 Projections w/Reductions Expenditures Std Hours Term FTES Std Hrs Current Proj Actual 0811 Hours Est FTES $4,166,656 53438Fall 2007 4878 Fall 2008 54460 $3,710,798 $3,802,23 5 54004 5600 $1,355,430 16903Winter 2008 721 Winter 2009 11992 $817,112 10875 507.5 $4,432,206 56988Spring 2008 5074 Spring 2009 52317 $3,564,779 46664 4839 $1,089,997 20407 Summer2 2007 838 Summer2 2008 21349 $1,454,679 $1,273,65 2 21349 1100 $476,834 21349 Summer 1 2008 925 Summer 1 2009 21349 $581,896 15000 600 $11,521,123 169085 12436 16146 7 $10,129,264 147892 12646.5 Cost per Std Hour $68.14 FTES Goal 12740 Proj Hrly $ $10,077,07 3 Hrly Target $ 10,500,000

Further Reductions of 2009-11

• State Chancellor’s directive: Basic Skills, Transfer and Workforce

(we added faculty load)

• Rollover schedule

– Everything that did not meet this criteria was removed from the schedule – Classes were added that still met some criteria to meet the FTES target

• Goal of increasing class size

– Average class size was under 30

• Meet FTES in Fall and Spring terms

– The beginning of strategically managing for improved economy

• Terms such as “efficiency” became the language used

Managing the ARCC Measures 2011 -12

• With extremely low ARCC numbers the development of

strategies to improve student success took center stage

• The refinement of the FTEF allocation model included

improving competencies so students have a focus on program completions

• Dedicated our noncredit instruction to incoming student

preparation

• The same year we updated our Educational Master Plan and

Strategic Priorities

• The FTEF Allocation formula included the following

components:

– base, efficiency, success, and innovation

Issues from the Classroom

Timeline Overall Goal(s) Issues 2008 - 2009 Balance Budget - $4 m in 5 days Deep reduction in number of

• ffering across the board. Lack
• f valuable data.

2009 - 2010 Efficiency – Class Size Was not driven by student success 2010 - 2012 Improve Outcomes; Institutional Effectiveness Lack of qualitative data and multiple measure indicators 2012 - Present Student Success - Completion Chair and faculty getting better understanding – but process seems to keep changing

Strategic Scheduling & Services for Student Success (S5)

• Student Success Initiative (SB1456)

– College-wide commitment to student success – Integration of instruction and support for instruction – Customer service approach to services – One-stop for all student inquiries

• Enrollment Management

– Chairs have worked with the FTEF allocation for three years – Offerings are targeted to program completion not just class

• fferings

– Curriculum improvement drives part of the allocation

• Strategic Cost Management Model

– Essential/Supports Essential/Value Added/Innovation

Developing a Dashboard

FTES - 4% above base FTEF

• Annual Allocation to Departments
• Allocation based on Last 3 Years: Historical; Efficiency

(FTES/FTEF); Success rates

• Set aside 5-10% for innovation

Scheduling

• Degree, Certificate and Transfer Certification Completion

(Winter & Spring - students’ need to complete a program)

• College Prep/Basic Skills (Summer & Fall)
• Restoration of LATTC Evening/Weekend Program
• New Program Strategy/Innovation

Results and Lessons Learned

• We are proud of our enrollment management and

scheduling because we have the ability to:

– Establish an FTES target – Build a schedule to meet that target – Ensure our students have every opportunity to complete their program – Cost out the schedule

• We learned through this process that:

– You need stakeholder involvement and buy-in – Goals must drive results – We always need to look forward – what is on the horizon – Document strategies and results – Transparency and communication are the keys to success

The Future

• Pathways to academic, career and transfer success

(PACTS)

– Ensuring students are prepared when they enter college level classes – Competency based

• Developing a two-year schedule

– Guaranteed offerings to complete programs

• Strategic Cost Management Model

– Essential – Supports essential – Value added – Innovation

Questions??