Fortunately, the situation is improving rapidly and with the addition of another analyst in the Institutional Research Office, data is beginning to flow again. Over the next few weeks, I will be posting (and perhaps commenting on) information that you might not have seen recently.
I'll begin with enrollment.
On deck: Persistence and Retention data.
(22,097)
| Annual Enrollment at Parkland 1967-Present | |||||
| Year | A1 Enrollment* | Extract Count** | Unduplicated Headcount | FTE (FY hrs/30) *** | Sections**** |
| 1967 | Data n/a | Data N/A | Data N/A | Data n/a | 428 |
| 1968 | Data n/a | 2,042 | 2,042 | Data n/a | 573 |
| 1969 | Data n/a | 3,363 | 3,363 | Data n/a | 687 |
| 1970 | Data n/a | 4,141 | 4,141 | Data n/a | 743 |
| 1971 | Data n/a | 4,932 | 4,932 | Data n/a | 889 |
| 1972 | Data n/a | 5,329 | 5,329 | Data n/a | 995 |
| 1973 | Data n/a | 5,716 | 5,716 | Data n/a | 1,036 |
| 1974 | Data n/a | 6,353 | 6,353 | Data n/a | 1,347 |
| 1975 | Data n/a | 7,936 | 7,936 | Data n/a | 1,062 |
| 1976 | Data n/a | 9,703 | 9,703 | Data n/a | 1,021 |
| 1977 | Data n/a | 9,811 | 9,811 | Data n/a | 1,046 |
| 1978 | Data n/a | 10,276 | 10,276 | Data n/a | 1,112 |
| 1979 | Data n/a | 10,572 | 10,572 | Data n/a | 1,196 |
| 1980 | Data n/a | 11,456 | 11,456 | Data n/a | 1,266 |
| 1981 | Data n/a | 13,065 | 13,065 | Data n/a | 1,348 |
| 1982 | 14,432 | 14,163 | 14,432 | Data n/a | 1,387 |
| 1983 | 14,865 | 14,510 | 14,865 | Data n/a | 1,313 |
| 1984 | 13,180 | 13,773 | 13,180 | Data n/a | 1,377 |
| 1985 | 12,995 | 12,830 | 12,995 | Data n/a | 1,400 |
| 1986 | 12,767 | 12,677 | 12,767 | Data n/a | 1,476 |
| 1987 | 13,123 | 13,080 | 13,123 | Data n/a | 1,531 |
| 1988 | 13,130 | 13,082 | 13,130 | Data n/a | 1,415 |
| 1989 | 14,149 | 14,093 | 14,149 | Data n/a | 1,881 |
| 1990 | 14,781 | 14,739 | 14,781 | Data n/a | 3,713 |
| 1991 | 14,555 | 14,535 | 14,555 | Data n/a | 4,526 |
| 1992 | 16,987 | 16,890 | 16,987 | 6,270 | 4,056 |
| 1993 | 15,704 | 15,641 | 15,704 | 6,110 | 4,034 |
| 1994 | 14,598 | 14,502 | 14,598 | 5,783 | 3,813 |
| 1995 | 14,393 | 14,354 | 14,393 | 5,615 | 3,743 |
| 1996 | 14,065 | 14,182 | 14,065 | 5,559 | 3,786 |
| 1997 | 14,084 | 14,080 | 14,084 | 5,617 | 3,945 |
| 1998 | 13,713 | 13,715 | 13,713 | 5,677 | 3,947 |
| 1999 | 13,882 | 13,885 | 13,882 | 5,619 | 4,053 |
| 2000 | 14,640 | 14,568 | 14,640 | 5,663 | 4,220 |
| 2001 | 14,737 | 14,658 | 14,737 | 5,658 | 4,238 |
| 2002 | 15,248 | 15,108 | 15,248 | 5,981 | 4,418 |
| 2003 | 16,497 | 16,394 | 16,497 | 6,726 | 4,864 |
| 2004 | 16,895 | 16,764 | 16,895 | 6,839 | 4,776 |
| 2005 | 17,004 | 16,884 | 17,004 | 6,831 | 4,646 |
| 2006 | 17,075 | 16,979 | 17,075 | 6,959 | 5,020 |
| 2007 | 16,538 | 16,406 | 16,538 | 6,678 | 5,175 |
| 2008 | 16,820 | 16,719 | 16,820 | 6,811 | 5,074 |
| 2009 | 16,780 | 16,660 | 16,780 | 6,907 | 5,141 |
| 2010 | 17,909 | 17,945 | 17,909 | 7,580 | 5,354 |
| 2011 | 17,840 | 25,118 | 17,840 | 7,819 | 5,726 |
| 2012 | 24,045 | 23,917 | 24,045 | 7,440 | 5,543 |
| * A1
Enrollments were submitted to ICCB and are considered official unduplicated
headcounts for the college. | |||||
| They include off-semester graduates and correct for student ID number changes. There is no A1 data prior to 1982. | |||||
FY1992 and beyond, Unduplicated Headcount is represented by A1 counts. |
|||||
| ** Extract data up through FY2010 was taken from Mainframe. For FY2011 and beyond, Extract data taken from Colleague. | |||||
| Unduplicated headcount (1968-1981) are those who attempted credit hours during that Fiscal Year. |
|||||
This count does not adjust for ID number changes, and does not include off-semester graduates. |
|||||
| *** FTE is based on the 12-month enrollment ICCB and IPEDS standardized definitions (Sum of Attempted hours for Summer, Fall, and Spring terms / 30) | |||||
| **** Section counts prior to 1992 are from an unknown source, and are likely overcounted. Sections from 1992 and beyond are taken from Course Extracts, and some sections are filtered out as appropriate (e.g., Coordinated Lab sections). | |||||
| FY2011
A1 did not include many IFSI students, but these are counted in the Student
Extracts, due to submission timing on A1. |
|||||
FTE
On deck: Persistence and Retention data.
