Enrollment Management 2012-03-12

Uploaded by pcclancer on 13.03.2012

>> Alright, so let's go ahead with this committee meeting.
You have the agenda and other materials that are
at the table over there.
And anyone from the audience who wants to take up an empty spot
up here, feel free to do so.
We don't mean to have an equipped divide,
it's just this configuration.
So there're some seats if you wish.
Alright. Let's see who's here.
So if I could just begin with introductions,
I'll begin with me and move to the left.
I'm Edward Martinez, I'm the faculty co-chair
of this committee.
>> Bob Miller, administrative co-chair
of the Enrollment Management Committee.
>> Krista Walter, faculty, English Division.
>> Ulmer, Dean of the English representing Basic Skills,
I think.
>> I'm Chris Fennessy of the Associated Students.
>> Ana Ogaz, articulation.
>> I'm Bob Bell.
I need to give my affiliation?
>> That's okay.
>> Vice President Student and Learning Services
and Interim Vice President of Instruction.
>> Shelley Gaskin, Business Division in CTE.
>> Ted Young, dean of the Languages Division.
>> Glenna Watterson, secretary of Natural Sciences
and Classified Senate rep.
>> Beverly Tate, representing basic skills.
>> Okay. And I do want to point out that I've taken the liberty
of inviting Dina Chase who was the interim.
Interim what now?
Interim Dean?
Interim Associate Dean of Admissions and Registration.
She is more than anyone going
to be implementing what we decide upon
in the Enrollment Management Policy so I think her insight
and participation is critical,
and we welcome having her here today.
Before we continue,
we had discussed having a second student representative is--
Simon, are you the second student representative?
>> No. They're just-- appointed by the Associated Students.
>> Okay.
[ Noise ]
Alright. So we'll wait for that.
>> Yeah, but they will be by the next meeting actually.
>> Very good.
>> Absolutely, It should be this Wednesday.
>> Okay. And just to let you know before we go on to item 2
of that 4 item for the enrolment priorities policy,
we did receive some last minute recommended changes
to the enrollment policy.
They were sent to you this morning electronically
but there are paper versions up at the table along
with the other items and we'll get to those
in just a few minutes.
The second item on today's agenda is a presentation
by Bob Miller on the Strategic Enrollment Management
Planning Principles.
>> Okay. Since we didn't know for sure
if the PowerPoint stuff was going to be functioning or not.
Okay [inaudible].
>> That's what's on the screen, I don't know.
>> Yeah, it's going to take some time.
So I'll tell you what I'm going to do, thanks, Tim.
I want to pass out documents.
[ Pause ]
[ Pause ]
Technology to kick in here
[ Pause ]
Okay. So this is a,
the Strategic Enrollment Management Planning Principles
for '12-'13, that was--
[ Pause ]
That was approved by the board of trustees at the,
the March 7th meeting which is just this last Wednesday.
So quickly, our funded FTES next year based upon the 1,050 FTES
reduction that we are projected to take as a result of the--
of the state's fiscal crisis will be 18,548.
We are going to go back to the principles of scheduling
or building our schedule based upon a maximum of no more
than 2 percent over the funded FTES.
So that would put a set of roughly another 370 FTES.
As we go forward and we build a schedule, Dr. Bell, the deans
and the faculty will be building it based upon the
following concepts.
The first year experience, program
and pathways will be a priority, and we can talk more
about that as time allows.
We will continue with this notion of the completion agenda
as we've talked about in previous meetings.
The graduation fund that is the fund that Dr Rocha
and the board have established, basically the notion behind
that is that we are working both internally,
externally to raise external funds.
And those funds are approximately 5,000 dollars per
course or per class would go to which is known
as high demand degree and transfer courses.
So as that money comes in, we will,
we will mount those types of courses.
We're going to maximize the enrollments per FTES.
And what that means is that for each FTES that comes
in we're going to try to generate as many enrollments
as possible as a result of that using such strategies
as LGI is working to fill every seat in every class
but we're going to maximize the enrollments
that we get on a per seat basis.
So we're not really thinking in terms sections any longer,
we're thinking in terms of seats.
And then finally, we're going to prepare a continued seat plan
for a trimester model.
But as everyone knows,
a trimester model is a working condition topic,
and we're not sure exactly how all that will play out.
But we are definitely are going to try to work on some kind
of a continued seat plan for trimester whether that would be
for this year, next year or anytime into the future.
The next thing I wanted to show you is not this one,
'cause I have a better illustration of it.
[ Pause ]
Out or it copies.
[ Pause ]
This is a very interesting slide that we've put together that--
[ Pause ]
Basically, if we look at the top line, the top--
well, if you look on the left hand side, we have enrollments,
on the right hand side we have budget,
and along the bottom we have years, starting with 2, 6,
2006-07 all the way through '12-'13.
And what you see there is that we've had 180,000 seats
or enrollments that stayed somewhat, somewhat consistent
over the last several years.
And you see the blue line represents what we call
student success.
That would be the actual numbers of completers.
So, we have access of 180,000 and we've success of somewhere
around 130,000 and that that's actually growing
and that's good news.
There's a whole another discussion
on what we call Closing the Gap which another time we'll have
in terms on how we close that gap.
But the really interesting line is the available resources line
because basically what that is showing us is
that from a budgetary point of view, our budget has gone
from a peak of about 124 million dollars
and it's gone consistently down.
And in the '11-'12 and projected '12-'13 years,
you can see we've kind of fallen off a cliff so to speak.
So the notion of maximizing enrollments on the basis
of the income that we've got coming into the college becomes
that much more critical as we, as we go forward.
And of course the notion of closing the gap
between the student access and success is a critical one,
but that's another, that's another discussion
and there's other, other things
that we're working in going forward.
So in essence, those are the two things
that I really wanted to share with you.
The only other thing that may be of interest at this point,
and this by the way is the Closing the Gap concept
with the completion agenda where we will propose
to close the gap using these types of interventions.
But as we move forward, this is kind of an intro to Dr. Bell
when we get to that point.
The summer would be about the completer courses
in FYE interventions, First Year Experience interventions,
and then the fall and spring would be as you'd see here.
Okay. So I think that's probably it for now.
>> Are there questions?
>> Not really a question
but I know I asked you this before Bob.
I want to clarify that the proposal
and again this is negotiable for the trimester,
that summer is not a regular 16th-- correct?
>> The-- what's being discussed is one of the 12-week term,
a semester, a 12-week term.
But what's being talked about is that that 12-week can be divided
up however we would want it to be from the point of view
of the deans and the faculty.
>> So the configuration is not determined, is that right?
>> Right. That's correct.
>> Dave?
[ Pause ]
>> That's about it.
>> Okay. [Inaudible Remark]
>> I think, I think for the purposes
of discussion right now, we're talking
about 3 academic periods, a fall, a spring, a summer
or a summer, a fall, a spring.
