MINUTES
ACADEMIC PLANNING COMMITTEE
Meeting of July 10, 2001
The Academic Planning Committee met on July 10, 2001 at 9:30 am in room 481 McHenry.
Present: George Brown (Chair), Martin Chemers, Dave Kliger, Ed Houghton, Wlad Godzich, Carol Freeman (CEP), Frank Talamantes, Alison Galloway (CPB), Burney Le Boeuf, Kathleen Dettman, Betsy Moses (staff).
Absent: Lynda Goff, Dave Belanger (GC), Darrell Long (COR), Steve Kang.
Guests: Galen Jarvinen, Cathy Sandeen, and Pat Vani.
1. Chair’s Announcements.
There were no announcements.
2. Approval of June 12 Minutes.
The draft minutes of June 12 were revised to reflect the stated desire to have discussion of the Silicon Valley Center academic planning included within the APC’s summer agenda. Interim Director Michael Tanner is on vacation until August 1, but the chair will invite him to attend the August 14 meeting.
3. State-Funded Summer Instruction
State-funded summer instruction is now considered as the leading quarter of each fiscal and academic year; campus planning for summer 2002 is part of 2002-2003. The campus must report projected student FTE enrollments to University Office of the President (UCOP) no later than July 15, and a narrative academic plan is expected by the end of August.
Director of Academic Planning and Institutional Research Kathleen Dettman described the systemwide planning process and asked the deans if division curriculum submittals for summer 2002 are realistic since combined they project a three hundred percent enrollment increase over summer 2000. Division strategies are excellent; each describes increasing course offerings and instruction by ladder faculty. The campus needs to transition from thinking of summer as separate from the regular curriculum and should consolidate planning into a full four-quarter structure. The campus administration assumes state funding will drive summer instruction expansion. If new state funding doesn’t materialize, summer instruction will not change.
Enrollment projections are complicated by the potential of students shifting from FWS to summer. Targeting unmet student demand in FWS courses is a realistic starting place to predict future enrollments and help ensure summer enrollments represent true campus growth enrollments. The semi-final UCSC decision won’t be known until January when the governor responds to the Regents’ budget. The governor will provide overall funds, and it is UCOP that determines campus sequence if the funding is less than 100% requested. The academic division estimates of resources needed to support their summer plans will inform campus budget decisions. Teaching Assistants, support staff, laboratory and specialized facility costs should be included in addition to instructor salary costs. Student financial aid will be derived from education fees consistent with FWS protocol. Student Services is planning on necessary support costs to maintain the health center and other common student services. It is estimated a full service complement will be required to support the 40% enrollment target. Ramping up the education fee as enrollments increase will support phasing in over several years.
Overload faculty compensation guidelines are under review by Barbara Brogan. Lecturer compensation will likely remain the same as for FWS. The first state-funded summer enrollment predictions should be conservative, with incremental increases allowing time to assess curriculum and student demand.
Dean Sandeen reported the types of courses in greatest summer demand across CSU and UC campuses are: sequences of GE and major requirements; pre-requisites for multiple majors; courses oversubscribed during FWS, and requirements only offered in summer. Enrollments are declining in specialized niche areas. This suggests students are willing to attend summer to obtain basic curriculum.
The Education Department’s master’s degree program will provide 20% baseline summer growth by meeting its preplanned student targets. Marketing summer courses should be increased to inform prospective students and their parents of curricular opportunities. Summer Session is conducting a student survey among this year’s summer students to identify the main motivations for enrollment. It is assumed that many enroll to repeat a failed course, or have received poor preparation for their major. Improved summer marketing could identify and target these students before summer plans are final. Collaboration with college preceptors and department major advisors will facilitate student identification until the new AIS system can provide the information. Some UCSC students now take required courses at California State Universities because they are not offered here during summer.
The next planning step is a curriculum call to departments in late August, with proposed courses due in November. Future summer planning should be incorporated into department FWS cycles to integrate summer with the regular academic year.
Academic faculty are waiting until the campus administration formally commits to teaching overload compensation levels. Summer Session resource structure as a self-supporting unit will end with state funding; however, the infrastructure, marketing, and overall program support will likely remain unchanged. Student enrollment via the web to SIS should be implemented to capture workload accounting. These operational issues must be resolved in early fall to build momentum for summer 2002 programs. New niche programs are under discussion that could draw students from across the state and nation, but the best strategy is to start with existing programs until funding is certain.
Next steps include Dean Sandeen and Pat Vani providing responses to Planning and Budget regarding realistic enrollment growth ranges and projecting realistic curricular criteria for starting summer 2002.
4. Members Items. No items were presented.
Attest: George Brown, Chair