TEACHING SPACE, ENROLLMENT DEMAND 
AND UNIVERSITY TIME BANDS POLICY

A REPORT OF THE ACADEMIC OPERATIONS AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF UNDERGRADUATE COUNCIL, April 2, 1997

Rosalie F. Maddocks, Chair, Robert Hill, Mario Lucchesi,
William Monroe, William Munson, Sam Quintero, Shawn Russell

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

I. SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

I.A. Conclusions Concerning Teaching Space ...........................................................	2
I.B. Conclusions Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand .........................................	3
I.C. Conclusions Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy 	4

II.  SPECIFIC ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS

II.A.  Action Recommendations Concerning Teaching Space .....................................	5
II.B.  Action Recommendations Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand ....................	6
II.C.  Action Recommendations Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy ...................................................................................................	7
II.D.  Proposal To Change The University Time Bands Policy ..................................	8

III.  LENGTHY DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS

III.A.  Issues and Findings Concerning Teaching Space ...........................................	9
III.B.  Issues and Findings Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand ..........................	11
III.C.  Issues and Findings Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy .............................................................................................................	14
III.D.  Explanation and Discussion of Proposal To Change The University Time Bands Policy .............................................................................................................	18

IV.  SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS ........................	20

I. SUMMARY OF GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

I.A. Conclusions Concerning Teaching Space

I.A.1.   The number of general purpose classrooms has declined from 238 in Fall 1986 to 187 in Fall 1996.  This is a loss of 51 (21%).  

I.A.2.  Projected increases in enrollment are likely to produce demands that will make it difficult to meet student needs with existing classroom space.

I.A.3.  There is an acute need for more general-use classrooms that are equipped for high-tech media. 

I.A.4.  There is a need for more general-purpose classrooms of particular sizes.  Large auditoria are in particularly short supply.

I.A.5.  For purposes of reporting to the Coordinating Board, it is essential that all teaching space be accurately designated and efficiently used.

I.A.6.  Instructional and Library net assignable space at UH has decreased by approximately 8.6% (from 1,721,463 sq. ft. in Fall 1986 to 1,572,759 sq. ft. in Fall 1995) in the past 10 years.  This compares with a 4.3% increase over all Texas public senior colleges and universities, a 3.5% increase for the University of Texas at Austin, and an 8.3% increase at Texas A&M University.

I.A.7.  Library space at UH has increased by 1.6% from Fall 1986 to Fall 1995 (from 288,736 sq. ft. to 293,504 sq. ft.).  This compares with 6.1% growth in library space at all Texas public senior colleges and universities, 0.6% decrease at the University of Texas at Austin, and 13.4% increase at Texas A&M University.

I.A.8.  Classroom and laboratory space at UH has increased by 7.8% from Fall 1986 to Fall 1995 (from 987,419 sq. ft. to 1,064,327 sq. ft.).  This compares with 8.9% increase at all Texas public senior colleges and universities, 3.6% increase at the University of Texas at Austin, and 27.6% increase at Texas A&M University.

I.A.9.  As of Fall 1994 UH had an estimated Space Deficit of of 165,302 sq. ft. for Teaching Space and a deficit of 74,984 sq. ft. for Library Space, from a Total Space Deficit of 201,773 sq. ft.

I.A.10.  As of Fall 1995, average weekly use of classrooms is 28.0 hours and of class laboratories is 16.8 hours.  UH ranks 14th and 18th (of 34 state schools) in usage figures and does not meet the Coordinating Board Standards for weekly room use (38 and 25 hours respectively).

I.B. Conclusions Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand

I.B.1.  The total number of “Unmet Demands” (student-course) per semester is about 8000, compared with roughly 130,000 “Met Demands” (student-course enrollments).   This is approximately 5.8% of total (138,000) section requests.  

I.B.2.  The Registrar’s Office now issues “Unmet Demand Reports.”  These report the cumulative number of students requesting a section, who have not later enrolled in another section of that course or in another course at the same time.  