And how that gets labeled or what happen
with that would be the subject for negotiations
and further discussion.
You want to--
>> One for the receipt, are we keeping [inaudible] reminders,
everyone are going to be getting--
>> The answer is that perhaps a combination of both.
We do have normal closing numbers now,
they're almost completed.
They will be submitted up through CNI
to the academic senate and to the administration.
>> These are new?
>> They are-- we have over 1,900 courses, at the moment about 150
or so received adjustments.
Those adjustments still need to be talked about,
but even if the NCNs are set on the notion of putting
as many bodies and seats as we possibly can, again,
for the subject of discussions
and negotiations might be what can we do to try to make sure
that we are able to do that.
That's kind of where we are right now on that topic.
>> But I think to answer your question,
are those being adjusted while they're being implemented
for the first time, the NCNs.
And not all divisions have finished their work in terms
of establishing those NCNs, that's still ongoing within CNI.
>> Right. And we anticipate we'll have
that work done certainly by the end of the spring,
a term that probably within a month or 2 at the most.
But that's why I think we've just got 2 ENT
and a few other outstanding ones,
but we're getting very close to being done with that.
>> Elly[phonetic]
>> Darrell [phonetic] asked me or acting division person,
asked me today if census is defined by the state
or by the local district?
His point being that if you're talking about seats
that didn't go filled, we did have a problem with that
in trying to fill every seat because the census--
was to get add codes in time.
And also just the flocks of students in those first 2 weeks
if it could be, he asked if it could extended to the third week
because quite unfilled simply
because students were still jumping time
and money and so on.
>> Yeah, yeah.
I think I'll let Dr. Bell or Dina--
>> Exactly.
>> Could answer that question.
>> Excuse me.
My understanding that census is set by the state,
and your census it's determined based upon the term length
of the class.
So classes which are shorter in length for example--
class, that census date will be shorter.
It is set based upon the term length of the class.
Local, we do not have the ability to adjust that.
>> So it's set within title 5 regulations?
Okay. Any other questions or comments for Bob Miller?
[Pause] Okay, alright.
So we're going on to the third item, the summer schedule,
and Dr. Bell is going to lead this discussion.
>> For summer 2012, some of this is again an extension
of what Vice President Miller just talked about.
I think as everyone here
at the committee knows the college is already
over its enrollment cap, planned enrollment
for the 2011-2012 academic year.
So the summer schedule will be much smaller if you will in size
in our previous summer schedule.
We will-- we're anticipating 150 classes and I want
to emphasize 150 classes that will be offered for summer 2012.
As Bob Miller just indicated we're going
to maximize the enrollments of those classes towards an agenda
of completion for transfer of degree
and certificate completion.
Now, enrollments succinctly stated as it differentiates
from what we normally use as sections and enrollment
for second discussion here is a seat in a class.
So again, if you were to-- for the sake of discussion,
if we were going to put 150 classes in place and if each one
of those classes had an NCN of 30
that would generate 4,500 enrollments are basically chairs
in which we could put students.
Our job is to try to align those chairs to those enrollments,
to those classes again which are consistent with completion
for transfer of degree and certificate.
That will be a go going into the summer.
Those are going to be guiding principles
that Vice President Miller just shared going forward.
Some of what we'll look to do
for the summer will be an extension
of what we are attempting to do
in this special spring forward intercession we're going to try
to identify as many students who are close to completion
as possible who can't possibly benefit from spring forward,
the special 12-week intercession that coming up and try to get
as many of those students as possible in the classes
for the spring intercession which is upcoming.
But again, the focus will be on maximizing enrollments,
and we're going to look
to maximize those enrollments again.
It is also what Bob just mentioned through LGI
in online courses so we can maximize the cost
of enrollment while increasing the access
for students in the classes.
So again, it's going to be about 150 classes, our sections
if you will, but more important 150 classes focus on completion
for students and focus
on maximizing access for students as well.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Sure, questions?
>> Questions.
Questions, comments.
>> Alright!
So you say it's absolutely going to be cut
and you obviously don't have the section number yet.
I know that we've discussed previously the idea of cutting--
we're going to have to front low the cuts into fall
and summer for the next year.
Do we have a number of how many sections between the 2
which you plan on reducing between summer and fall?
>> Well, Chris, the classes that will mount for summer, all the--
whatever the FTES generated here is going to be FTES which will,
which will appear in our 2011-2012 total count.
So it's going to differentiate itself on fall
because once we get class, July 1st, was a date at the most,
the start day for summer classes,
that will be our '12-'13 FTES count.
So we start talking about the application
of those guiding principles
which Vice President Bell just showed,
those are to be more directly applicable
to when we start mounting our fall's class schedule going
forward into '12-'13.
These courses are the goal for summer 2012 is
to maximize our access for students while
at the same time trying to hold as close as we can the NCNs
so that we-- dampen if you will the,
our overage if you will prior FTES
that we've already generated for '11-'12.
>> So just to clarify you're saying that the summer,
the summer scheduling is not going to be part
of the '12-'13 academic year?
>> Yes. Summer scheduling is not part of '12-'13 because again,
for purposes of how we mount our FTES, all the FTES has generated
from July 1st to June 30th
within a fiscal year if you will.
Our academic year accounts towards that year.
Now, we have the option to carrying it either way.
We can carry FTES forward
into the next year maintaining the current year
for the course during the summer.
We're going to mount all these FTES in the current fiscal year.
>> And if I can just sort of say in terms of the number
of classes because of our FTES reduction, we are talking
about basically maximizing and mounting a stronger fall
and spring as we possibly can.
And then 150 of those classes will be in the summer,
we know that, which will then allow us to mount as, you know,
as stronger fall as we can subject to knowing what's going
to happen, and we've talked about some numbers in the past.
But at the end of the day, if we're talking classes
or to use the old term that we've been using, sections,
there will be a lower number, there has to be based upon
where we are with the state funding.
On the other hand, if we can maximize the number
of in Romans, in the, whatever classes we mount by virtue
of the things that Dr. Bell and I and others have talked about,
then as far as impact on students, you know,
that impact will be less even though we're going
to be mounting less classes.
That's the game that we are playing right now and I mean
that very respectfully.
We just got to get more
out of the less given the situation we're in.
>> Then one follow-- form of a clarification.
So when you say classes that is the equivalent of sections?
>> Yeah. It is because, you know, the one single component
or unit is the class and it's basically how many students can
we get in that class.
And some of this is subject to negotiations and what have you
with the faculty association but we're working on that.
>> Amy?
>> Okay so the-- is for summer.
[ Pause ]
>> I'm going to pick up that discussion Wednesday morning,
Wednesday morning.
>> And I would, I would suggest you might even talk
about fall a little bit on Wednesday morning too, right?
>> Correct.
>> Based upon where we are on that schedule.
>> Ana?
>> I have a concern about how transfer patterns will be
prioritized when deans are making these decisions.
