Date post: | 16-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | julius-arnold |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
May 28, 2015
Lessons Learned: Program Prioritization Process
Agenda
• Background and context and goals - Derrick• Simulation - Jennifer• Designing the process - Gail• Data - Chuck• Results - Tom
• Teach out plans - Tom• Lessons learned - all• What’s next? – led by Gail• Questions?
• Enrollment Decline• Budget Concerns• Growth Mindset• Sustainability
Background
• Program scorecard in your toolkit.• Individually – 2 minutes
Pick one program that is successful. Mark it A.Pick one program that is not successful. Mark it C.
• Form a small group (3 to 4 individuals) – 5 minutesCompare and discuss which criteria did you use for the A program.Compare and discuss which criteria did you use for the C program.
Exercise
Criteria Used
• Number of majors• Enrollment credits• Saturation rate• Cost: MCTC Expended per FYE• Cost: MCTC Difference from
MnSCU average• Course Success Rate• Total Awards• Employment rate• Median Wage• Job Outlook (iseek.org)
Exercise Data
Academic Program Data
Student Enrollment Efficiency Student Outcomes
Career & technical education v. 10
Number of Majors 1
Enrollment FY2014 credits2
Enroll. trend 2011-2014
FYE 3Saturation
Rate 4
Cost: MCTC Expended per
FYE 5
Cost: Difference from MnSCU Avg
for subject 7
Course Success Rate 8
Total Awards 2013 4
Employment Rate 2012 9
Median Wage (2008 to 2010
Program Review)
Job Outlook (iseek.org)
*U.S. Bureau Labor Stat.
Ancient Runes 672 4,710 10% 82% $4,639 24% 90% 177 100% $ 25.60 Well above average
Arithmancy 33 300 -9% 52% $4,853 63% 81% 10 80% $ 16.02 Below Average
Charms 145 5,280 9% 84% $1,484 -24% 86% 76 95% $ 14.61 Average
Defense Against the Dark Arts 5 360 71% 64% $1,097 0% 65% 4 100% no data Below Average
Flying lessons 46 450 -6% 50% $3,033 75% 13 100% $ 20.71 Well above average
Herbology 29 1,080 -43% 81% $2,470 3% 80% 10 75% $ 14.42 Above Average
Magic 616 8,430 -14% 87% $1,273 -10% 66% 74 80% $ 14.62 Average
Muggle Studies 44 810 17% 59% $3,896 42% 80% 9 94% no data Above Average
Potions 312 5,400 35% 73% $2,040 -7% 74% 120 81% $ 12.55 Average
Transfigurations 214 2,490 28% 86% $2,078 16% 86% 35 73% $ 16.84 Well above average*
Discussion
• Which program did you choose for A?
• Which program did you choose for C?
Designing the Process
• Developing Evaluation Process/Data o Learned from others – MSU, Mankato and Anoka-Ramseyo Consulted with Faculty
• Developing Preliminary Recommendationso Consulting with Stakeholders – Faculty, Shared Governance,
Employees, Advisory Board, Students (Student Senate, students in program)
o Exploring Alternatives (what alternatives were considered?)• Finalizing Recommendations
o Third opportunity for stakeholder inputo Making Decisions – who makes the decision?
Designing the Process cont.
• Communicating Decisions to Stakeholderso Program Decisions (Students, Advisory Board,
Employees, Student Affairs)o Layoff Decisions (Affected faculty, Bargaining Unit
Leadership)• Submitting Recommendations to System
Office• Planning Teach-out• Executing Teach-out
Data
Program Review
green = more than 10%
below avg.red = more than 10%
above avg.
Car eer and Technical
Student FYE
Number of Majors
1
Enrollment FY2014
credits2
Enroll. trend 2011-
2014 FYE 3Saturation
Rate 4
Cost: MCTC Approp
Expended per
FYE 5
Cost: Difference from MnSCU Avg
for subject 7
Course Success
Rate 8
Total Awards
2013 4Employment
Rate 2012 9
Median Wage (2008
to 2010 Program Review)
J ob Outlook (iseek.org) * US BLS
40 158 1,290 -2% 76% $2,247 22% 82% 42 93% 15.37$ Average
67 214 2,490 28% 86% $2,078 16% 86% 35 73% 16.84$ much faster than avg*
67 64 2,190 -14% 61% $3,608 36% 92% 42 28% 14.98$ Below Average
73% $1,382 39% 88% 42 82% 12.69$ CMHW Above
41 88 1,560 18% 68% $2,360 0% 87% 26 64% 10.85$
31 53 870 -3% 67% $3,379 9% 84% 11 100% 15.43$ Average
21 48 480 -36% 31% $2,195 -27% 78% 5 100% no dataAbove Average
6 47 150 0% 54% 84% 6 100% no data
307 616 8,430 -14% 87% $1,273 -10% 66% 74 80% 14.62$ Average
99 74 2,190 -25% 81% $1,273 63% 25 46% 11.85$ Average*
69 165 1,980 -30% 78% $3,728 36% 83% 78 76% 13.57$ Below Average
20 44 810 17% 59% $3,896 42% 80% 9 94% no dataAbove Average
62 154 2,250 29% 68% $2,710 0% 80% 54 75% 12.23$ Below Average
12 94 840 12% 63% $4,091 28% 99% 23 88% 15.82$ Average
127 372 2,430 -33% 78% $1,569 -30% 70 69 75% 13.62$
11 46 450 -6% 50% $3,033 75% 13 100% 20.71$ Well above average
149 145 5,280 9% 84% $1,484 -24% 86% 76 95% 14.61$ Average
34 59 1,140 -5% 57% $3,431 13% 88% 20 80% 17.48$ Above Average
18 28 150 -83% 45% $958 -44% 64% 33 93% 18.39$
60 307 2,220 30% 95% $2,016 10% 82% 51 77% 12.81$ Well above average
136 312 5,400 35% 73% $2,040 -7% 74% 120 81% 12.55$ Average
45 127 1,170 -49% 72% $1,248 -27% 74% 32 53% 16.01$ Below Average
11 33 300 -9% 52% $4,853 63% 81% 10 80% 16.02$
22 34 630 0% 30% $2,722 4% 87% 11 83% 16.21$ Above Average
147 672 4,710 10% 82% $4,639 24% 90% 177 100% 25.60$ Well above average
60 618 1,140 -50% 69% $3,899 59% 86% 269 81% 11.67$ Above Average
2 49 180 200% 100% $1,862 -34% 58% 4 50% no data
64 130 1,890 24% 74% $3,728 36% 84% 24 59% 10.93$ Above Average
12 26 540 20% 54% $4,030 88% 12 100% 23.91$ Well above average
19 79 570 140% 82% $3,728 36% 76% 10 50% 11.93$
24 29 1,080 -43% 81% $2,470 3% 80% 10 75% 14.42$ Above Average
5 360 71% 64% $1,097 0% 65% 4 100% no data
red = lowest 25% of programs
green = highest 25% of programs
Student Outcomes
Academic Program
Data 09/29/2014
Student Enrollment Efficiency
green = highest 25% of programs
red = lowest 25% of programs
Student Outcomes
green = more than 10% below avg.