(22,097)
This is a time to remember that grand generalizations tend to be wrong ;)
ReplyDeleteAs I understand it, another thing to come out of the HLC report (in Criterion 2, specifically) is that shared governance doesn't appear to be working well (my paraphrase, and VERY definitely my experience) at Parkland. One present example of this that faculty and staff have recently learned of is Dr. Ramage's efforts to secure a $60,000 virtual cadaver table for anatomy and physiology courses, even though no request for that equipment had ever gone through the Department of Natural Science's departmental council before he took an interest in the technology. Additionally, the department has substantive concerns that the table will be of limited use to individual students, with its images instead being projected for entire classes, something which could be done with a software package costing less than $50!
DeleteContrast this with the equipment situation in the math program, where they have had to struggle for some time to find funds (WITHOUT Dr. Ramage's help, by the accounts of math faculty with whom I've spoken) for classroom equipment that is widely known to be necessary to ensure the success of their recent (research proven) program redesign. Math instructors had repeatedly requested assistance in the form of $20,000 - $30,000 (half the amount of one virtual cadaver table before operating costs) prior to Dr. Ramage's valiant (though disruptive and largely unasked for) efforts on behalf of Natural Sciences. While it is my understanding that funding has finally been found for the equipment, it certainly wasn't through the kind of effort that Dr. Ramage has been expending on the virtual cadaver table.
In the case of the virtual cadaver table, Dr. Ramage went to a local hospital as well as the Parkland Foundation to secure money for not one, but in fact two of those tables, hoping to persuade the local hospital to pay for one. The hospital seems to have looked into the table, considered the costs, and backed out of participating. What is especially concerning is the fact that Dr. Ramage then continued to push for the purchase of one table (hoping to use Parkland Foundation money), even though department members pointed out that they do not have a budget for the _thousands_ of dollars that are needed to operate and maintain the equipment (software licensing and upgrades, service contract, etc.) In fact, that department has had to forego several upgrades to regularly used equipment because funds for those efforts were not approved in previous cycles of college planning.
I really look forward to learning how administration plans to start fixing what seems to be extreme disregard for the processes that the administration itself has put in place (and which it regularly states it expects non-admninistrators to follow). What is the point of annual college planning, equipment requests, etc., when the president of the college hears about a new piece of equipment and starts looking for ways to make an "end run" around these processes? If the president of the college's whims take precedence over planning, how can it do anything but send a message to the rest of the college that planning is a sort of lottery for those who haven't managed to interest the president enough in their initiatives?
I very much look forward to your comments on this issue, as well as the wider issue of making shared governance at Parkland something that is actually shared.
Part 1
ReplyDeleteDear Anonymous:
1. I learned of the Anatomage Table via a conversation with the Department Chair. I told her that there was a fairly good chance that the Foundation would have a donor that would be interested in helping the College acquire this type of technology.
2. I asked the Chair to discuss the technology with the faculty to ensure that it was the best product to accomplish the job of reducing our reliance on human cadavers, which are increasingly difficult to obtain and maintain, especially as plans were in process to renovate the Biology Labs.
3. At no time...ever...was anyone or any program "pushed" into acquiring this technology. In fact, I asked a second time to be sure that this specific technology was the most suitable in comparison to the $50 projection solution you reference. The explanation I received as to why was researched, reasonable, and sufficient to continue.
4. A course fee structure for A&P courses designed to cover ongoing maintenance costs is being considered.
5. A donor was identified. A second Anatomage was/is pursued to increase the number of students that could be served.
The "process" for employing Foundation assistance for equipment, technology, buildings, and scholarships worked exactly as it was designed.