We have a lot of transferable courses
that aren't necessarily appearing
on the general ed packages
but they are articulated for a major.
So I, as the articulation officer and on behalf
of students, I think we really need to talk
about how those courses will be preserved.
So that when students apply to transfer their level
of preparation for their major is one
of the key factors for admission.
So at 60 units, you know, the English, the critical thing,
the math and then the next year is,
"How well is this student prepared for his major?"
So I'd like to introduce that into the discussion
in their making these decisions.
>> You know, I was calling up on my remote desktop thing
on my PowerPoint with on my iPad which works
so I'm impressed by that.
But at any event, it set in here exactly everything
that Dr. Bell had said previous but I know that part
of what we're doing is working closely with counseling and DETC
and HOMA [phonetic] in identifying
who the completers are as we go forward for this summer.
And I think that that topic is part of the discussion,
the transfer of major patterns, the transfer of patterns,
so I think if you went to Cynthia and talk to her
about that, I know that Dr. Bell
and Cynthia will be discussing this, is that correct, Dr. Bell?
>> That's correct, Dan.
And Dr. Olivo plays a major role in making sure that those items
and those topics are brought forth to table.
She seats with the deans when we go to this planning.
>> Right.
>> So a large part of that will be advocated for
and brought for by Dr. Olivo.
>> Okay, great.
>> Well, now some of this discussion is going to continue
when we get to the next item, the proposed changes
in the Enrollment Priorities Policy.
But what you're saying if I understand you correctly, Ana,
is that the list that we are developing to give guidance
to the deans and the administration needs
to go a bit further in terms of what we prioritize for transfer.
>> That's correct.
>> Right. Alright, any other questions though for Dr. Bell?
[Pause] Okay then let's go on to item 4,
the Enrollment Priorities Policy.
I believe that you have a paper version of the proposed changes
and you also received this electronically.
Now again, we did receive 2 very recent recommendations
from Shelley about some language in the proposed changes
and from Chris and we'll get to those in just a moment.
But I invited Dina to join us here today
because as I mentioned just a while ago,
it's primarily the admissions and office
that has to implement this.
And Dina as we were talking about this policy
in our recent meetings, there were some things
that we we're not clear about that we don't understand.
So we're going to put you to the test, sorry.
The very first-- just to let, you know,
there's a few minor changes on the first page,
the policy's page, at the very last sentence,
I got a recommendation from a faculty member saying
that we should add the words "an appeal"
to student challenge just to clarify that,
but that's the only change that I've gotten for the policies.
On the procedures which begin on the second page,
Dina that very first item, item number 1 under the procedures,
we're trying to figure out what it means.
I was wondering if you could provide as with your insight
about that basic formula that it refers to in item A.
>> I know that the form completed
and maybe they started taken those classes, you know,
pre-A.D. too, some of them may have started, you know, 1990.
There might be a range of people who have taken classes
for personal-- are in excess of even 100.
And what happens is you see those same students circulating
with high priority numbers semester after semester,
and the other students who are really in need
of taking these transfer level classes or classes
for their certificate in AA can never really get
to that priority time much higher up simply
because you have the resurging
of these high priority numbers getting back into the system.
And based on, based on this, I think what you're going
to see is perhaps a shaving of, of those students
with high priority numbers regardless
of when they started here at the college but for trying
to move them out of that high priority assignment
and allowing some others that are in the pipe line to get
up there a little closer and sooner.
>> Alright.
But I think that we should explain to the committee
that the reason that we have the date of Spring 1982
in the procedures is simply because our systems,
our current Santa Rosa system only goes back to 1982.
>> Early 80s, yes.
>> It was not able to capture any information
about anyone prior to that date.
Is that correct?
>> Right. The system was purchased
in the early 80s that we've been on.
>> Alright, such as the limitation of our system.
>> Right.
>> But are you saying also
that we could essentially do a way with section 1?
I mean would your office have sufficient guidelines
from these procedures if we were to eliminate all
of the wording from section 1?
>> I don't know if it would be appropriate
to eliminate the wording altogether.
>> Okay.
>> I think that when students come in and they want
to know how come they have a certain priority assigned
to them, we want to be able to give them a rationale for it.
And I think that even with the modification and the wording,
it still gives us something to explain to them
in a sense why this number was assigned, it wasn't just random.
>> Okay. Alright!
And any questions about that section from any
of the committee members?
>> One question.
>> Yes, Ted.
>> By changing it from enrolled to completed then we're allowing
for repetitions of course as I can have multiple failures
in a course and take it-- [Pause]
>> They're limited to 3, 3 attempts.
>> Dina?
>> You know, they're limited to 3 attempts so, yeah.
>> I know they're supposed to be--
>> Pardon me?
>> I know they're supposed to be limited to 3--
that also has changed over the years.
>> Well, again they can appeal.
>> Yeah.
>> But I would say it's a fair statement to say that,
that we're kind of tightening
down on what the rationale behind the appeal would be,
and basically because of the board of governor's position
to hold to that, you know, third attempt, we'll probably see more
and more students, unless the extenuating circumstance
is denied.
>> Although--
>> Ted, it was as many as 7 and now it's 3
with a possible appeal to 4.
>> Right.
>> Right. Although I should, I should explain
that completed units means, happen--
occurs only when a student has successfully completed a course
with an A, B, C or a pass.
So a withdrawal is not a completed unit neither is a
substandard grade.
>> Back to my point.
>> Okay.
>> What I wouldn't want to see is if there's not a tightening
down like that then students who can-- on the system to--
already heard with substandard grades and taking these,
those seats over and over and over.
>> Right. The substandard grades would not go into that
that cumulative units.
Right! Glenna?
>> That's why I really want to find
out if we can somehow get the system to know
when they dropped the class if they're passing
at the time of dropping.
And our, my division especially is concerned
with all these students needing As and they're getting a B
and they drop because they want to take it the next semester
and that's clogging up too.
We want then to be set back a year if they, you know,
like say Organic is the biggest problem, they're--
they think they need an A in Organic to get into med school.
So they get to other place where they can drop
and they're getting a B but they want to drop.
We need to flag those students and tell them, "Okay, now,
you're going to wait a year because you got loads
of students waiting to get into that class."
That could be successful and would be happy with there be.
And we just really, I'm hoping in a new system or the new AIS
or however we do it can flag those kids, oh you drop
but you were getting a B so you're not going to be able
to get into right away again.
>> Okay. Yes, Amy?
>> Couple of things.
With respond to Glenna, some students with a B might drop
for another reason, you know.
So you have to know [inaudible].
>> And that's on part of the appeal that I saw,
you know, there is an appeal.
>> Alright, generalize.
Okay, so I'm unclear on the formula.
The way I read it it's 4 times of cumulative units completed.
So if I've finished 15 units successfully, my,
in 1 semester say 12, you know, I now I'm up to 48 or up to 60.
