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’kane@Minneapolis.edu– VP of Academic Affairs

• Derrick Lindstrom– derrick.Lindstrom@Minneapolis.edu– Dean of Arts and Humanities

• Chuck Paulson– Chuck.Paulson@Minneapolis.edu– Dean of Science and Mathematics

• Jennifer Stauffer– Jennifer.stauffer@Minneapolis.edu– Interim Dean of Business, Trades, Media, Technology & Public Safety

• Tom Williamson– Thomas.Williamson@Minneapolis.edu– Director of Academic Operations