I.B.3.  There is no convincing evidence that a general, university-wide problem exists with availability of classes, or that there is a systematic problem with availability of Core courses.  

I.B.4.  Despite conventional wisdom,  the numbers do not demonstrate that UH is turning away large numbers of students or that students in general have difficulty satisfying Undergraduate Core Curriculum requirements. 

I.B.5. For a variety of reasons, “Unmet Demand” cannot be directly equated to unmet “Need.”  The raw numbers of the “Unmet Demand Report” must be interpreted with an understanding of section quotas, seating constraints, program requirements, alternatives for satisfying requirements, students’ reasons for failing to complete enrollment, how these demand numbers are generated, and other environmental factors.

I.B.6.  Certain courses that are specified requirements or popular electives are more likely to have “Unmet Demand.”   However, the majority of the classes on the “Unmet Demand” roster are graduate-level and upper-division courses for majors, rather than service courses.

I.B.7.  The average UH student enrolls in 10.8 hours, a figure that is up a little bit in recent years.  It is difficult to estimate whether total University enrollment would be higher, and if so by how much, if all “Unmet Demand”  were satisfied.  

I.B.8.  It is difficult to determine what minimum level of “Unmet Demand” is commensurate with most efficient utilization of faculty and classroom resources. Though all universities experience a comparable problem, apparently there are no national statistics collected in any uniform way that would enable us to judge whether 8000 is a good or a bad number by comparison with other schools.  

I.B.9.  Declining numbers of  faculty, difficulties in predicting demand accurately, constraints on scheduling classes at the particular times our students desire them, and the need to optimize three variables simultaneously (total enrollment, faculty workload and classroom utilization) result in unsatisfactory compromises.  

I.B.10.  The “Unmet Demand” reports reveal identifiable local problems that should be solved by the local academic units, with assistance from the Provost’s Office.  

I.B.11.  The Provost’s Office should make use of these demand data to encourage long-term planning.  Making additional money available very late in the scheduling cycle is a short-term fix that does not solve the underlying problems. It is important that teaching budgets be known early in the schedule-building process, as funds allocated at the last minute cannot be used efficiently to maximize enrollment and serve students.

I.C.  Conclusions Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy

I.C.1.  UH offers just over 3000 organized classes (both graduate and undergraduate):  3015 in Fall 1996, down from 3084 in Fall 1986, down from 3169  in Fall 1983.  

I.C.2.  If only undergraduate courses plus those graduate courses taught in general-purpose classrooms are considered,  about 1400 organized classes (47%, almost half) are taught outside of time bands.

I.C.3.  There is a University Time Bands Policy.  For a number of years, the University Time Bands Policy was enforced.  It is no longer being enforced.  There is a procedure for obtaining permission for an exception to the University Time Bands Policy.  That procedure is no longer being enforced.

I.C.4.  The large number of organized classes being offered outside of time bands may indicate that those time bands no longer meet the needs of many students, instructors, programs, and colleges.

I.C.5.  Therefore, the current University Time Bands Policy should be modified to legitimize prevailing practices that are academically sound, convenient for students, make efficient use of classrooms and instructors, and serve the special needs of part-time students. 

I.C.6.  The Provost's Office should encourage colleges to schedule their organized undergraduate classes in compliance with University Time Bands as specified in the agreed upon policies. This will minimize course conflicts, facilitate students’ access to a wide range of courses, serve the special needs of part-time students, and encourage students to take a full program at UH rather than going elsewhere.

I.C.7.  More use should be made of the early morning and late evening hours as well as of Fridays and Saturdays.  More use of the 7-8:30 PM time would relieve congestion in the 5:30-7 band and serve the growing number of students who have difficulty reaching campus by 5:30.

II.  SPECIFIC ACTION RECOMMENDATIONS 

II.A.  Action Recommendations Concerning Teaching Space

II.A.1.  The Provost’s Office should evaluate the Library’s space needs and develop a long-term plan in order to ensure the functionality of the Library.