That's seems, why are we multiplying?
Why isn't just the units completed?
>> I agree.
I don't understand it.
>> Why isn't it just 100 units?
>> I have to look into it 'cause I'm not 100 percent sure either.
I know that the old one, the one that we're going
by now also takes into account whether the students is
in-district or out of district.
There is more to it than just this basic formula,
I can tell you that much.
>> Well.
>> Okay.
>> I won't want to submit this
until we fixed it, so it makes a sense.
>> Yeah. We will need to clarify the language
in that section, absolutely.
>> Yeah, exactly.
>> Okay. Alright.
So if we could go down now to section 2.
I heard back from a few of you about the prioritization
that we discussed last time.
And so if you will look at list A through J
and you will notice a few relatively minor changes.
I think of them as relatively minor.
The first one, item A, is this first priority would go
to continuing and then I put a parenthesis, a new,
question mark, continuing DSPS, EOPNS, foster youth,
active duty military, and Veteran students.
You may recall that I shared
with you some time ago information
from title 5 regulations which stipulate that we do indeed have
to get priority to DSPS, EOPNS,
foster youth, and Veteran students.
The active duty in military is our own discretion.
My question and I need to clarify this is,
are we also able to put continuing and new students
in these categories into the first priority item?
>> I can share with you that we currently can
and do provide priority considering--
priority registration.
The first batch of students would be new
and continuing EOPNS, foster youth, active military
and Veterans, and to continuing DSPS.
These was also recommendation based on Dr. Yamauchi who said
that new DSPS students really aren't necessarily given
priority in terms of the same as continuing DSPS students.
>> Uh-huh.
>> And he indicated that they were actually in favor
of not giving new DSPS students priority.
>> Would you differentiate between continuing
and new DSPS students?
>> Continuing DSPS would be those students that are here
in a semester and are continuing
in the sequence, the next semester.
>> Okay.
>> New or reentering would be those students that would be new
to the college, first time or reentering
after having been out of term or more.
>> Okay. Alright!
Okay, so we could make a modification moving the DSPS
students, rather the new DSPS, but are there other thoughts
from the committee members?
>> Why specifically the-- I could understand that they want
to make the change but why the classification between new
and continuing for just DSPS?
>> The way I understand it is that they're not,
there's nothing that makes us give new DSPS students priority
to the same point as the EOPNS, foster and the veterans.
>> But it could be a local discretion?
>> It could be a local discretion, yes.
>> Okay. For just-- for the say sake of simplicity and I think
that it, it's-- there's no problem with it.
I think it'd be good of us if we just include new
and continuing DSPS along with all the other that EOPNS,
the veteran, the foster care, et cetera.
>> I'm not opposed to that.
I would like to defer to Dr. Yamauchi
because I don't know what he, his office and his staff need
to go through to identify a new student as eligible for DSPS.
I don't know what the procedure and the length of time for them
to qualify that student as DSPS prior
to a registration cycle would be.
So if I can, you know, contact him in his office and find
out what's involved, what ramifications it has in his area
and then make a recommendation based from that.
>> That's reasonable.
And but assuming that it can go forward from his perspective,
are there any other concerns about the [inaudible]?
>> About that or the priority?
>> Including new and continuing DSPS?
>> Are there comments about the prioritization?
>> Yeah. This is where I wish we had a white board
and we may need to bring one for the next meeting.
Some are just try something out based upon what I've heard
at board meetings, what I've heard in discussions.
A would continue as it is as it is as number 1.
C would be part of number 1, and I don't know what we do
with the new either international
or out of district.
In other words if revenue enhancement is a priority
that we have then we need to make sure that the F1 visa
and out of state have some sort of priority
in order to get them going.
>> I have a question about D or are you moving down to--
>> I'm moving down.
I'm getting a kind of a new--
I'm giving you Bob's list for what it's worth.
>> Okay.
>> That's why I said a white board would be helpful
at some point.
So that's 1A international, C would be part of 1.
And then--
>> I'm sorry.
You're going to put into that-- .
>> Yeah, as a revenue generation scenario.
In other words--
>> That's not coming from this group [inaudible].
>> Yeah. That I'm just saying that's what I've heard,
that's what the board is interested in.
We're trying to do revenue enhancements
and I know the international group has trouble finding
spots sometimes.
I don't know where they land on this, I just know that they have
to be relatively high.
If our goal is to go from a roughly 1,000 to 3,000 students
who are revenue enhancing people as we try to get
of the state situation as much as possible.
And then the-- where did I see the twelfth grade?
Yeah, item D would be 2 if you will at next,
new and district fresh residents who graduated
from high school during the current calendar year
and have been identified.
So that would be next followed
by continuing in-district residents,
followed by all other in-district students returning
or I guess can be followed
by continuing in-district followed by all other.
In other words, the concept here is to give as much
as possible give our in-district students
of whatever type higher priority than out of district people,
other than our out of state
and our international as much as possible.
>> I'll recognize in just a moment but just to let you know
that I had a discussion with Brock Klein this past week
and he indicates to me that the international students are going
to form one of the first year experience Pathway cohorts.
>> Okay.
>> So I'm not exactly sure if they will all really be one
of these Pathway students
or if they will really have their own--
>> Okay.
>> Need their own separate distinct category.
>> That's a very good point.
And if in fact the international program were to start out saying
that they would have to be part
of the First Year Experience Pathway then you're right.
We could, we could do whatever with that.
We'd still have to talk about the out of state,
out of state students,
so whether not they would not be required as part of the,
of that Pathway, but certainly that would be a great way
to resolve that issue.
>> But I was going to suggest--
>> That's a great idea.
>> That's what we've been talking about.
>> That's what we're talking about.
>> And by bringing
in the Pathway then you're not bumping in-district students,
you've got a separate cohort--
>> Right.
>> Going through the Pathway, and not just first experience
but in overall Pathway Programs.
>> I think that's a very elegant way to deal with it.
>> And for clarity, before I continue,
a student who participates in one
of these Pathway programs is basically guaranteed enrollment
in those classes through 0 enrollments.
>> Yeah.
>> Rather than through the priority policy.
>> So an aggregate other than what we're required by statute
by law to do, the other big philosophical point is
in-district students in whatever order we want give them
and revenue enhancement in whatever order we want
to give them, but again the revenue enhancement can't be
plucked into the first year experience
that would be a great way to resolve that.
>> Okay. And now Ana and then Chris.
>> Okay. I have 2 comments on D in the draft.
It says new in-district residents who graduated
from high school and have been identified
as a First Year Pathway.
>> Right.
>> Now, my understanding is
that Pathways can only accommodate 1,000
students total.
So not every incoming in-district student is going
to fit into a Pathway nor do they want a Pathway.
And secondly, we've got about 1,000 international students,
so all of the international students cannot possibly fit
into a Pathway either.
