I want to tackle an important issue and clear up some confusion about the issue of “declining enrollment” with this post.

As you know, Sierra College’s governance groups recommended the closure of three programs to the Board of Trustees. The Board is willing to make tough choices to ensure that we budget sustainably and protect access to college for the largest number of students possible. Yet the Board didn’t feel it had enough data to approve the recommendation, so it ordered a 60-day review of our options to try and save the programs.

There were a variety of criteria that the governance groups used to come up with those recommendations – including unfunded equipment needs, our ability to fund a program that prepares a graduating student for the jobs that will exist over the next ten years, the productivity and cost of delivery in the program, and enrollment trends.

For the programs in question, there is undeniably a trend of declining enrollment. That alone doesn’t mean a program should close. (If a program can be streamlined to better prepare students for the jobs that exist on the other end, it can often be saved – but that does take resources.) But there is no question of the trend.

I’ve heard from many people, including this letter to the editor, that the programs can’t have declining enrollment, because the classes are full. This sounds convincing, but it’s not true. Let me try and help clear it up.

Let’s take a fictional career training program called “Underwater Basket Weaving.” Three years ago it had 400 students enrolled, two years ago 350, and last year 300. Can we agree that is declining enrollment?

In our fictional program, let’s say we had 6 different classes that we offered in the program – covering all the different facets of becoming an underwater basket weaver. Then assume that we offer many of those classes multiple times, at different hours of the day, to handle the demand. Let’s say there are a total of 20 course sections in this program. 400 students, divided by 20 sections, is 20 students per section.

Let’s pause for a minute and consider what happened at Sierra College in the 2009-10 fiscal year (all the cuts we are talking about now are for the 2010-11 fiscal year).

In 2009-10, the state passed massive cuts as well, but we were able to fill the hole in three ways: (a) cutting spending in the operational areas of the college, (b) the one-time use of rainy day reserves, and (c) cutting about 600 course sections across all of our disciplines.

When I was first elected to the Board, we had 82% of our seats filled – one of the state’s worst productivity rates. In effect, we were paying teachers 100% salary to teach 82% of the seats in their classroom. Last year, that number reached 96% and today, that number is 99%.

Back to underwater basket weaving. Let’s assume that last year, because of the enrollment declining from 400 to 300, the college reduced the number of available sections from 20 to 10. (They might even have the same six classes, but they are offering some of them once and only a few of them twice.) Now, divide 300 students by 10 classes. You get 30 students per class, or a “full” class.

So now you can see the difference. The fill rate of a class is not an indicator of a program’s enrollment trend.

Our job at Sierra College is to make sure we’re offering job training programs that are training students for jobs that actually exist, will pay livable wages, and will build our economy. We also have the responsibility to ensure that the programs are targeted at people trying to get job skills, and not just folks pursuing a hobby.

The final determination for the three programs in question is still unclear, but I’m hopeful they will each offer our management team a workable plan to shrink their costs, build private sector support or dependable revenue streams, refocus and streamline their curriculum, and return to growth. If we can find the resources to give them that chance, it’s my guess the Board would love to do so.