-----------------------
POLICY 3.30 PARKLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION:
The Parkland College Foundation is a nonprofit agency for charitable and educational purposes. Its primary objective is to help the College develop programs and facilities and extend educational opportunities for students through solicitation, receipt, and administration of gifts and money, and other proper means.
Procedure
3.30 PROCEDURE FOR SEEKING SUPPORT VIA PARKLAND COLLEGE FOUNDATION
The procedure is similar to the institutional grant application process, but also includes the services of the Foundation Director. The Foundation Board of Directors, via its Executive committee, approves proposals and award activity that is relative to the Foundation.
-----------------------
And, under PROCEDURES FOR OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES,
-----------------------
3.h FUND RAISING
One of the many challenges for community college foundations is to manage the data associated with fund raising on behalf of the institution it represents. In an effort to increase the efficiency of all fund raising efforts, the following
procedures will be used for internal and external fund raising projects:
1. Faculty, staff, and administrators should include the Foundation administrator (or a representative of the Foundation) and the Vice President for Academic Services in any discussions concerning fund raising that has direct effects on Foundation efforts.
2. For any self-contained Parkland College fund raising activities (e.g., TAMAQUA, Theatre Board, athletics, etc.) conducted independently of the Parkland Foundation, the staff involved in the fund raising should consult with the Foundation administrator (or a representative of the Foundation) to avoid conflicting interests or unnecessary duplication of efforts.
Revised: May 1996
Revised: June 1997
-----------------------
Part 2
DeleteRequests, filtered to the Department Chair or Director, are brought to administration and discussed with the Foundation. If the project is suitable, the work to find a donor with matching interests begins. This separate and apart from the annual instructional equipment cycle that you discuss. It does not diminish it any way. In fact, quite the opposite.
That annual instructional equipment process remains, just as it was.
This College and the Foundation, in addition to scholarships, has many examples of success. They include the Tony Noel Ag Tech building, the Parkhill Applied Technology Center, the McGrain-Huff Simulation Center in the H-Wing on Mattis along with the i-Stan Human Clinical Simulator, the miscanthus crop by the S-Building, the bottling and capping machine in the M-Wing, $5MM worth of Case IH tractors in the Diesel Addition, the Donald C. Dodds Athletic Center, a mammography x-ray unit, the land housing our sustainable garden, and perhaps hundreds more examples.
When faculty and staff write grants that allow for the purchase of technology and equipment, would not your same accusations hold sway?
I make absolutely no apology for doing what I can to match donors (in conjunction with the Foundation) with needs on campus. In fact, it is part of my job description and I am extraordinarily pleased to be able to help in a tangible way.
In closing, this was neither my “whim” nor an “end run” nor a disregard for shared governance.
I suspect my rationale makes no difference as to your opinion on the matter, but my door is always open, should you choose to exercise a more courageous option.
Greetings all,
DeleteBefore beginning my ramblings, please allow me to offer a brief intro and history for those who don’t know me. (OK – that counts as rambling, too:)
My name is John Moore (i.e., NOT Anonymous #2 :)
I have taught at Parkland for approximately 35 years, and intend to do so for the foreseeable future. It has been, and continues to be, a most wonderful place to teach at. Many in my department (the infamous Natural Sciences Department, btw) know that I have a rather eclectic background and attitude towards technology. On one hand, I was one of the first instructors to offer and teach an online course (BIO 225 – Pathophysiology) at the college. (I can still remember the thrill of having a student enroll from Germany!!!!) I was also the NS faculty member who presented a demo/proposal to the BOT regarding the purchase of the then-state-of-the-art A.D.A.M. anatomy software program. On the other hand, I generally do not have a strong love affair with technology in general, and pride myself in being one of the techno-peasants in the department. In other words – I’m pretty much a dinosaur when it comes to “tech” use. In other, other words – that is not to say I don’t know how to use a fair amount of technology, but that I simply feel it is often overused or used for the wrong purposes.
I am also the individual who proposed looking into the Anatomage Virtual Dissection Table (AVDT) that is being discussed in the diatribe between Anonymous and Dr. Ramage. Having just stated my feelings for technology at the end of the preceding paragraph (brief pause while you go back and read the last sentence in said paragraph) - all I can say is that the first time I saw the Anatomage table, I was awestruck! There is no way to describe the capabilities it has, short of seeing it in action. Have you seen it demonstrated, Anonymous? Didn’t think so. (As is so typical of modern society and those growing up on the Internet, people are so prone to post anonymously, and to post on topics that they have no actual knowledge of – but I digress…..)