So I think D needs to be amended and the Pathways need
to be addressed because we've put together all these Pathways
this year but we don't even know if they're successful.
We don't know if the students are going
to want to continue in them?
Are they viable?
Those are my questions.
>> We have a first year experienced council that is now
up and going and looking at that, but you're right Ana.
This would imply that the college is going
to create a first year experience due
to the requirement for incoming freshmen, whatever they are
to at least launch them correctly.
Now the Pathway is a question in terms of what happened
in the second year in going forward, but you're right.
This would imply that in order for them to get the priority,
they would have to be part of the Pathway which means
that we would have to gear up.
And if you recall the principles that we have
for enrollment management,
we talked about giving those Pathways first priority
as we build them out as we build a schedule.
>> Chris?
>> So, first to clarify based
to your proposal is your proposal is
to move B down to after D?
>> B down to after D. Yeah, I guess that's correct.
But again, it's the concept that maybe we should be thinking
about here before we get into the nitty-gritty of this.
And again, 'cause we can go back to the white board, you know,
and then really lay it out.
>> My other-- I suppose I can see
that conversation happen later, but I do think
that if we have these, like you say,
these Pathways are guaranteed enrollment
through the Pathway program and they don't go
through the system, then they shouldn't be included
in this procedures.
>> What do you mean they don't go through the system?
>> If they aren't giving a prior to-- prior to registration date,
but are instead given classes specifically set aside
to them then they should have a separate set
of procedures set aside for them not included
within these procedures.
>> Because they are guaranteed spots
that they really don't need any prioritization.
>> Or they'd simply don't go through this procedure,
so they shouldn't be included within it.
>> In some ways, it's like, you're saying I think
that they're like, say the nursing students.
I mean nursing students are guaranteed a spot.
We only have that many seats in the nursing classes.
So prioritization for them is irrelevant
because they're guaranteed those spots.
>> Yup. Students are going to need
to have a priority number anyway because if they,
if it's an F1 student, whatever,
and end up not doing the Pathway,
they're part of the general mix.
And so, you can't say they're out of it, they might enroll
in a particular group of courses but they still need
to be addressed in the overall Path-- priorities.
>> Dave?
>> Also--
>> I'm sorry.
Dave and then Amy.
[Inaudible Remark]
>> Dave could you go [inaudible] 'cause we need you on the mic.
[ Pause ]
Okay, okay.
>> That's what I was going to say 'cause Charlie
and I are creating Pathways that match English and Math,
and then there's going to be the college one class,
but then the student has to pick their GE class,
so they do need some type of priority.
Also all the Pathways don't look the same, so.
>> Right, okay.
>> It does need to be some priority.
>> Okay.
>> With that clarification
and I understand why they're in the procedure.
>> Okay. Can I go back to the question
about limitations of the Pathways?
Are we indeed limited to 1,000 enrollments?
>> At the current time, that's what we're planning
for the fall based upon what we thought at the time.
But again if these were adopted for some implementation
at a later date, we have to gear up, right, Dr. Bell,
we have to gear up those Pathways
and provide more seats along those lines.
>> That's correct.
And again, if we're looking at option of these--
[ Pause ]
>> Okay, and oh, oh Shelly.
>> Yeah, I did kind of following up what Ana said,
I'm a little bit concerned about high school graduates
who make it here because of this priority list
for the first year, and then in the second year, if they're not
in a Pathway program where they've just sort of down
in these other group of students who maybe can't then get--
part of the classes they want.
>> Interesting.
>>Yeah, in that case they would just be continuing,
regular continuing students--
>> Right. So, but are we creating another group of--
>> Well, as I was suggesting earlier,
the next priority would be in-district continuing.
>> Okay.
>> So the point is they roll out of the Pathway.
Thanks, it was good clarification, Shelly.
Thank you.
>> That would be E then.
>> That's right.
They roll out of the Pathway if they can't continue and
but they're in-district continue.
You know, we continue to have roughly 67 percent
of the students of PCC who are out of district.
And I think there's been a lot of concern
in the last several years about how do we save the seats
for more of our in-district students.
>> And just to give you a little bit more information
about the Pathways programs, again in my discussions
with Brock Klein this past week,
he identified not only a Pathway program
for international students and math jam and so
on that are being developed, but he included
in the First Year Pathways programs
like Puente, Ujima and the Zone.
>> So those are qualified as Pathways?
>> Right, and there's the international group,
and there's the design tech group,
and there is the musical one at the discussion.
There is this STEM group coming in from the HSI STEM grant
and there's a music one that's developing, so.
And again, the whole notion is to get people started well
and hopefully help close that gap that we talked about the,
you know, basically establishing completion gap
and closing completion gap.
>> Well, see now that brings up.
Okay, when we say Puente, I was the Puente coordinator councilor
for many years, and a lot of our students are out of district.
So they're down in item I.
If it's a new out of district, who is going to be in Puente?
That student is going to have less priority
than an in-district student going into Puente.
That doesn't make sense.
>> Well, that's true, but what would happen
because the Puente students are also limited by virtue
of 0 enrollment, they would be guaranteed a spot
but they would not register until their spot,
until their time came up, after the continuaning of students.
>> It might also suggest that from an outreach point of view,
we would have to work within our district to try to find people
who would-- I mean, we-- I would think we have plenty of students
who would benefit in-district
in a Puente program or Ujima program.
Dina's nodding her head affirmatively
so we just would have to outreach accordingly.
>> I've got a just a comment to tag along
and this doesn't happen very often but as we're looking
at high schools of origin, we do have some students
that are attending our in-district high schools
but actually are out of state-- community residents.
Yeah. [Laughter]
>> Add more to the mix.
>> Just add more to the mix.
>> But they-- but this is an in-district residents, right?
>> Right, right.
But we do have students that are out of district residents
who for whatever reason attend an in-district high school.
They may live on the border for example of Temple City
and they're actually outside our district,
but the way that Temple City High School
for example might categorize their students.
>> Okay.
>> That student would go to Temple City.
So they are-- they're part
of our in-district high school group but they're actually an
out of district resident.
So, maybe in cases like that, that's where we can kind of--
>> But they would come under item I, would they not?
>> Right. We could fill them in through there.
>> Right. And again, still guarantee a spot
through the Pathways experience
but their registration would come later
in the process, right?
>> One another thing.
Bob, you mentioned the issue of out of state students
but not international, and I don't see anything about this
but I think we need to address that.
Because if we're looking at revenue enhancement issues--
>> Yeah.
>> [Inaudible] are out of state.
>> Dina, do you know, 'cause it was asked of me the other day
and I don't have any answer.
How many out of state not F1s but out of state registration--
registrants do we have at PCC roughly?
>> Look, I don't know offhand.
>> Yeah. But you're right.
We need to find out what that number is, and again,
somehow lump them into this
if in fact that's what we want to do.
>> Well, I think this is a very interesting discussion
and I don't mean to cut it short,
but we are limited with time.