II.A.2.  The Provost’s Office should conduct an analysis of classroom space needs and develop a comprehensive plan for teaching space that is in concert with the University’s mission.

II.A.3.  The Provost’s Office should conduct an analysis of campus needs related to use of high-tech media for teaching, develop a comprehensive plan for improvements, and integrate this plan into the educational objectives of the campus.

II.A.4.  The Provost’s Office should conduct a survey of all teaching space to ensure that all rooms are appropriately coded, that all classroom space that should be available for general purpose academic needs is correctly classified, and that accurate, appropriate information is being provided to the Coordinating Board regarding space usage and needs in concert with the educational mission of the campus.

II.A.5.  The Provost’s Office should develop a long-term plan for managing campus teaching space.  This plan should include a fair, academically sound policy for making decisions to change the use of a room, an analysis of how current renovations will affect campus teaching space, and a long-term plan for new construction and classroom development.

II.B.  Action Recommendations Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand

II.B.1.  The Provost’s Office should compile and provide regular reports to the Undergraduate Council throughout each Registration cycle concerning the availability of seats in Core-approved courses as well as the distribution of sections of Core courses by day, time and Core category.

II.B.2.  The Provost’s Office should bring the “Unmet Demand” data to the attention of the individual academic units and insist that they evaluate them and address any problems.

II.B.3.  The Provost’s Office should make use of the “Unmet Demand data”  to encourage long-term planning.  Making additional money available very late in the scheduling cycle is a short-term fix that does not solve the underlying problems. It is important that teaching budgets be known early in the schedule-building process, as funds allocated at the last minute cannot be used efficiently to maximize enrollment and serve students.

II.B.4.  Colleges and departments should attempt to accommodate students in classes and to optimize enrollment, to the extent that this is compatible with academic goals and quality of education.

II.B.5.  The Provost’s Office should conduct a survey of UH undergraduate students and also a community survey of potential students to ascertain scheduling needs and preferences.

II.C.  Action Recommendations Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy

II.C.1. The current University Time Bands Policy should be modified to legitimize prevailing practices that are academically sound, convenient for students, make efficient use of classrooms, and serve the special needs of part-time students.  (Specific recommendations for changes are detailed in Section II.D.)

II.C.2. The Provost’s Office should require that all organized classes held in general purpose classrooms be scheduled in compliance with the University Time Bands Policy as amended.  

II.C.3.  The Provost’s Office should encourage all colleges to schedule all organized undergraduate classes either in compliance with the University Time Bands Policy or in compliance with an alternative, approved, college or remote site scheduling plan.

II.C.4.  The existing procedure for requesting approval from the Dean of the College and from the Provost’s Office for an individual exception to the University Time Bands Policy should be enforced.

II.C.5.  Colleges, academic units, and remote sites with special needs may request approval from the Provost’s Office to use a different system of time bands.  To support this request, they should demonstrate that the proposed scheduling pattern is more appropriate for their special needs than the University system, is more suitable for their student populations, makes efficient use of University resources, does not cause conflicts for their own students or those of other programs, and will be consistently followed.  

III.C.6.  The Provost’s Office should instruct all colleges to review their scheduling practices, to provide justification and seek approval for those deviations that are appropriate and necessary, and to modify those that are found to be causing conflicts for students or inefficient room usage.

II.C.7.  Colleges and departments should select time bands for particular courses that are academically effective for the course content and level as well as convenient for the student populations who need to take them.

II.C.8.  The Provost's Office should review the offerings of courses and sections each semester to be sure that undergraduate classes are distributed appropriately throughout the mornings, afternoons, evenings, and days of the week, in order to allow students to maximize their scheduling options.

