Core Services Review for Instructional Program & Proposed Cuts

Matt WetsteinInterim Vice President of Instruction

Board of Trustees MeetingNovember 13, 2012

Outline of the Presentation

• Overview of the process used for core services review for instruction

• Example of data and metrics• Proposed elimination of some programs• Proposed reductions to address a roughly $3

million operating deficit in 2013-14

Core Services Review

• Campus community representatives have been calling for core services review for two years

• Represents good planning & meets continuous cycle of improvement - ACCJC

• Educational Master Plan Strategic Goal 2.2 (2012)• Ad Hoc committee formed in April 2012• Representatives from faculty, staff & administration• Focus – analyze data and develop metrics to determine core

programs • Ensure that college offerings are geared to community labor

market and employer needs

Core Services Review

• Seven meetings between April & October• Committee members reviewed and agreed upon data metrics• Quantitative data used to review programs

– FTES– Revenue generated by FTES– FTEF– Productivity (FTES/FTEF)– Degrees awarded over 5 years– Certificates awarded over 5 years– Net Revenue generated (Revenues-Expenditures)– State and county employment projections– State and county mean wages

Core Services Review

• Qualitative Data – The centrality of a program to the general

education mission (5 point scale)– The centrality & vitality of a career technical

education (CTE) program (5 point scale)– The presence or absence of full time faculty in the

program

Core Services Review

Data elements used in the Core Services Review

Core Services Review

• Committee Vetting Process– PRIE Office gathered most of the data after initial

efforts to spread the work– Committee review of spreadsheet and data

process– Extensive review of labor market data– Faculty participation in jobs data – October 2012

email asked faculty to tell us: what jobs do you train students for?

Core Services ReviewMore Peripheral

Programs

Secondary Tier

Core Functions

•Stand alone GE courses•Personal enrichment courses•CTE programs with weak enrollments & certificate attainment and no FT faculty

•CTE programs that train for low wage jobs•Lowest level of basic skills (primary level English, Math)

•Least essential to the core of the college – can be considered first for cuts or elimination

• Less central to GE lists• Lower enrollment CTE programs or lower

numbers of certificates• Intermediate basic skills courses• Less essential to the core of the college

• GE Mandates and centrality to GE lists• Strong CTE Programs that support other

programs as well• CTE programs that train for high wage jobs• Basic Skills leading to the above• Most essential programs should be protected

from reductions – The “core” of the college

Recommendations

• Recommendations are from the Interim VP (not the committee)

• Designed to initiate serious discussions about instructional program eliminations and reductions

• Participatory governance consultation needs to occur

• Focus is on finding identified savings to address an operating budget deficit

• 50% law – assumes instructional units will shoulder close to 50% of any cuts

Proposed Program Eliminations

ProgramLow FTES

All Adjunct

Low # of Awards

Low Labor

Market Need

Not Central

to General

Ed

Other Providers in market

11-12 Costs

Banking 16 X X $31,464

Carpentry 6 X X X X $5,567

Creative Writing 5 X $18,211EMS 16 X X X X $2,271

Fire Tech 32 X X X $21,124

Insurance 7 X X X $2,734

Interior Design 23 X X X $26,516Mill Cabinet 9 X X X $13,636

Proposed Program Eliminations

ProgramLow FTES

All Adjunct

Low # of Awards

Low Labor

Market Need

Not Central

to General

Ed

Other Providers in market

11-12 Costs

Small Engine 1 X X $6,130Ocean-ography 9 X $24,028Real Estate 18 X X X $10,938

Social Science Gen 14 X $18,700Totals 156 $181,319

Some of the FTES in the programs mentioned above can be redeployed for more efficient delivery of core services

Proposed Program Eliminations

• Kids College– The Recession has caused declining attendance at

workshops & events– Community Education & Kids College required more

than $100,000 in general fund backfill in 2011-12– Programs should be self-sustaining– Kids College seen as less core because of the

population served– Other providers in the community– Estimate about $20,000 in net savings

Proposed Program Eliminations

• A growing budget concern – Program Integrity Guidelines from the US Department of Education

• The college is advertising programs but cannot afford to offer classes to complete them (see ACCJC Standard II.A.6 and II.A.6.C)– II.A.6 – The institution assures that students and prospective students receive clear and

accurate information about educational courses and programs and transfer policies. The institution describes its degrees and certificates in terms of their purpose, content, course requirements, and expected student learning outcomes. In every class section students receive a course syllabus that specifies learning outcomes consistent with those in the institution’s officially approved course outline.

– II.A.6.C – The institution represents itself clearly, accurately, and consistently to prospective students and current students, the public, and its personnel through its catalogs, statements, and publications, including those presented in electronic formats. It regularly reviews its institutional policies, procedures and publications to assure the integrity in all representations about its mission, programs and services.

Proposed Program Eliminations

• ACCJC Standard II.A.6.B– When programs are eliminated or program requirements are

significantly changed, the institution makes appropriate arrangements so that enrolled students may complete their education in a timely manner with a minimum of disruption.

• The college will need time to eliminate programs and the faculty will need to take the lead in deactivating programs in the curriculum process

Core Services Review

• Proposed program eliminations will not achieve enough savings

• Many are small programs with little spending other than adjunct hourly faculty costs

• Second list provides some recommendations for program reductions

• Subject to discussion and all dependent on the state legislative budget process and contract negotiations

Proposed Program ReductionsProgram Proposed Reduction

Athletics and PE 10% reduction in general fund support

Art, Dance, Drama, & Music 3% reduction

Basic Skills at the lowest level

Math 76 phased out, other low level basic skills identified for significant reductions

ESLSavings expected from curriculum reform – no cuts planned

Health Sciences Maintain admissions class of 40 Nursing students

Library, Tutoring, Learning Centers 7% reduction in servicesHourly Instructional Savings Dependent on state budget figures

Social Science & Humanities 3% reduction in services

Sciences 3% reduction in services

Next Steps• Participatory consultation needs to occur

– Presented at Academic Senate, Deans Council, President’s Council and Board to initiate the conversation

– Needs discussion in shared governance forums, Academic Senate, Curriculum Committee

– This is a proposed plan that gives the college elements to discuss – it is not set in stone

– Plan is strategic in its approach to cuts; it does not use “across the board” approach– Plan will need to be adjusted to budget realities and progress in labor talks

• Community involvement (advisory groups, Chamber, local business leaders)

• Other Next Steps– Core services review for Student Services functions– Core services review for Administrative functions

Questions