Quick Jump to Sections: Recommendation #1, FTES and Allocations, Facilities and Bond, Updates, Next Meeting.
College Council members spent the first hour as one of the focus groups in the "Who Are We? (Core Values & Strategic Direction)" discussions happening across the campus. Other groups that will be interviewed include FCDC, SGA, and others. The collegewide forums on the core values did not get the hoped-for attendance, so we're going to try the focus group approach.
The need for assessment of what we're doing was a common theme throughout the ACCJC team's evaluation of the College last fall. The College Recommendation #1 is an over-arching one of the planning processes at BC. Here is the recommendation along with some comments from our discussion in italics.
Develop and Implement Evaluation Processes to Assess Effectiveness of the Full Range of Planning Processes.
In order to comply with Standards, the team recommends that the College develop and implement effective evaluation processes that can be applied to the full range of planning processes developed by the district and the colleges to assure that:
Our evaluation system includes (1) governance councils through the committee co-chairs reports; (2) administrators' work plans and detailed reports from other implementation segments such as FDCD and classified staff doing a particular process; and (3) campuswide through such things as the perception/climate surveys.
Here are the final increases in our FTES targets for Bakersfield College for this year and the following two years that were shared with us at the April 5th meeting. The "Cerro Coso realignment" in the table below reflects the fact that Cerro Coso has seen a 11% decline of their FTES and Bakersfield College is the only one positioned to grow in KCCD. We're also expecting funding from the state for growth.
|FTES required||316.54 [summer session with a targeted outreach to High School graduates and those in universities coming home for the summer]|
|Cerro Coso realignment||100.00||100.00|
One of the ways being looked at to increase our FTES is through increased online offerings. However, we also have to undertake what it takes to improve our student success rates in our online courses because "we don't want to do more of something in which we do badly". ISIT completed a study of how to improve our online student success rates in Spring 2011 (yes, two years ago and still valid today). Two recommenations from that study are for a Faculty Director of Extended Learning Technologies and to provide more targeted support for online students that would include an early alert sort of system and an online student orientation system. A number of the points from the distance education study were incorporated into our Accreditation Self-Evaluation report's --- Actionable Improvement Plan #2 (see p. 198 in Standard II.A).
Cap Enrollment vs. Target Enrollment numbers
Our district enrollment gurus talk about "target" enrollment numbers and meeting "cap" enrollment. What is the difference?
"Cap" is the set amount of money given to a college district by the state, beyond which the state will not pay for any extra students. While technically, it is a number calculated on $$/student, it really is the state saying they will pay for X number of students, so there is a ceiling on the amount of $$ the state gives the district.
Our enrollment "target" is the number of FTES we hope to have enrolled for a given semester. This determines the number of course sections we will offer that semester. The "target" is usually set higher than the "cap" to provide some cushion in case our projections for FTES enrollment are too high. If we fall below our "cap", then we will have to give money back to the state. College budgeting and planning, including hiring decisions, assume that we will meet "cap".
Here are the increases in our projected allocations from the state that were shared with us at the April 5th meeting. These would be increases over the original projections from last fall that assumed that Proposition 30 would not pass. Note that the projections of the state allocations will be fine-tuned in the weeks ahead as we firm up our FTES figures, and actual state income tax and property tax revenue.
|Final allocation change||1,604,002 [I'm not clear on what all this is from but it does include boosts from the passage of Prop 30 and no usual "January surprise" cuts in the Governor's budget.]|
|Cerro Coso realignment||464,015||471,671|
A chunk of these boosts in our projected allocations will need to go toward technology equipment (computer network infrastructure) and facilities maintenance that has long been neglected. Which brings me to the next topic...
Although BC still has about $50 million of its SRID allocation left to spend (Measure G bond passed in November 2002), there are over $200 million in needed repairs and maintenance needs for our decades-old facilities. With this over $150 million gap, the Board of Trustees is seriously considering going out for a very local bond (i.e., one just for BC) in November 2014 to fill the gap. We looked at a couple of options generated by Caldwell Flores Winters, Inc: one for a Delano school facilities improvement district (SFID) bond and another for a Bakersfield SFID bond. Any SFID bond would require 55% voter approval. Each option has various projections on what would be generated based on various tax rates (dollars assessed per $100,000 of assessed value of the property).
The proposed Bakersfield SFID includes the area of Kern High School District and the Delano SFID includes the area of Delano Joint High School District, McFarland USD and Wasco USD. Based on previous elections' voter turnouts, the November 2014 Bakersfield bond would need 65,658 "yes" votes to pass and the November 2014 Delano bond would need 3,929 "yes" votes to pass. The biggest unknown, of course, is whether the community will recognize the need and be willing to make the fiscal sacrifices to support the college so that the college can support the community's economic future through a trained, skilled work force.
Next College Council meeting will be April 19th.
Last updated: April 14, 2013
Document author: Nick Strobel