II.D.9.  With specific approval of the Dean of the College and the Provost’s Office each semester, those courses that require departmental exams to be conducted outside of the regularly scheduled class time may use a Friday afternoon or evening or a Saturday time band for this purpose.  The exam time shall be published in the Class Schedule.  The Provost’s Office should monitor the effects of this policy on course conflicts for students and on room use.  Examinations shall have a lower priority than regularly scheduled classes for purposes of reserving classrooms.

II.C.10.  The algorithm for producing the database report on classes taught outside of University time bands should be adjusted to disregard those classes scheduled in compliance with approved alternative college or remote site scheduling plans.

II.C.11.  Instructors should be reminded to dismiss classes promptly at 10 minutes before the end of the time band and to give students for the next class access to the room at that time.

II.D.  Proposal To Change The University Time Bands Policy

II.D.1.  Add the following time bands to accommodate classes meeting one day a week for three hours on M or T or W or TH or F or S:  7-10 AM, 8:30-11:30 AM, 10 AM to 1 PM, 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM, 1-4 PM, 2:30-5:30 PM, 4-7 PM, 5:30-8:30 PM, 7-10 PM.

II.D.2.  Add the following time bands to accommodate classes meeting two days a week for one and a half hours on MW:  7-8:30 AM, 8:30-10 AM, 10-11:30 AM, 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM.

II.D.3.  Add the following time bands to accommodate classes meeting two days a week for one and a half hours on FS:  7-8:30 AM, 8:30-10 AM, 10-11:30 AM, 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM, 1:00-2:30 PM, 2:30-4 PM, 4-5:30 PM, 5:30-7 PM, 7-8:30 PM, 8:30-10:00 PM.

II.D.4.  Delete the following time bands for Saturdays:  9:00 AM - 12:00 noon, 1-4 PM.

II.D.5.  Retain the following time bands from the current University Time Bands Policy without change:  7-8 AM, 8-9 AM, 9-10 AM, 10-11 AM, 11-12 AM, 12-1 PM on MWF; 7-8:30 AM, 8:30-10 AM, 10-11:30 AM, 11:30 AM - 1 PM on TTH; and 1-2:30 PM, 2:30-4 PM, 4-5:30 PM, 5:30-7 PM, 7-8:30 PM, 8:30-10 PM on MW and on TTH.

II.D.6.  Colleges that use these time bands on a particular day or days should find a matching class for the other corresponding days to assure efficient room utilization and maximum access to courses for students.

II.D.7.  Colleges that use the three-hour time bands (which overlap with the hour-and-a-half time bands) should package their courses appropriately to maximize students' options for course scheduling.  Due consideration should be given to the need for students outside the college to take these courses, as well as the need for majors to take other courses outside the college.  

II.D.8.  “Prime times” should be redefined to include the following time bands on MW and TTH:  8:30-10 AM, 10:00-11:30 AM, 11:30 AM to 1 PM, and 5:30-7 PM; and also the following time bands on M or T or W or TH:  8:30-11:30 AM, 10 AM - 1:00 PM; as well as the following time bands on MWF:  9-10 AM, 10-11 AM, 11-12 AM, and 12-1 PM.

II.D.9.  Colleges and departments should schedule outside the prime times at least 40% of their organized undergraduate classes in general purpose classrooms and at least 40% of their class sections with quotas of 100 or more.

II.D.10.  This Modified Time Bands Policy should be tried for one year, for the Spring 1998 and Fall 1998 Class Schedules, and evaluated at the end of that time.  

III.  MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF ISSUES AND FINDINGS 

III.A.  Issues and Findings Concerning Teaching Space

III.A.1.  Instructional and Library Net Assignable Space at UH has decreased by approximately 8.6% (from 1,721,463 sq. ft. in Fall 1986 to 1,572,759 sq. ft. in Fall 1995) in the past 10 years.  For comparison, during this same time interval all Texas public senior colleges and universities grew by 4.3% (from 23,223,099 sq. ft. to 24,230,384 sq. ft., The University of Texas at Austin grew by 3.5% (from 3,113,336 sq. ft. to 3,224,870 sq. ft.), and Texas A&M University grew by 8.3% (from 2,304,888 sq. ft. to 2,496,560 sq. ft.).

