Round 4 of our review of the Educational Master Plan Update moves on to the area of Academic Directions with focus of the following sections of the Discussion Draft:
12. Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018
15. Local Commitment to Strong Contingent of Full Time Faculty
16. New Faculty Position Prioritization
06. Program Review Description (new section)
Please provide feedback on the following questions:
A. After reviewing Section 12 (Ten-Year Enrollment Growth Assumptions: 2008-2018), do you have any feedback on the assumptions being made? If so, please give as detailed an explanation as possible.
B. Section 12 also contains the following strategic question to consider: Is there an enrollment level at which Ohlone would be at the “right-size,” beyond which growth would be minimal? Given the current demographics and population density and growth projections, is it reasonable to assume that Ohlone should ever be a 10,000 FTES college? Or 12,000? Or more? Do you have any thoughts on this question?
C. Section 15 and related Appendix information present an argument for a local commitment to a strong contingent of full time faculty and setting a level of full time faculty positions based on a ratio with FTES. What are your opinions of this idea?
D. Does Section16 adequately describe the shared governance process for advising the President on priorities for new full time faculty positions?
E. A new section (Section 6) has added under Part B of the plan (Institutional and External Planning Context), which presents an overview of our Instructional Program and Services Review Process. Does this seem to be an adequate description of the process and how it relates to the overall college planning process?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Some general comments and some specific notations:
ReplyDelete#12:
Assumptions are going to be tough, but are needed for this process and for direction. My only concern related to the "growth" concept and who supports that growth. Facilities has not grown, in fact, they have been facing regression. With academic growth there will need to be a decision by the District to support the grounds and facilities to cover such growth.
#13
Specific to my area regarding Program corrections:
Health, fitness/Wellness should be under Warden (not Carli)
Remove (fitness center) from Physcial Education. Also, add Health to Physical Education.
#14
Add Health as a new program. With the increased health sciences will come (and it already has) a desire to reach out to people for overall health, such as health counceling, stress management, nutrition, etc.
#15
Very interesting information. This seems like the state would have picked up on the artifically low FON. Either way, this does need to be considered.
#16
Considering that we have ( and will always) lost positions due to retirements, there should be a section that relates to the needs of the vacant position. New proposals should be looked at during the same time as vacant positions (which they may already be doing).
The document is coming along. CW
Thanks Chris.
ReplyDeleteProjections from the department/program will be vital in our planning.
Rebuilding our full time faculty base needs to be a district priority.
For this round, my comments are limited.
ReplyDeleteI think that our target for enrollment shouldn't be set as a number. I cannot see us intentionally ever leaving money on the table. Therefore, our growth is likely to be determined by doing whatever it takes to capture any growth money available from the state.
If our funding mechanism ever changes, then the enrollment target becomes a completely different discussion.
12: I'm curious how the assumptions were made in section 12? Does the projected English and Math increase include Basic Skills? Projections are that we will have an increased demand for Basic Skills. Growth in ESL seems reasonable given 43% of the District is foreign born and many languages other than English are spoken in the home.
ReplyDeleteA right-size enrollment level could be based on (1) the size of our physical campuses; (2) a decision on how much to expand our Distance Ed Program (also directly related to faculty involvement in this program); and (3) student population projections, especially in our district. The Environmental Scan indicates the high school graduates in Alameda are projected to decline by 16.28% by 2016 and the population is this area is aging. Given the population projections and all the other CC in the surroundings areas, reaching 10,000 FTES may be a stretch and to me, a maximum. Enrollment would be better based on the needs of students in our local communities and businesses (results of the environment scan). I’m wondering if the state funding mechanisms will ever change. Substituting an outcome based formula instead of the current growth formula is likely to be controversial, yet may be more effective in promoting student learning/success.
15. I definitely support a strong contingent of Full-time faculty and setting a level of full time faculty positions based on a ratio with FTES. Coordination of curriculum, implementation of new learning designs with engaging teaching and learning strategies, and the other important activities FT faculty are involved in remain crucial to maintaining the high quality programs at Ohlone. Adjunct faculty are well qualified, yet are not paid and do not have the time to provide leadership in moving our programs forward.
16. This section describes the process of new faculty selection well.
Reading all of this leads me to wonder about next year and the need to analyze the affect of faculty/staff vacancies on student needs and our current employees as we plan for next year. With 27 employees (12 faculty) taking advantage of SERP, along with positions that were not filled in the recent past, and with student enrollments increasing by 1.5%, we may be facing an unprecedented time in the college’s history. Publically acknowledging this situation, pulling together and supporting one another, and setting realistic expectations are important. I know we will be successful in moving through these difficult financial times.
6. Thanks for adding the new section on Program Review. I have sent my minor edits.
Thank you Bob and Deb.
ReplyDeleteIn actuality the enrollment targets from year to year are based on what we think the state will fund. So, operationally, we do exactly what Bob suggests. In strategic planning, when looking our over 10 years or more, we need acknowledge accumulated growth and how we will respond.
A major point from my view, that all must understand, is we are constrained in our growth by funding rather than driven in our growth by student demand.
The assumptions about growth in basic skills is in context of how basic skills relates withing the current spread of classes. Our funding model and our commitment to a comprehensive curriculum drives this projection more than the actual student demand or need.