Transcript Strategic Plan for Enrollment Management Institutional Facilities & Capacity Management Subgroup Preliminary Presentation June 1, 2010

Strategic Plan for
Enrollment Management
Institutional Facilities & Capacity
Management Subgroup
Preliminary Presentation
June 1, 2010
Agenda
1. Charge
2. Membership & Process
3. Preliminary Results
a) Quantitative Model for Resource
Demands
b) Qualitative Changes to Increase
Capacity
4. Questions and Discussion
Charge to the Committee
Goal: Develop facility and capacity
management model to support the
enrollment target of 25,400 students
and credit hour production of 625,000.
–
–
–
–
–
Identify the ideal number of tenure track
faculty
Identify ideal faculty/student ratios
Identify ideal academic advising/student
ratios
Integrate accreditation requirements
Identify appropriate utilization of
technology to improve operations
Committee Tasks
1. Establish baseline ratios for capacity
management & minimum requirements
to support institutional enrollment
goals, addressing:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Classroom capacity
Teaching delivery methodologies (distance
vs. face-to-face; on- vs. off-campus)
Number of tenure-track faculty
Course Loads
Course fill rates
Housing capacity
Computer labs
Recreational facilities
Committee Tasks
2. Establish strategic objectives
(including related strategies/
programs and measurable outcomes)
that operationalize the facility and
capacity management goals.
Membership & Process
•
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Committee Membership
Helen Brantley, Chair, TLRN
Brian Brim, Provost’s Office
James Erman, Interim VPR
Phil Eubanks, Chair, ENGL
Lori Marcellus, Dir. UG Studies, CoB
Cheryl Ross, Finance & Facilities
Mike Stang, Dir., Housing & Dining
Matt Venaas, Student Trustee
Kelly Wesener, Student Affairs
Quantitative Model
•
•
•
The goal is to forecast what future
student populations might look like,
and to project the resources needed to
appropriately serve those populations
Most resource demands depend on who
the student is: major, academic level,
level of ability, etc. This requires a
detailed student profile.
We need to differentiate between
enrollment-driven resources and
student-driven resources.
Quantitative Model
Enrollment-Driven Student-Driven
Resources
Resources
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Professorial Faculty
Instructors
Adjunct & Clinical
Faculty
Graduate Assistants
Graders & Tutors
Classrooms
Laboratories
Computer labs
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Advising
Library
Housing & Dining
Recreational &
Student Activity
Facilities
Counseling, CAAR, …
Career Services
Health Services
Administrative &
Support Offices
Quantitative Model
“Student profile” means student
headcount parsed by
–
–
–
–
–
–
Declared major
Academic level
Point of entry (transfer vs. new freshman)
GPA
Full-time vs. part-time
???
Quantitative Model
Current
Student
Profile
Future
Student
Profile
Course
Enrollments
Student –
Driven
Resources
Enrollment Driven
Resources
Quantitative Model
Current
Student
Profile
Future
Student
Profile
Course
Enrollments
Student –
Driven
Resources
Enrollment Driven
Resources
Quantitative Model
Departing
Students
Spring 11
Fall 10
Continuing Students
Returning
Students
New
Students
Departing
Students
Continuing
Students
Departing
Students
Continuing Students
Fall 11
Spring 12
Departing
Students
Quantitative Model
Forecasting Using Registration Appointments
Forecasting Using
Confirmations
10 Day
May 09
May 10
Projected % Change % Change Projected % Change Average
Census Registration
% with
Registration Fall 11
in
in
Fall 11
in
Predicted
Entry College Fall 09
Appts.
Reg. Appt.
Appts.
Headct.