III.A.2.  Library space at UH has increased by 1.6% from Fall 1986 to Fall 1995 (from 288,736 sq. ft. to 293,504 sq. ft.).  For comparison, during this same time interval library space at all Texas public senior colleges and universities grew by 6.1% (from 4,186,443 sq. ft. to 4,441,595 sq. ft.), the University of Texas at Austin decreased by 0.6% (from 823,359 sq. ft. to 818,186 sq. ft.), and Texas A&M University increased by 13.4% (from 355,230 sq. ft. to 402,862 sq. ft.)

III.A.3.  Classroom and laboratory space at UH has increased by 7.8% from Fall 1986 to Fall 1995 (from 987,419 sq. ft. to 1,064,327 sq. ft.).  For comparison, during this same time interval classroom and laboratory space at all Texas public senior colleges and universities grew by 8.9% (from 12,312,415 sq. ft. to 13,406,939 sq. ft.), the University of Texas at Austin increased by 3.6% (from 2,314,279 sq. ft. to 2,397,082 sq. ft.), and Texas A&M University increased by 27.6% (from 1,251,324 sq. ft. to 1,596,832 sq. ft.)

III.A.4.  The UH Space Allocation & Utilization Space Deficit Summary as of Fall 1994 per Coordinating Board showed a deficit of 165,302 sq. ft. for Teaching Space and a deficit of 74,984 sq. ft. for Library space.  These compare to a 76,195 sq. ft. surplus for Research Space, a 13,134 sq. ft. deficit for Office Space, and a 24,548 sq. ft. deficit for Support Space.  The Total E&G Space Deficit was 201,773 sq. ft.

III.A.5.  The Coordinating Board “Fall 1995 Classroom Utilization Data for Public Universities” shows an average weekly use (7 days) for UH of 28.0 hours for classrooms and 16.8 hours for class laboratories. This is 14th and 18th, respectively, of 34 state schools, below the University of Texas at Austin (30.1 and 23.1 hours) and Texas A&M University (29.2 and 20.5 hours).  Comparable figures range from 42.3 and 32.4 hours (at University of Texas at San Antonio and Texas A&M at Galveston) to 12.1 and 4.8 hours (U.T. at Brownsville).  The Coordinating Board standards for weekly hours of use are 38 hours for classrooms and 25 hours for class laboratories, and only one school (University of Texas at San Antonio) meets that standard.

III.A.6.  The number of general purpose classrooms at UH has declined over the past 10 years from 238 in Fall 1986 to 187 in Fall 1996.   This is a loss of 51 (21%).  By this measure, the University is back to where it was in 1971.

III.A.7.  A room is “general purpose” until after the first scheduling cycle, after which a college can request use of a classroom “designated” to another college.  There are only 13 large lecture rooms, and it is for them that the intercollegial strife is keenest.  Perhaps the criteria by which rooms were allocated to colleges should be re-examined.  Some buildings have few or no general purpose classrooms.

III.A.8.  From the point of view of the Registrar's Office, the continuous reduction of general purpose classrooms has not posed a problem yet.  It has been possible to schedule all classes.  This is because of the decrease in the number of course section offerings (from 3084 in Fall 1986 to 3015 in Fall 1996).  Also, the rooms have moved off the general purpose list onto college control.  

III.A.9.  However, this loss of 51 (21%) general purpose classrooms in the past ten years will become a serious problem when enrollment increases, additional sections are added, and timeband usage increases to meet student needs.  Because of demographic changes in the Houston Metropolitan Area, enrollments are expected to rise over the next 5 to 10 years, by which time this space shortage will be acute.

III.A.10.  From the point of view of individual units and programs, the number of general purpose classrooms is already insufficient to the needs, especially at certain times and for certain types and sizes of rooms.  Some of the rooms are of poor quality.  There is concern that the assignment of rooms to units is not necessarily in line with present needs, that units  make less efficient use of rooms under their control, and that conflicting territorial claims engender competition between units rather than cooperation in optimizing this resource.

