• 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 Rep.

• Janis Perry, Chair, Santiago Canyon College
• Linda Collins, Los Medanos College
• Eva Conrad, Moorpark College, CIO Rep.
• Elton Hall, Moorpark College
• Mary Rider, Grossmont College
• Hoke Simpson, Grossmont College
• Kathy Sproles, Hartnell College
• Ian Walton, Mission College
  

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.

It is essential that local academic senates determine the rationale, principles and processes for enrollment management at their colleges. They must be included in the research, planning, and decision-making process. Often enrollment management is referred to as merely an “operational” task, but as defined above, enrollment management encompasses many of the academic and professional areas listed in Title 5 Regulation §53200. Indeed, policies and processes for student success, educational program development and program review, and curriculum are integral components of enrollment management, and hence are inherently academic matters for collegial consultation. Similarly, enrollment management is inextricably connected to educational planning and budget development processes, and as such must be subject for consultation with local academic senates.

The same rationale given for involving local academic senates in the program discontinuance process necessarily applies to the development of an effective enrollment management plan. The Academic Senate paper, Program Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective (April 1998), stated:

Through an organized resolution process or the development of a position paper, the local academic senate needs to lead in developing a well-defined, educationally sound program discontinuance policy that can affect one of the most important processes for defining the balance of a college curriculum and the future of students’ educational pursuits.

Since enrollment management decisions have the potential to impact an even greater number of students than program discontinuance, it is imperative that local academic senates take a leading role in clarifying the philosophy and guidelines behind the enrollment management policies of their campuses, as well as system wide.

The criteria for the development and implementation of an enrollment management process should be at the local level, determined by the unique needs and characteristics of a college campus and its surrounding community. They should:

• Ensure that student access and success are of first priority.
• Utilize qualitative data—faculty’s commitment to a comprehensive and balanced curriculum must be acknowledged. Innovative courses are created when faculty recognize the need to address their subject in a new way and when they are supported in their efforts to improve their programs. Student experiences and outcomes are also important factors to consider.
• Be dedicated to ensuring the best educational experiences possible within the context of available resources.
• Relate to the college’s mission and goals.
• Be based upon uniform measures.
• Be based upon consistent principles and policies applied across the curriculum.
• Be based upon trends over time, typically three to five years.
• Utilize quantitative data–in making enrollment management decisions, the following quantitative factors need to be considered: consistently weak or high enrollments, course retention rates that are typically below expectations, term-to-term persistence rates for student achievement, over-enrollment and long waiting lists, limited scheduling options, averaging student enrollment by sections offered, and the variety of ways to provide instruction (on-line, telecourse, accelerated, weekend, semester length), the match or fit between pedagogical design and delivery modes and student profiles and learning styles.

The mission and goals of California community colleges are to ensure that every student, regardless of financial and academic constraints, has access to an education, and has the opportunity to be successful in that endeavor. At the beginning of the Industrial Age, education was a luxury available primarily to the privileged upper-class. Then, because of institutions like the California Community College System, higher education became an option accessible to anyone who sought specific training or a college degree. Education is now recognized as both a right and a necessity for every citizen who wants to understand, enjoy and participate in a rapidly changing world. The challenges that California faces in the next century include rapid growth, population diversity, economic instability, job market shifts, and an expanded demand for higher education from an increasingly under-prepared student population. In the 1998 paper, The Challenge of the Century, The CPEC asserts that “we are not prisoners of that context,” as long as we make choices about how to address those challenges, “ … including the relative importance (assigned) to developing policies, programs, and practices that promote equitable opportunities for all our students in order that they can prepare, pursue, and succeed in postsecondary education.”

As the acknowledged leaders in the academic environment, faculty have the obligation to raise their collective voice when enrollment management decisions are made regarding the accessibility of a comprehensive college program that serves all of California’s citizens.

To be more proactive and effective in consultation, faculty must learn the vocabulary and understand the concepts that drive enrollment management in times of scarcity and abundance.

• ADA
  • ADA = Average Daily Attendance.
    • This formula for calculating state funding was replaced by FTES. ADA is no longer a relevant term for community college funding.
      