The AVDT is SO far ahead of anything currently available – yes, even a “software package costing less than $50” – that techno-peasant John decided he had to at least mention it to his department chair. The rest, as they say, is history.
It is not my place to carry things any further. I simply wanted to let folks know that the opinion stated by Anonymous regarding the comparison of the AVDT to a “$50 software program” is not even a true comparison. I’m sure Dr. Ramage can answer any further procedural questions when Anonymous finally decides to speak with him personally.
Rambling mode – off:)
john moore
PS – I generally don’t “hang out” much on this type of blog/forum. I was only made aware of this thread when someone asked me to view it. So – I likely won’t be reading any follow-ups that are posted. Instead, I make the same offer to Anonymous regarding discussing the pros & cons of the AVDT – “my door is always open, should you choose to exercise a more courageous option. “ Thank you.
A few quick responses. You say the process works, but you don't once mention why you didn't undertake a similar "go to" attitude in finding funding for the mathematics redesign. In fact, any discussion of the matter is __conspicuously__ absent from your response. Also, you note a new course fee for the virtual cadaver, but you don't mention it is very likely to be in the hundreds of dollars (perhaps as high as $500, I believe). As I understand it, the virtual cadaver, while certainly an impressive technology, is a new technology with very little long term data on its pedagogical effectiveness that I could find (and you didn't provide any information on the pedagogical effectiveness, either). Charging students that much more per semester on top of the already high cost of an education doesn't seem justifiable if the technology is so new.
DeleteSomething which wasn't mentioned in the original description of the situation is efforts to redesign an entire space within Natural Sciences to house the virtual table, potentially to the detriment (by reduction) of spaces that other areas within the department believed had already been settled. Will you be directing the architects and/or the department chair to re-allocate space for the table(s), or is that something that the department itself will get a chance to decide?
Finally, Dr. Ramage, it's pretty common knowledge that the recent survey concerning the innovation fund was used by more than a few faculty and staff as a climate survey, and that those respondents expressed concerns (and concrete examples, in some cases) of other instances in which administrative stong-arming trumped consensus building within departments and/or programs. If you're so certain that processes are being followed and employees are generally happy with the way things are run at Parkland, why not actually do another climate survey? I certainly hope the institution won't have to wait until just before the next North Central visit for another one, as was the case with the last climate survey.
Attempt #3! (Couldn't post with an iPhone or iPad - so will try again with my laptop. And people wonder why I can't stand tech!!!!!!:)
Delete"Also, you note a new course fee for the virtual cadaver, but you don't mention it is very likely to be in the hundreds of dollars (perhaps as high as $500, I believe)."
Geez, Anonymous! You need to have a talk with your "source" in NS. She really got this one wrong. The fee discussed so far has been in the $5 range- NOT $500:)
FWIW - I was wrong, too. Looks like it WILL be worthwhile keeping up with this thread - some of the best laughs I've had today. Thanks!
john moore
First, this is my last comment on this topic.
DeleteRegarding the mathematics technology, external donors generally fund projects which they are excited about or have a personal connection or interest. That was the case withe the Anatomage table. If the Foundation had a donor interested in the sort of technology the math department needed, I'm confident we would have pursued the opportunity. There would be no logical reason not to do so.
Of course, replacement costs of computer technology are just as real as the cost associated with the Anatomage table but generally on a 3-4 year schedule. In other words, just about any investment in technology requires ongoing maintenance and/or has a fairly short replacement cycle. No one appreciates slow computers.
In terms of pedagogical effectiveness, as I stated above, that decision was made by the faculty after careful study, not by me, as you continue to insist.
I have no idea where the idea of a $500 course fee came from. The maintenance contract is no more than $5000 per year and likely less. Given that there are hundreds of students in classes that can make use of the technology, the course fee would be fairly small. Any additional cost is significant, but I trust the faculty has weighed the extra expense carefully. This is shared governance.
This also assumes that the decision to add a course fee has been made. It has not.
Regarding the lab renovation project, I am not on the team designing the space, nor have I been to any of the meetings, save the introductory session with the architect. I have provided no input on the design other than the parameters of the budget and in the architect selection process. The department, from the very beginning of this project, has made these decisions. This is shared governance.
Regarding climate surveys, you should note that the faculty-staff climate surveys are administered every other year. You will have another anonymous opportunity very soon, rest assured. This is shared governance.
Your comments on the innovation fund survey were noted, just as they are here. I read each and every response, including yours. This morning, I posted the themes that emerged from the survey (compiled by the committee and unfiltered by me or anyone else). Had your concerns been expressed by others (or even one other respondent) and constituted a theme, it would have appeared in the feedback. This is....shared governance.
Please feel free to discuss this with your colleagues on the committee.