III.A.11.  It is important to make full, efficient use of designated teaching rooms during the days and hours monitored by the Coordinating Board.  Although the Coordinating Board parameters are not completely appropriate for the needs of our urban student population (38% part-time), we do need to improve our standing relative to other state universities.  The space-utilization data we report to the Coordinating Board will directly affect our ability to secure approval from the State for new construction.

III.A.12.  Regrettably, the way that the CB measures utilization has very little to do with educational needs and does not take into account the needs of an urban population.  There are ways that we can manipulate course scheduling and room coding so as to improve how we look to the CB, but these are not necessarily the same things that will provide more and better space for better teaching.  

III.A.13.  It is essential that all space be accurately designated for teaching or non-teaching purposes.  Classes scheduled in non-teaching spaces do not count in the CB space-utilization statistics. Teaching rooms that stand empty much of the time lower the use statistics. For example, teaching a course in a conference room doesn’t count as utilization.  Redesignating the conference room as a classroom is worse, because now it appears to stand vacant most hours of the day, whereas formerly it was invisible.

III.A.14.  It is important to have a plan for managing space that is integrated into the campus educational objectives.  Systematic procedures for changing the assignment or use of space should provide for evaluation of educational priorities, competing academic needs and nonacademic influences.

III.B.  Issues and Findings Concerning Unmet Enrollment Demand

III.B.1.  In 1995 a committee consisting of several associate deans and representatives of Management Information Systems and the Registrar's office wrote the specifications for determining course demand on-line as described below.  This information is available on-line at any time during the enrollment process.  Dr. John Hardy chaired this committee, and it was agreed that after one year, if changes were needed, then this group would address them after this one year.  

III.B.2.  Effective Fall 1996, abundant, accurate, dynamic  data are continuously available on-line and as regularly produced paper reports throughout the enrollment process, on a scale never before possible.  Over 200 people have been trained to access this system.  Departments and colleges are encouraged to use these enrollment data and to make adjustments if possible to optimize accommodation of students in classes.  Many units are doing this, and the Provost’s Office has made some additional money available as needs emerged in a few cases.

III.B.3.  This year, for the first time, the Registrar’s Office issues “Unmet Demand Reports.”  These report the cumulative number of students requesting a section, who have not later enrolled in another section of that course or in another course at the same time.  The section demand logic is part of both the on-line registration process (used primarily by the colleges) and the VIP registration.  Demand is determined in the following manner.  A demand record for a section will be created if a student tries to add a closed or full section AND:
- if the add is not denied for some other reason(such as time conflict, duplicate course,etc.);
- and if the student has less than 15 hours(12 for summer);
- and if the student doesn't already have a demand record for the closed course;
- and if the section is not the lab of lecture/lab combination.
In addition, another routine is executed when an on-line registration or VIP process ends.   This program deactivates course demand records IF:
- the student has 15 (12 for summer) or more active hours, or;
- a demand record has a time conflict with an active course record, or;
- a demand record exists that has the same course id as an active course.
 
III.B.4.  Those “Unmet Demand” numbers are not adjusted to remove the students who eventually do not pay and do not attend (about 6%), the students who select another course at another time, or the students who are given special permission to add the class by the instructor or the department on or after the first class day.  In a survey of those students who enroll but do not eventually pay (total 1800, about 6% of headcount), the most frequent reason offered was “inability to get classes,” but other significant reasons were likely to be financial and personal matters over which the University has no control.  For some part-time students, “inability to get classes” may be more closely tied to students’ scheduling preferences for time and day than to section quotas.  