      
• Census
  • Census = the date enrollment is established in a class for funding purposes.
    • Census is the Monday closest to the point at which 20% of the class has been completed (Title 5 §58003.1.b). For the primary terms, this date is typically the Monday of the fourth week of a semester based on 20% of 17.5 weeks = 3.5 weeks rounded to four weeks); the number of students enrolled in a class on that date is the enrollment number used in the funding formula. For short term classes, the census date is calculated individually for each short term pattern.
      
      
• FTE
  • FTE = full-time equivalent.
    • This is used to refer to full-time equivalent faculty, which should more clearly be abbreviated as FTEF and/or to full-time faculty load, e.g., a 3-hour lecture class is listed as .20 FTE or 20% of a 100% load.
      
      
• FTES
  • FTES = full-time equivalent students.
    • For state accounting purposes, a full-time student who attends 15 hours per week for 35 weeks (two primary terms). The rule is: 15 hours x 35 weeks = 525 total WSCH = 1 FTES
    • Another common look at FTES on a semester basis is the number of students enrolled times the hours per week for 17.5 weeks divided by 525: 10 students x three hours per week x 17.5 weeks = 525. 525 divided by 525 = 1 FTES.
    • There are four specific formulas for FTES depending on the characteristics of the course and scheduling pattern: (1) weekly (semester length), (2) daily (short term), (3) actual hours (also called positive attendance), or (4) independent study, work experience, distance learning methods. The amount of money paid by the state for each FTES will differ among Districts.
      
      
• Primary Term
  • The fall and spring semesters are primary terms.
    • The terms are between 16 to 18 weeks long including both instructional and flex days. Courses within this average 17.5 week period may meet for the full 17.5 weeks (semester length courses; FTES calculated by weekly attendance accounting formula) or may meet for fewer that the full 17.5 weeks (see short term courses below). Summer is an intersession, not a primary term.
      
      
• Short Term
  • Short term courses meet for less than the 17.5 weeks of a primary term.
    • These courses may be scheduled within the primary term period (e.g., 6-week or 12-week classes) or during an intersession (e.g., summer). Funding for short-term classes may be calculated either by the daily attendance accounting method or by actual hours attendance accounting method.
      
      
• WSCH
  • WSCH = weekly student contact hours.
    • As a generalization, the formulas for state funding are a function of weekly student contact hours (the amount of time faculty and students interact). This is simply a count of the number of scheduled hours per week students meet with faculty. This provides an estimate of the funding to be allocated during the coming year. However, if a college schedules a significant number of non-traditional classes, e.g., 12-week classes, one-day seminars, etc., an estimate based on WSCH will be a less accurate estimate.

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, “Program Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective,” Position Paper, adopted April 1998.

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, “Program Review: Developing a Faculty Driven Process,” Position Paper, adopted April 1996.

Academic Senate for California Community Colleges, “The Future of the Community College: A Faculty Perspective,” Position Paper, adopted November 1998.

California Postsecondary Education Commission, “Toward a Greater Understanding of the State’s Educational Equity Policies, Programs, and Practices: The College Experience,” Higher Education Update, February 1998.

California Postsecondary Education Commission, “Toward a Greater Understanding of the State’s Educational Equity Policies, Programs, and Practices: The Commission’s Recommendations,” Higher Education Update, June 1998.

California Postsecondary Education Commission, “The Challenge of the Century,”

March 1998.

Chancellor’s Office of the California Community Colleges, “Important Historical Data, Trends, and Analysis Relevant to Full-Time/Part-Time Issues—A Working Paper,” January 1999.

Community College League of California, “A Guide to Enrollment Growth Management in the California Community Colleges: A ‘How to Do It’ Guide,” Commission on Education Policy Task Force on Enrollment Growth Management, August 1992.

Dolence, Michael G., A Primer for Campus Administrators, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, 1993, Revised 1996.

McFarland, John, “Speed-Freaking in Higher Education,” FAACTS: Journal of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, December 1998.