So I'm going to ask you to forward
to me any recommended changes that you have for section 2,
and then we'll discuss this further at our next meeting.
Let's go on to item, look, we have section 3 then section 4.
And Chris, this is the section that you would like to address,
and you brought to us a paper, handwritten paper
with your recommendations, do you want to review that now?
>> Yeah, no problem.
So, my recommendation would be to add a new section 4
that would go before the current section 4
or the current changed section 4 directly
after the red basically.
That would address the--
the process basically says
that each individual case would be taken throughout the bill's
process, and that will really specify
for students especially in, especially in D
but I think throughout all of them who may be taking away,
specifically for D things like--
So the first I, this is for recent--
possible reasons that a student might lose their priority
for on the reason section 3?
There are others I'm sure but these are the ones
that really came to mind.
I, if they're at 101 units and they only need one class left
to transfer, they should lose their priority.
I, a change in students Ed plan within their 10 year,
if perhaps they decided to change their major,
and actually I made a couple of revisions
that myself state change it instead of a student a change--
instead of a change in their Ed plan but they are changed
in their Ed plan and progress to their new goal while at PCC.
I, the student's reasons for enrolling
in their classes including the availability of core classes,
the need for full time status.
Many students have to take electives because they can't get
into classes that they want to do, so they lose their--
they may lose their priority just because they couldn't get
into classes they wanted 'cause they didn't have priority.
And then for IV, the idea of any personal, professional
or economic issues, the results in the cost
of their priority loss sometimes just you maybe
on academic probation because you had to go out of town
to attend to your father's funeral, et cetera, et cetera,
there are personal issues that I think should--
could also be taken into account on individual basis.
And then finally D, the students who are unable to appeal
or who are unable to repair their situation will go
to the end of their--
in my opinion, I think that it should go to the end
of their category as that one in section 2.
Not go to after J for example, but go to if they're within C,
then go to the end of all those within C.
>> Amends, questions for Chris?
>> I'll try to approach it
from the other side of the horse here.
>> Yeah.
>> What could we do to encourage students who--
and I'm not opposed to what you said.
I'm trying to think of how we can accommodate it.
How would we go about ensuring
that students have sufficient time
to identify whatever their goal is here, whatever they're here
to do, whatever that is, and to be able
to accommodate those students in a timely fashion
to get those courses so that they can move
on with their life?
How is, from a student perspective could the college
then be able to accommodate that student identifying their goal
so that the appropriate educational plan or pathway
or whatever term you want to use is provided to that student
to guarantee that student the courses that they're going
to need in order to get out
and accomplish their goal in a timely fashion?
>> In response to that, I don't know, and I don't--
we don't have that now.
And that's I think, one of my main issues
with this entire document and one of the kind of reasons
for this is because the first step is
to identify these students.
If we don't have the ability to identify these students,
then we shouldn't be--
we shouldn't have a procedure saying that we are going
to limit them, limit their access.
And I think that we not only need to identify them
but also be able to reach out to those students.
And until we have that infrastructure in place,
I don't know if this is--
this is something that we should be doing at all.
But, as far as I know, we don't have that ability right now.
And something that I think we're moving towards
but we certainly don't have it now.
And I think that it's certainly feasible that an upgrade
in technology system would be able to take
that into account as, you know, with the correct, you know,
knowledge of what's going on.
I mean, obviously we want to digitize of ever since Ed plan
with some sort of automatic trigger that says, oh,
the students not longer on the Ed plan whatever it is
that would then-- and I just want to make sure
that that automatic trigger doesn't become an automatic loss
of priority without someone reviewing what happened.
>> Dave?
>> I agree but at the same time, last time we met, I believe one
of you two showed what Long Beach was going to be doing
as far as their priority, their new priority registration.
And it was effective for either '13-'14 or '14-'15
but they had taken the time in advance to layout all
of the different pieces.
And I suggest that that's how this should be seen
as this might not go into effect for the '12-'13 year
but we can lay the foundation for what is going
to be the priority system in the future.
>> And in also our upgrade in technology.
>> And I would, I would echo that.
You know, we don't yet know what the technology can do
and I'd be concerned about putting something
in the procedures that we have no clue as to whether
or not we'll be able to implement.
And I know Dr. Bell has been very conservative
on his staffing requests and needs both in well,
in student services and I think you're being so because
until you know what the technology is going to be able
to do then you'll know how to restructure and ask
for additional, you know, assignments or whatever.
>> Correct.
I fully-- we fully anticipate that once the new AIS,
once the new AIS put in place is going to dictate that the staff
within the admissions and records
in enrollment services do their jobs differently
and at a higher level of functionality.
So rather than replace staff and current functionality,
knowing that we'll be going to a new way we're going to hold
on that until we get the new AIS system in place,
find out exactly what those jobs will be
and then place people in those-- positions.
>> Ana?
>> So then based on that, I would recommend the removal
of that statement, 3A.
This priority goes to students who are identified
as not following their Ed plan,
'cause right we do not have the capability to track that.
I think that in a year or two when we have the AIS system
about to be implemented we could reinsert that.
But right now, I don't think it's wise to include
that statement in this procedure.
>> Nor C.
>> And it is important to know
that the procedures should be more flexible than the policy.
We should be able to revisit the procedures periodically
as we need to with changing staff, changing technology
and so on and bring this up to date every once in a while.
Is there a concens-- Ana are you proposing
that as-- removing that?
>> I'd like to propose the removal of item 3A
on the draft revisions to policy 4020.
>> Is there a second?
>> I'll second and add
that I think C is also unfeasible at this time.
>> Well, we're still with A--
>> Let's deal with A, okay.
>> I will second the removable of 3A.
>> Okay. Alright, so there's a motion and a second.
Is there comments, questions?
Shelly [Inaudible Remark] Shelly
>> Well, again I would have to comment
that there is more things than just that one
that we cannot currently track.
We cannot currently track any CTE student--
however far along they may be in the past
and there are probably other things that we can't track
that might be in here.
I don't know how we would encompass all of those.
>> Well, whether a student is in a CTE program
or a transfer program or something else,
they would all form part of an education plan.
>> Right.
>> They would all be covered within that category.
>> If we're just talking about A, I mean--
>> Right, 3A.
Any others, Ted?
>> I'm just going to say is, you know, assuming we're trying
about removing this because just
because of the technical difficulties but it's something
that we definitely would want to have back in as soon
as it's feasible, right?
>> I think that's the consensus.
>> And along those lines, if there were things
in the procedures that was not technically feasible right now
but it provided the direction to go in,
I guess we really wouldn't want to put anything in that we knew
that we couldn't deal with now or if we put something
in that we have a question about, we might put
in parenthetically, you know, to implement in '13-'14
or something like that.
Basically say, it wouldn't be implanted right away
but it's a direction that we would want to go in.
I mean, I guess we could do it that way too
since it's a procedure, right?
