Final Report

February 14, 2001

Executive Summary

This committee was organized to address legitimate faculty and administration concerns related to the assignment of classrooms for instruction.The committee investigated the applicability and efficacy of current policies and practices. It also reviewed the functionality of the Schedule 25 software, which is used to assign general lecture courses.The committee was composed of fourteen members with campus-wide representation. It included seven faculty, four staff, and three administrative representatives.

The committee charge was to address the following issues:

• Equal access to general lecture classrooms
• Equal opportunity to unassigned classrooms
• Fair allocation of classroom resources
• Efficient utilization of classroom space
• Classroom "ownership" (which restricts and limits usage)
• Limited number of general purpose classrooms
• Review the viability of Schedule 25 software

After extensive discussion and deliberation the committee developed an administrative policy to guide the university in the classroom assignment process.The committee reached the following conclusions, which are based on a philosophical foundation of six guiding principles. The classroom priority scheduling policy is based on a rationale with the premise that classroom space belongs to the University and not to departments. The committee makes the following recommendations:

• Continue using Schedule 25 software, but with significant modifications to how it is used in the area of attributes, fill ratios, partitions, class descriptors, and control files. Evaluate the performance of the software with these modifications in the future for effectiveness.
• Eliminate the “room grab” practice.
• Establish a high priority on instructional technology and computer support.
• Define prime time and class schedule modules.
• Eliminate the existing concept of permanent classroom “ownership”, and replace it with a priority scheduling procedure based on the course and not a room.
• Create an administrative committee (Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy) with faculty and staff to define room attributes, course priority scheduling, and exceptions to standard policy.

Due to logistical considerations, the effective date for implementation would be the spring semester of 2002.As of February 14, 2001, this ad-hoc committee has successfully completed its charge, submitted its work, and is hereby disbanded. In conclusion, the committee is pleased to submit this report and supports the implementation of these recommendations and policy.

The Schedule 25 (S25) committee has reached consensus on the following topics, recommendations, and policy:

1. Six Guiding Principles
   1. The classroom scheduling system should maximize student choice and flexibility in scheduling courses in a particular term.
   2. The classroom scheduling system should maximize classroom utilization (as measured in station hours per week).
   3. The classroom scheduling system should fairly distribute classrooms to departments for the delivery of their courses.
   4. The classroom scheduling system should minimize administrative time spent by department secretaries and department chairs in scheduling classrooms for courses.
   5. The classroom scheduling system should support the course delivery pedagogies of the disciplines on the campus.
   6. The classroom scheduling system should support incorporation of technology in the delivery of courses to students.
   These principles are broad concepts intended to guide the classroom scheduling methodology which are all considered equally important and not listed in a prioritized order.
2. Schedule 25 Software
   1. The committee recommends the continued use of S25 with additional improvements to address existing and future classroom scheduling issues, but will investigate other appropriate software in the future as the transition to CMS PeopleSoft may require.
3. "Room Grab"
   1. Elimination of the "room grab" phenomenon, an event that occurs every term when S25 does not assign a room to a lecture course. With experimentation of and a more efficient use of S25’s fill ratio function, it is possible to reduce the number of unassigned lecture courses, which is the reason department administrative assistants and coordinators have to negotiate for classrooms. The Registrar’s Office would assign these courses to a room on an equitable and timely basis through consultation with academic departments.
4. Instructional Technology
   1. Recommend a high priority be placed on providing appropriate technology in support of classroom instruction in general lecture rooms. Recommend an annual commitment to funding classroom technology for a sustained period of years.
      1. That a minimum standard of instructional technology be defined (i.e. VCR, monitor, computer, overhead projector, screens, Internet access, etc., for selected general lecture classrooms.
      2. That a technology plan dedicated to meeting the minimum standard be developed which would phase in the placement of instructional technology over three years (i.e., 33% of the selected general lecture classrooms each year) commencing in the fiscal year 2001-02.That the technology plan incorporate a hierarchy schedule based on the seating capacity (possible three tiers – 1-30, 31-49, and 50 or more) and the level of technology appropriate for the classroom, insuring that a broad cross-section of rooms are upgraded each year.
      3. And, that a viable planned annual maintenance program be instituted which would insure that instructional technology is fully operational.That a certain percentage (33%) of classrooms be upgraded on an annual basis. All selected general lecture classrooms meet minimum instructional technology standards; the conflict for rooms with technology will be substantially reduced.
5. Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy Rationale
   1. Recommend the elimination of general lecture classroom ownership, as it currently exists, including all previously approved classrooms “owned” by a department. The philosophical foundation is that classroom space belongs to the University, not to departments or individual faculty. These classroom resources are to be used for the common good. Room assignments should support the educational mission and be based on achieving the highest good for the greatest number of students and faculty. This policy pertains only to general lecture classrooms, and does not include laboratory classrooms.Recommend rescinding the current “ownership” of all general lecture classrooms by departments. Implement the following Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy that would guide the selection of a room for priority assignment in a course. Finally, recommend the creation of a standing administrative committee entitled the Classroom Priority Scheduling Committee (CPSC). This committee would be composed of seven voting members, and the Registrar who would serve as an ex-officio non-voting member.
6. Classroom Priority Scheduling Policy
   1. All “ownership” of existing classrooms by a department would cease to exist after the fall semester of 2001. Beginning spring 2002 departments may request priority classroom scheduling for specific courses.
   2. All requests for classroom priority in the future must be submitted in writing to the CPSC for approval. The effective implementation term is spring 2002. Requests for classroom priority may be submitted to the CPSC beginning in April with an exact deadline date to be determined, but before the end of the spring 2001 semester. After the spring 2002 semester, classroom requests must be submitted in a timely manner prior to the initial request for submission of classroom requests for the course schedule by departments. Specific deadlines will be established and published for each term.
   3. Approval for priority scheduling must be course related and for extenuating reasons, and based on one of the reasons listed below. Special consideration would be given only to those requests that are extraordinary in nature and an exception.These four circumstances are the only exceptions to the standard room assignment process.
      1. Proximity to Essential Instructional Resources: it is not feasible or logical to move support resources necessary for instructional purposes to another classroom, then a specific classroom contiguous or near the resource may be requested. Typical resources include but are not limited to field sample collections, such as rocks, soil, plants or animal specimens.
      2. Specialized Physical Room Features:an instructor needs a general lecture classroom with certain physical features required for instruction and those resources are not included in the standard list of room attributes.Examples include but are not limited to certain types of attributes or a unique music or art or theatre or lab item/equipment not found in any other single classroom on the entire campus.
      3. Exceptional Course Scheduling Requirements: there are extraordinary requirements for a course, which necessitates the assignment of a classroom outside of the standard room scheduling procedures
      4. ADA: when an instructor needs priority classroom scheduling in order to meet their instructional needs for the purpose of compliance with ADA and/or state law.
   4. Ask departments to provide a rationale for why they need classroom-scheduling priority for a particular course.Institute a review process for approval of course classroom requests. The Classroom Priority Scheduling Committee would serve in an advisory capacity. The Registrar acts upon committee recommendations. The Dean of Enrollment Management would review all appeals to classroom assignments and serve as the final adjudicator for appeals.
   5. The CPSP committee would be composed of seven permanent voting members, and the Registrar, who would serve as an ex-officio non-voting member. Three faculty, three department administrative support assistants or coordinators, and the Classroom Scheduling Coordinator in the Office of the Registrar would make up the membership of the committee.The selection of faculty will follow the standard Academic Senate policy and procedure for appointment to a committee, the Senate Appointments Committee. The College Deans, in consultation with the Classroom Scheduling Coordinator, will appoint the three staff member appointments to the committee. Each committee member would serve a three-year term. However, initially, committee members would be appointed for one, two and three year terms in order to facilitate an equitable rotation. Each college will be represented by one of the three faculty members.The staff committee members must be from a different department than the one represented by the faculty member. The exception would be the Classroom Scheduling Coordinator who would serve in a permanent capacity since this position would be primary source responsible for the Schedule 25 software function.All committee members are subject to approval by the Vice President for Academic Affairs.
   6. Once a course receives scheduling priority, it would be in effect for three years. To extend the priority scheduling a new request with supporting rationale must be submitted to the CPSP Committee.
   7. The CPSP committee will review existing room attributes, and develop and define a new list of appropriate classroom attributes.This list will be available by the end of the summer term of 2001.The committee will determine if a priority scheduling request can be met by using room attributes in the S25 room assignment process, or requires classroom priority scheduling.
   8. This policy is also applicable for departments or colleges who receive significant gift funding (non-state fiscal appropriations) for the university from off-campus sources for instructional or physical classroom enhancement, standard or specialized technology or equipment. Whenever external funds improve the physical nature/space or instructional technology of a general lecture classroom, a department may receive priority room scheduling for a period of three years with an option for an extension upon recommendation by the CPSP committee and the Registrar.
7. Class Schedule Modules
   1. Develop standard or on-module class periods and non-standard or off-module class periods. The existing standard or on-module schedule of meeting days and time patterns are adopted and remain in effect. Prime time class periods are defined as 10:00 am to 3:00 pm (current definition).
   2. The committee strongly recommends a greater degree of coordination between and within colleges for the purpose of decreasing the number of class time conflicts between lower and upper division general education courses. This would facilitate the students’ ability to register for a full time unit load and to graduate on time.
   3. Recommends implementation of the “50-50 Rule”, a previously approved policy (Administrative Memorandum VPAA #95-01, December, 1997), but one not enforced. This rule requires departments to schedule no more than 50% of their courses during prime time, and 50% to non-prime time class periods. This rule applies only to those courses assigned to classrooms through S25. Compliance is based on an annual percentage for a department, exclusive of the summer term, and reviewed at the end of the academic year (May). A department with more than 50% of its courses in prime time will receive a written warning letter from the CPSP committee informing them they were not in compliance with the 50-50 Rule for the previous year. If compliance does not occur by the fall semester, then sanctions for non-compliance will be enforced for the spring semester. The first sanction for departments is last priority for those courses not assigned a room. If a department is not in compliance after the spring semester, then the following fall semester the second sanction for that department is to exclude them from the first run of S25 classroom assignment, and schedule their courses as a last priority.
8. In General
   1. It is imperative for open lines of communication in the future between this committee, the budget committee, the computer technology committee, and the space and facilities committee. There needs to be a cooperative working relationship between each of these committees in which proposals and objectives and programmatic demands from each area of responsibility are discussed, resolved, and agreed upon in a collaborative spirit.

Schedule 25 Committee Members

• Bill Cannon
• Karen Carlton (or Val Phillips as designee)
• Bernadette Cheyne
• John Costello (or Chris Hopper as designee)
• Sherry Deffenderfer
• John Filce
• Robert Hensley
• Marilynn Hoover
• James Howard (or Dave Kitchen as designee)
• Anita Iglesias
• Judith Little
• Jack Stoob
• Jan Turner
• Rick Vrem

February 16, 2001