green = highest 25% of programs
red = more than 10% above avg.
red = lowest 25% of programs
L iberal ArtsEnrollment
FY2014
credits 1
Enroll. Trend 2011-2014 FYE
2
Course Saturation
Rate 3
Cost: MCTC Approp Expended
per FYE 4
Cost: Difference from MnSCU Avg
for subject 6Course Success Rate 7
1,170 -19% 83% $1,070 -26% 72%540 29% 84% $1,258 -22% 67%
1,830 22% 99% $1,070 -26% 82%1,200 -53% 75% $1,522 16% 72%510 89% 93% $1,951 14% 86%
1,080 0% 98% $1,400 -1% 77%12,720 -5% 85% $1,584 5% 76%5,970 16% 85% $1,781 16% 76%120 -50% 97% $1,951 14% 69%
1,530 -18% 83% $3,728 36% 74%
Student Enrollment Efficiency
green = highest 25% of programs
red = lowest 25% of programs
Academic Program Data 09/29/2014
Results
6 Programs Suspended– Air Traffic Control– Barbering– Biotechnology– Culinary Arts– Electrical Construction Technology– Electroneurodiagnostic Technology
Impacted approximately 3% of our students
$640,000 in savings in FY16 with an additional $560,000 in FY17 (1.2M Total)
Liberal Arts Offerings
• Course deletions.• CHIN and FREN• Reductions of courses to increase saturation.
Majors (1 Subject
Credit)
Course-Takers (5
Subject Credits)
All Majors
608 92 12131
Culinary Arts (CULA: CU30, CU50, and CU51)
223 143
1Prepared by Tabatha Miller, Office of Strategy, Planning and Accountability on Oct. 17, 2014.2Students with an active major who enrolled in any course for credit sometime between Fall 2011 and Fall 2014.3Students with an active major who earned at least one course for credit within the program subject area between Fall 2011 and Fall 2014. Students who have enrolled in a course within the program subject area in Fall 2014 (but not earned any credits) are included.4Students who earned at least five credits within the program subject area in the given time frame. Students who have enrolled in five credits within the program subject area in Fall 2014 (but not earned any credits) are included.5Managed Admission (Students can only register for courses if they have declared the major.)
Teach Out Plan – Criteria
Teach Out Plan – Course Sequences
Sequences were developed after reviewing the degree audits for each eligible student to determine which classes needed to be offered
Students received a copy of the teach out plan, their DARs report, transcript, FAQ and list of specific advising times at their program meetings
Lessons Learned
• Transparency of process internally, externally (including advisory boards)
• Larger goals – Based decisions on both student and financial
outcomes– Need to reinvest in programs
• Personal notification of affected faculty at each step – warnings from deans, president/CAO met with affected faculty at recommendation phase and at final decision (CHRO present)
Lessons Learned
• Alignment of – Academic Affairs (data/decisions)– Advisors/Student Services (stopping enrollment,
coordinating teach-out)– Finance (left decisions to Academic Affairs)– HR (open door for affected faculty)– Communications (internal/external PR)– Office of the President (meetings with
stakeholders, affected faculty)
What’s Next• Year 2 (Spring 2015)
o Announced that we do not expect to close any programs next year (though enrollment-related layoffs may be possible)
o Held discussions with faculty of departments in “yellow zone” – addressing enrollment/completion and financial concerns early
• Year 3: Formalize/document annual program prioritization process, e.g.:o Fall 2016 – consult with faculty, MSCF about processo Spring 2016 – notify departments of “yellow zone” statuso Ask departments to create one-year action plan to address concernso Review action-plan outcomes in Spring 2017o Finalize program viability decisions in Fall 2017o … REPEAT ANNUALLY
Thank you!
Questions?
Presenters Info• Gail O’Kane
– gail.o’[email protected]– VP of Academic Affairs
• Derrick Lindstrom– [email protected]– Dean of Arts and Humanities
• Chuck Paulson– [email protected]– Dean of Science and Mathematics
• Jennifer Stauffer– [email protected]– Interim Dean of Business, Trades, Media, Technology & Public Safety
• Tom Williamson– [email protected]– Director of Academic Operations