Headct. Confirmed Headct. Headct. Change
FRSH CBUS
498
236
47.39%
168
371
-25.50%
-27.50%
374
-24.90% -25.20%
FRSH CEDU
268
129
48.13%
149
324
20.90%
1.90%
283
5.60% 13.25%
FRSH CEET
156
69
44.23%
76
180
15.38%
2.30%
165
5.77% 10.58%
FRSH CHHS
327
178
54.43%
160
308
-5.81%
-12.10%
298
-8.87%
FRSH CLAS
729
316
43.35%
249
602
-17.42%
-10.00%
679
-6.86% -12.14%
FRSH CVPA
176
85
48.30%
70
152
-13.64%
-18.00%
149
-15.34% -14.49%
FRSH NIUDK
348
144
41.38%
108
273
-21.55%
-28.10%
259
-25.57% -23.56%
2502
1157
980
2210
2207
-11.73%
TRFR CBUS
438
253
57.76%
255
451
2.97%
-1.90%
461
5.25%
4.11%
TRFR CEDU
290
188
64.83%
190
299
3.10%
2.40%
319
10.00%
6.55%
TRFR CEET
102
45
44.12%
59
137
34.31%
29.20%
141
38.24% 36.27%
TRFR CHHS
329
181
55.02%
243
451
37.08%
17.20%
414
25.84% 31.46%
TRFR CLAS
737
393
53.32%
476
912
23.74%
16.20%
919
24.69% 24.22%
TRFR CVPA
110
45
40.91%
83
207
88.18%
55.10%
183
66.36% 77.27%
TRFR NIUDK
85
31
36.47%
33
92
8.24%
30.00%
119
40.00% 24.12%
2091
1136
1339
2549
2556
22.07%
Total FRSH
Total TRFR
-7.34%
Quantitative Model
Current
Student
Profile
Future
Student
Profile
Future
Course
Enrollments
Student –
Driven
Resources
Enrollment Driven
Resources
Quantitative Model
Construct a matrix of course demand
by student type. Each cell gives
the % of students of a given
profile who enroll in a given
course.
Example: Transfer students by
college and academic level,
enrolling in “Just in Time” (i.e.
high-demand entry-level courses)
in MATH.
Quantitative Model
Entry
Acad
Level
College
MATH
101
MATH
110
MATH
155
MATH
210
MATH
211
MATH
229
TRF
FRSH
CBUS
0
0.16
0.04
0.02
0.23
0.02
TRF
FRSH
CEDU
0.09
0
0.03
0
0
0
TRF
FRSH
CEET
0
0
0.38
0
0
0.08
TRF
FRSH
CHHS
0.02
0.14
0.07
0.02
0
0
TRF
FRSH
CLAS
0.16
0.1
0.08
0.01
0.05
0.01
TRF
FRSH
CVPA
0.13
0.07
0
0
0
0
TRF
FRSH
NIUDK
0.1
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0
TRF
SOPH
CBUS
0.03
0.2
0.01
0.02
0.3
0.01
TRF
SOPH
CEDU
0.08
0
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
TRF
SOPH
CEET
0
0.06
0.13
0
0.03
0.38
TRF
SOPH
CHHS
0
0.09
0.04
0.01
0.01
0
TRF
SOPH
CLAS
0.08
0.09
0.06
0.01
0.06
0.06
TRF
SOPH
CVPA
0.15
0.05
0
0
0.02
0
TRF
SOPH
NIUDK
0.09
0.06
0.15
0.03
0.27
0.06
Quantitative Model
Current
Student
Profile
Future
Student
Profile
Course
Enrollments
Student –
Driven
Resources
Enrollment Driven
Resources
Qualitative Changes
Given a number of seats in a given
class, what resources are
required to provide those seats?
Example: every 100 students
enrolling in MATH 211 requires
–
–
–
–
–
1.1 lecture halls of capacity 80+ for 3
hrs/wk
3.3 classrooms of capacity 20 – 40 for 1
hr/wk each
0.55 FTE faculty or 0.275 FTE Instructor
1.1 FTE GA for recitation
0.275 FTE GA for tutoring
Qualitative Changes
What changes can we make that
better use our existing
resources? Those changes need
to:
•
•
•
Allow us to serve more students
Preserve quality of the
educational experience
Require little or no new cost
Qualitative Changes
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reduce attrition
Classroom utilization
Temporal distribution of courses
(days of the week, time of day)
Use of off-campus, distance learning
and summer offerings
Ensuring students can construct a
schedule that leads them to
graduation in 4 years
Examining imbalance between fall
and spring enrollments
Qualitative Changes
•
•
•
•
Examining effectiveness of limited
admission/retention programs
Targeting advising to those students
that will most benefit
Identifying students in good standing
who are at risk of leaving
Synchronizing the differing schedules
for recruiting & enrollment; scheduling
& staffing courses; hiring instructors
and graduate assistants, etc.
Qualitative Changes
For each of these, our goals are:
• Determine what data is needed to
substantiate whether there is a real
opportunity for improvement.
• Identify the key actors/decision-makers
for addressing the issue.
• Identify the possible “side effects” or
unintended consequences of a change.
We are starting with classroom utilization
and scheduling imbalances.
Conclusion
• Testing feasibility of data-collection
for quantitative model
• Identifying data needs for
determining viability of qualitative
changes
• Questions and comments?