AFA DIALOGUE

The AFA Dialogue has been created to air concerns of all faculty. The AFA Update is the factual voice of AFA, while the AFA Dialogue encourages conversation and publishes personal opinions about workplace issues and political concerns. We invite any faculty member to submit letters, articles, or opinion pieces. The opinions contained herein are solely those of the writer, and AFA neither condones nor condemns these opinions. AFA reserves editorial prerogatives.

Submit comments, letters, and/or articles via email to afa@santarosa.edu or via fax to (707) 524-1762.

AFA members who submit original articles of 500 words or more that are published in an issue of the AFA Dialogue will be awarded a Stipend of up to $50.

Through the Looking Glass

The College Administration recently announced a significant round of cuts to the 2016-17 schedule of classes. Subsequently, a number of concerned faculty members contacted AFA with questions about the extent of the cuts, the long-term consequences for programs and students, and the District's long-term strategy. Based on faculty concerns, AFA submitted to the Administration a series of questions regarding the proposed cuts. The Administration's response attempts to outline their approach to address the current budget situation at the College. (See Faculty Q&A on Enrollment.) Upon reading the responses, it becomes clear that the answers provided raise as many questions and issues as they answer. Where to begin…?

“It’s a poor sort of memory that only works backwards.” -Lewis Carroll

The first issue relates to the District’s narrative that the original reduction in our class schedule back in 2012-13, and the subsequent cuts in student opportunities, was imposed by the State. This is simply not true. In Fall 2012, ahead of a crucial vote on Proposition 30, the District chose to cut the Spring 2013 schedule. Seeing and fearing the worst, the District voluntarily chose to reduce our schedule, assuming Proposition 30 would be defeated, which it wasn’t. Before Proposition 30 passed, the District made a decision that haunts our enrollment situation to this day. The enrollment declines leading to the 18,500 FTES figure started with that decision in the fall of 2012. It is important that the District recognize the relationship between its decision to cut the schedule at that time and subsequent declines in enrollment. The Spring 2013 cuts were a serious mistake, and the pattern doesn’t bode well for our future, or the consequences we might expect from this latest round of cuts.

“The Devil may be in the details, but the details are devilish indeed.” -Lewis Carroll

This leads us to look at the current enrollment planning efforts proposed by the Administration. The new enrollment target is 18,500 FTES. The District plans to achieve this number through a new round of cuts to the schedule. Once again, the result will be to deny students the classes they need and to lay off adjunct faculty. The Administration, though, assures us that the cuts will be “thoughtful” and won’t result in further declines because the remaining classes will be “more efficient,” as fill rates will rise to 91 percent. However, no details are provided to explain how this will be achieved, and the broad underlying assumptions about student enrollment behaviors are highly questionable. The Administration assumes that potential students will simply flow into empty seats, like water seeking low ground. In fact, students have many demands on their schedule; if they can’t find seats at the time that works for them, many of them simply won’t enroll. If any enrollment scenario planning has been done to determine best and worst cases, it has not been revealed to the College community. Therefore, if past experience is any guide, reducing the schedule will encourage students to seek other options besides enrolling in classes at SRJC. We should be asking: “Why is the District making these cuts now? What will prevent SRJC’s enrollment figures from going even lower?”

“No wise fish would go anywhere without a porpoise.” -Lewis Carroll

The answer is fairly straightforward and is contained in the phrase “stability funding,” which I’ve written about before (see Dialogue Article 02/26/13 and Dialogue Article 03/12/13). The simplest explanation is that when enrollment declines, the State provides “stability funding” to hold the College harmless and continues to fund the College at a higher rate, based on higher historic enrollment numbers. This gives the College an opportunity to address enrollment issues and to stabilize funding. The District has been doing this since the self-imposed schedule reductions of 2012, giving SRJC a chance to try to grow our enrollment figures. The fact that we have been unsuccessful doesn’t negate the strategy, but it does demonstrate that our enrollment planning assumptions are flawed and need to be scrutinized.

Since the District has been utilizing “stability funding” from the State to balance our budget, why are we now choosing to forgo this funding and to impose a new round of reductions? The District should be focusing on why our enrollment planning is failing and working to address those reasons. Admittedly, there are both external and internal variables impacting our enrollment; we can control the internal ones if we identify them. Instead, there is the explicit recognition on the District’s part that we are throwing in the towel and that we will slowly begin to grow back enrollment to a higher FTES goal by the year 2020. However, until the Administration recognizes and examines the flawed assumptions about student enrollment behavior, it seems we are likely to repeat mistakes made in the recent past.

“Sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” -Lewis Carroll

A final issue that needs to be addressed relates to the Petaluma Campus and the Southwest Center. There is a claim that we shouldn’t be worried, that Petaluma’s enrollments have stabilized, and that they are expecting slight growth. While the final numbers are not in, the latest enrollment report (4/11/2016) reveals a drop in enrollment and enrolled units at Petaluma. So the optimism expressed by the District is not supported by the evidence.

The promise to open a permanent Southwest Center also raises a number of issues. Has a real business plan been developed for the center? What are the initial costs anticipated to acquire and to build/remodel a facility? What are the anticipated ongoing costs versus the projected revenues?

And perhaps most important, with classes being cut throughout the District, why not direct Southwest students to the Santa Rosa campus?

The District has not had a positive track record with these sorts of ventures. Perhaps you remember the Coddingtown Center and Petaluma Tech Academy? In case you don’t, they were both financial failures owing to a lack of planning by the District.

“If you don't know where you are going, any road can take you there.” -Lewis Carroll

The District has announced its intentions regarding the schedule cuts, enrollment planning, and its overall direction. Yet it’s very difficult to discern any real attempt to engage in serious planning efforts based on the official responses to date. The entire College community deserves better than empty blandishments about strategic planning and “thoughtful planning." To date, the information being shared and the actual results do not warrant long-term optimism.