>> When we would have appropriate data to do so.
>> We're going to have appropriate data
and technology and everything else.
That's another way to address that I guess.
>> It-- this and counted to that,
that just in the parliamentarian in me,
just feels that we shouldn't have those kind of dates
in policies and procedures because 5 years from now,
they're going to look back 10 years from now and they're like,
why was that date in there?
And the same thing with the Spring,
1982 and it'll just cause confusion.
This kind of don't want to have that kind of--
>> Yeah, but.
>> Temporary status.
>> That's true, but the accreditations standards
requires to update these things every 6 years anyway so,
but I see your point.
Anyway, it's just a thought.
>> This is just comment for thought.
Is there a possibility of putting anything in place
that would be kind of a marker for us?
So for example we would say, you know, students with X amount
of units or students who exceed, you know, 60 units and do not,
you know, follow their Ed plan or, you know,
check with counseling or some kind of marker along the way?
>> Well, I think we're getting that, to that in item 3D.
Least priority would also go to students who accrued more
than 100 units not including ESL or basic skill courses.
>> But, well, I am thinking even wider than that.
>> Wider?
>> So for example, you know,
with some of the things we are looking at now.
Students that have for example 60 units or more
and don't have an English or a math or, you know,
something in place that says, okay, at a certain time at PCC
when you hit 60 units, you know, if you haven't gone
to counseling or haven't had an evaluation, that's the marker
that we need to check to see are you still
on track with your Ed plan?
Are you missing classes that you need to complete your goal?
You know, what's the halfway point if we're saying, you know,
100 units, you know, at 50 units, is there--
do we put a procedure in place where the student has
to check-in if you will?
>> Then items 3C, students who fail to declare a program
of study after 30 units completed at PCC?
>> So with-- like that be the point that some
of the other things could fall into place then?
>> The other point if I may add is that the thing about 3 that,
that struck me as valuable was that it made it very clear
to students into the system what would result
in these priorities.
So if you were concerned about your priority, you would try
to make certain that you didn't fall victim to any of 3A, 3D.
If we don't have it in this case red and white,
but if we don't have it in black and white, then it results
in a system that is again more amorphous and we're trying
to get away from that, we're trying to get more specific
so that we can encourage people to have a plan.
>> [Inaudible] answer to time out, I'll call the question.
>> Okay. So then all in favor of removing the current wording
for item 3A, please raise your hand.
[Pause] All opposed.
One, okay.
Thank you, so we will remove that wording for now.
Alright, and then for today's meeting,
we also had a recommendation from Shelly,
it's on a yellow sheet of paper.
And Shelly if I understand your recommendation,
you're requesting to change on the third page to item 6.
Is that correct?
>> Yes, that's correct.
>> And you have--
>> C--
>> One of, the one of three?
>> Sets that introduces the alphabetic list,
the first alphabetic list.
I'd like to see some greater clarity on that sentence
and I have 3 here that I'm proposing that we might--
>> Okay.
>> Use or-- I think I like the third one the best.
>> Okay.
>> But-- [Inaudible Remark]
>> Okay. So this would be in addition to the sentence
where it says, "Greatest priority shall be given
to the following" colon, and then--
>> And then-- no, in place of that.
>> In place of that entire--
>> Yeah.
>> Okay. Alright and do you want
to tell us why you favor the third one?
>> Just so it was clear that we weren't--
if that this was not a rank order.
>> Alright.
So the suggested change reads,
"Greatest priority shall be given to the following types
of courses which are considered to have equal priority status
and will be distributed
or offered according to student demand."
Any other comments, questions?
>> I'll move to change the wording to the third option
as provided by Shelly.
>> Okay. Is there a second?
>> I'll second that.
>> Seconded by Bob Bell.
So just any--
>> Just important clarification.
>> Okay.
>> So, that would be the introductory statement but A
through D would still be listed, is that correct?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, thank you.
>> Okay.
>> Can I ask point of clarification?
Do we have a way to measure student demand?
>> Well--
>> Yes, we have a new AIS system, right?
>> Well, and there's also that the recent data that's provided
to the deans which is a few sets of information.
One, the course taking behavior by division in terms
of what other, you know,
over a 3-year period would have been quote unquote--
Well, what have been the classes that have been taken the most
by students within that division, and then in relation
to A, A as the transfer stuff.
And then we also have the 25 top
and the 50 top course taking behavior classes
over a 3-year period.
So, we have that data for whatever that data is worth.
>> Ted?
>> That that's not really a student demand,
that's enrollments.
I mean, I know within my division Spanish 1 was up there
because I offered the largest number of sections in Spanish 1
and there's no prerequisites so everybody comes in to it.
We've talked many times over the past few years about trying
to track attempted enrollments, for example.
They give you an idea of where students are trying to get into.
I just, I think it's, I agree.
I think it's polemic to be talking about student demand.
We can't really pin that down at this point, and I'm not sure
that some of that becomes self-fulfilling.
And again, if I have a lot more Spanish 1,
I'm going to get a lot more students in there.
>> Well, and some of these goes back and speaks
to the educational master plan from the environmental scan data
that exist there but also incumbent upon the divisions
to basically figure out ways
with the office administrational effectiveness to try
and determine what that demand could be.
>> Bob?
>> I agree.
I don't think we have a true way to do it
and this is hardly scientifically--
[ Pause ]
At a ride from waiting list, because our waiting list,
in my opinion, clearly suggest an area
where students have a demand.
And if you will, if the world were perfect
and we could create our classes from all of those waiting lists,
I think we would have in fact-- .
That's highly-- that's hardly scientific but that's one way
to begin to look at, I think.
>> And that goes back-- I mean, it's valuable.
That's important information.
It does reflect some of the attempts but if you have--
if every section of Spanish 1 has a waiting list of 15
and they're all maxed out, I can't really see that point.
In [inaudible], I'm a little bit more comfortable with--
>> With the middle one.
>> With the middle one.
>> The middle one would stop at status
and not have the rest of that.
>> Yeah.
>> And Dan, as far as addressing student demand
that something as Bob Miller--
>> We can do it.
>> Cause, yeah, we have to work on that and come up with the way
in which to address that at the division level
or the departmental level or whatever it is,
but not necessarily within these procedures right now.
>> Okay. So I will withdraw my motion.
>> Okay.
>> How about a friendly amendment
to go with the second one?
>> Substitute the second one?
>> It's so much easier if I just withdraw it.
>> Yeah.
>> One of this is important to have in here.
Ted just says, so.
>> I continue to believe that 3 is the right way to do it
because it's-- However,
we get to measuring student demand I think that we have
to be cognizant in student demand.
And so, maybe we don't have the best way of getting our arms
around it yet, but I think we began that process
by getting this in writing, we'll know we have to figure
out ways to get that measured particularly
in many the CTE areas I think, and go from there.
I just think clarity is better.
