The controversy over "dynamic enrollment"

“Churning” is an enrollment term describing activity and movement resulting in no net gain. It occurs when a group of students move from one time of day to another, or one day to another, or one part of the campus to another, changing the enrollment statistics without actually increasing the number of students. It is the “churning” of the existing situation, energy spent with no real net effect, a waste of time.

    Well, we were doing a lot of churning these last few weeks in Santa Monica College, emotionally and politically churning about “dynamic enrollment,” an issue that should not have been raised in the first place, and one that, once raised, has caused and will cause problems, with no net benefit for anyone.

    For the last five years at least, on the first day of class, the only person who had the power to decide who gets enrolled in his or her class was the teacher of that class. Not the department chair, not the administration, not students trying to crash. Only the teacher, using his or her best professional judgment. And until this is negotiated otherwise, that's the way the Faculty Association wants it to stay -- as the unanimous vote against any change in the enrollment process by the FA General Assembly on Oct. 19 clearly indicated.

    We like having some control over the enrollment of our classes for the same reason they, the administration, would like us not to have it. It gives us some control of our working conditions, and in particular, how filled or over-filled our classes are going to be. It allows us to limit enrollment to the right-sized classes, and that is a good thing for our students, and for us.

    So why would any faculty member want to give all of that away to the Administration, which is all but salivating at the thought of taking away one of our few negotiating tools? They took two full years and countless wasted man-and-woman hours to finally get a contract – how long will it take if we don't have the “right-sized class” option?

   We don't know why it happened, but we do know what happened. This issue was initially brought up in the department chairs meeting in early October, after which it was posted in the online catalog by VP Randy Lawson, with the presumption that the faculty had agreed to such a change.

    They hadn't, and Lantz Simpson, head of the FA, immediately met with Larry Rosenzweig, FA's lawyer, who advised that this proposed changed does fall into scope of bargaining because of past practice, and thus could not be changed outside of the negotiation process. It also could be seen, he said, as retaliation for the FA's use of  “right-sized classes” as a negotiating tool in last contract settlement. Both these actions are unfair labor practices.

    Lawson, VP Jeff Shimizu, Lantz, Chief Negotiator Mitra Moassessi and FA VP Dennis Frisch had a “meet and confer” in mid-October to discuss the situation. Lantz advised them of the faculty's reaction as well as the lawyer's judgment, and Mitra was able to show minutes of previous negotiations, in 2001, in which teachers' control of class size on the first day of class was specifically discussed and agreed to as an existing practice, only to be changed through the negotiation process.

    Nonetheless, after seeking their own legal advice, the administration refused to withdraw the “dynamic enrollment” change from the online bulletin and the printed schedule for the winter semester. The FA was told by the administration they could negotiate the “effect” of the change in regulations, but for now the regulations have been changed and will be applied.

    What effect they will have, and whether teachers will abide by them in the first place, is another question. In a full discussion before the FA general assembly, possible consequences of this regulation were discussed. Among the likely outcomes are more attempts at crashing, possibly less full classes, as many teachers won't add any students since online might add them, too – and many of those who are added automatically might drop after getting another class they really want.

    In sum and in truth, no one has any real data on the effect of this will have; everybody is guessing. We in the FA expect it will have a negative effect on our enrollment figures or like the other proposed changes in the activity hour it may simply result in enrollment churning, without really solving the “FTES problem.”

    What we do know with certainty is that this whole episode has produced a real churning in the stomachs of many of the faculty. We do know this regulation will weaken one of the few tools that faculty have to pressure the administration to negotiate in good faith.  And we do know this control over our classroom has been in our hands for a long time, and we will do everything in our power not to lose it. Why anyone would want to give it away is truly beyond our comprehension -- though not necessarily beyond our control.