>> Okay. So now [inaudible] So, currently there's no motion
on the floor, so I guess I'll make a second motion--
I'll motion to replace the wording with the second option.
>> I second that.
>> A motion and a second
to adapt the second recommendation
from Shelly Gaskin.
Alright, any other comments or questions
about the second recommendation, second wording phrase?
Reads "The greatest priority shall be given
to the following types of courses which are considered
to have equal priority steps."
Any comments or questions?
>> Well, so this is in item 6 before the A, B, C, D classes?
>> Correct.
>> And I'm going back to my comment earlier
where we have a lot of classes that are transferable
and articulated for majors,
but those aren't captured in these A, B, C, D.
>> So you will also want to insert some other wording
into the list, is that right?
>> Yes.
>> Okay, let's go back to the question though, the adaption
of that second item that Shelly is recommending,
any other comments or questions about that?
Right, all in favor, please raise your hand.
[Inaudible] thank you, alright!
And Ana, now you a recommendation how
about some-- of an item to add?
>> Well, I don't know if it would be E or somewhere.
>> What would your wording be?
>> Courses that are transferable and articulated
or majors commonly pursued by PCC students.
>> That please.
>> Courses that are transferable and articulated for majors
that are commonly pursued by PCC students.
>> Okay. Alright, any, to make a motion to insert that language?
>> I'd like to make a motion to insert that language in item 6.
>> Okay. Alright, and so it would be,
of equal priority status, we've already determined that.
We could just add item E and is there any discussion,
comments or questions?
>> I would say that I would support that on the basis
of the job placement item in our completion agenda
where we have people here who just come, take a few classes
and they need to complete.
I know that you are, you were talking about something else
but you know if we have a completion agenda of, you know,
degrees and transfers and what have you,
I think that just strengthens it, I think it's fine.
It also helps the job placement scenario as well.
>> Dave?
>> A possible concern might be the--
and again this comes back to our AIS technology issue
that there might be 30 courses that would fall
into this definition, but until we have the AIS we wouldn't know
necessarily what the actual demand for those 30 courses.
It may very well be that out of those 30 courses that would fit
that particular agenda between 2 and 5 of them are the ones
that 90 percent of students would take to fill that.
And so I believe that this possibly will end
up deflating the power of prioritizing classes,
meaning that if you start with 1900 courses and we end
up prioritizing 1800 of them, we're in the same boat.
>> Well, that gets back
to the student demand question 'cause the students by virtue
of what they enroll in give us good sense of what it is
that they're interested in.
>> Ted, did you have a comment?
>> I was going to comment on the talking
about transfer [inaudible] and articulated
from majors commonly pursued to have the commonly pursued
or just that these are, if we have there're majors
that are articulated for transfer and--
>> Well, there are many, many, many, but the common ones,
let me just give you an example of business, we have,
Dina might know, many, many
of our students are business majors transferring
to the Cal States.
Those students need accounting 1AB
>> Right.
>> Business law, a computer class.
Those do not appear on the general Ed packages.
So if we just prioritize general ed, those key classes
that business major needs may not be offered.
When that students-- when that student applies to transfer,
he or she is not going to be a good candidate
because he's lacking key courses for his major.
So my intent is just to preserve those classes
that the students really need.
>> [Inaudible] That's my feeling about that.
So you see it now, we have created a major, we,
we don't want to accidentally be leaving off just--
I'm concerned with the idea of saying only those
that are commonly pursued because, you know,
if we have the major we need to support it
or we don't have the major.
>> Dina? [Pause]
>> Well, I mean there are ways for you to get data from UC
and CSU about the top majors
that our students are transferring under,
and that could narrow it down a bit, and makes a good point.
We do have a lot of majors that are articulated that won't come
up in those top 30 or top 40.
>> And I think that should be addressed in terms of whether
or not we have that major and that goes through CNI.
>> In [inaudible] to the IEC to institutional effect
in this committee that work, you know.
>> And make recommendations about that as well.
>> Right. But if as an institution,
we're offering a major-- I mean and they're starting that major
and they're going down that path,
if we don't offer the classes, if they won't be able
to complete it, then we're in a breach of contract
with the students essentially.
>> Which is why this thing can't be all inclusive
because we won't be able to, you know,
we can't provide everything everybody needs.
>> So that's C. There's was a motion and a second.
We didn't take a vote, did we?
>> No.
>> A motion was not--
[inaudible] the motion was never second,
so I'll do that for you now.
>> Okay. Alright, so it's been seconded.
Any further discussion?
>> Alright.
All in favor of this proposed item E adding it
to the procedures, please raise your hand.
All opposed, as is unanimously as well.
So I'll revise the policy procedures
and bring you that, I have revision.
>> One question, it doesn't need an answer right now,
but I don't understand the difference
of the policy and maybe I should.
Superintendent President shall established procedures defining
a role, priorities, limitations and process
for student challenge and appeal.
What's the difference between a challenge and an appeal?
>> One is more formal.
>> Okay.
>> One is more formal.
>> Which one, the appeal is more formal?
>> I'd say appeal is more formal.
>> So a challenge means they go to the councilor
and who are they challenging, who do they appeal to?
>> The challenge is to their faculty member and their dean
as opposed to appeal that goes to student services.
I think I'm just speculating, I don't know the difference
between the two terms.
[ Pause ]
>> Again, prerequisite challenge is a form that [inaudible].
It's a more simple process and then if they don't
like the response from that then they can petition.
>> Petition.
>> And if we're going to--
if we're going to talk about hierarchal,
a challenge would be might [inaudible] sounded
at lower level.
>> Okay.
>> So it really are 2 things, a challenge and an appeal.
Thank you.
>> Okay. Alright!
Any, and so you can see the last item is future meetings.
The next one is on the 26.
So please put that on your calendars.
>> I just have one final comment.
I teach and write about data visualization, and I just want
to say that this chart was excellent.
>> Thank you.
>> I think this, the more we can see what's happening,
it's very helpful.
>> Yeah, thank you very much.
We were particularly proud of that one, too.
Thank you, Shelly.
>> So we get an A.
>> No, yeah 'cause every once
in a while you actually create something
that really does tell a story.
>> I'd like to add something to the agenda for the next meeting.
At the last meeting, I mentioned
that in the UC system they have a certain enrollment priorities,
And I did some research with the colleague at UCLA
and I have printout of how it's written on the website
for all students to understand.
It's very clear.
And I'd like to have this on the agenda for next meeting.
>> Okay. We'll put it as a discussion and if you could--
if you have an electronic link to that, I'll be glad to send
that out to the committee members.
>> Yes, I'll send it to you.
>> Okay. Alright!
Anything else for today?
Alright, thank you, Dina, for coming and being with us
and we'll be in touch.
>> And actually I'd love Dina to be here as often as possible.
So she'd answers really good questions for us.
>> Okay. Thank you very much.
We're adjourned.