III.B.5.  Many Core requirements, such as Sophomore English, may be satisfied by choosing from a list of alternative elective courses.  For example, the student who requests but cannot get ENGL 2305 and 2306 and finally gets into 2307 generates “Unmet Demand” for two courses, even though he was accommodated in a third course that meets the requirement.  The lists of alternatives are even longer for Core Level 2 categories such as Cultural Heritage.  So, for example, although the high “Unmet Demand” for introductory Philosophy courses accurately measures the inability of a relatively small faculty to satisfy student interest in this popular subject, it is likely that many of these unaccommodated students found another choice from the list of 58 Cultural Heritage Core courses.  As a third, specific instance, “Unmet Demand” of 8 for a section with a quota of 300, to which the instructor admitted all the additional students who showed up in person at the first class meeting, should not be interpreted as a significant problem.  For such reasons, the raw numbers of the “Unmet Demand Report” must be interpreted cautiously with an understanding of quotas, seating constraints, program requirements, alternatives for satisfying requirements, and other local environmental factors.

III.B.6.  Another consideration is that “Unmet Demand” can only be generated for those sections being offered, so that, for example, there is no “Unmet Demand” for a course in the afternoon unless at least one afternoon section is actually being offered.  Therefore, “Unmet Demand” cannot be directly equated with unmet “Need.”  Units that schedule numerous sections of a course at different times may actually generate higher “Unmet Demand” numbers than those that schedule only one section. 

III.B.7.  What minimum level of “Unmet Demand” is commensurate with most efficient utilization of faculty and classroom resources? The average UH student enrolls in 10.8 hours, a figure that is up a little bit in recent years.  It is difficult to estimate whether total University enrollment would be higher, and if so by how much, if all “Unmet Demand”  were satisfied.  

III.B.8.  The total number of “Unmet Demands” (student-course) per semester is about 8000, compared with roughly 130,000 “Met Demands” (student-course enrollments).   This is approximately 5.8% of total (138,000) section requests.  Is this a little or a lot?  Is there a problem? 

III.B.9.  Though all universities experience a comparable condition, apparently there are no national statistics collected in any uniform way that would enable us to judge whether 8000 is a good or a bad number by comparison with other schools.  (Ten years ago, 12,000 “All Sections Closed” messages was considered to be a problem.  However, that figure was calculated differently, and a direct comparison of these numbers is inappropriate.)

III.B.10.  There is no convincing evidence that a general, university-wide problem exists with availability of classes, or that there is a systematic problem with availability of Core courses.  In spite of the conventional wisdom, the numbers do not demonstrate that UH is turning away large numbers of students or that students in general have difficulty satisfying Core requirements. 

III.B.11.  There certainly are identifiable local problems that should be solved by the local units, with assistance from the Provost’s Office.  Declining numbers of  faculty, difficulties in predicting demand accurately, constraints on scheduling classes at the particular times our students desire them, and the need to optimize three variables simultaneously (total enrollment, faculty workload and classroom utilization)  result in unsatisfactory compromises.  

III.B.12.  Certain courses that are specified requirements or popular electives are more likely to have “Unmet Demand.”   However, for a large number of departments, the majority of the classes on the “Unmet Demand” roster are upper-division and graduate-level courses for their own majors, rather than service courses as popular mythology would have it.

III.B.13.  The Provost’s Office should bring these “Unmet Demand” data to the attention of the individual academic units and insist that they evaluate them and address any problems.  More importantly, the Provost’s Office should make use of these demand data to encourage long-term planning.  Making additional money available very late in the scheduling cycle is a short-term fix that does not solve the underlying problems. It is important that teaching budgets be known early in the schedule-building process, as funds allocated at the last minute cannot be used efficiently to maximize enrollment and serve students.

III.B.14.  Optimizing enrollment would generate higher “customer satisfaction” as well as additional formula dollars.  Possible solutions involve raising section quotas, overbooking according to historical drop rates for the course (now tabulated in the database), hiring additional faculty or adjuncts or TA’s, opening new sections, scheduling sections more evenly across times and days (especially mornings, afternoons, and evenings), making more use of Fridays and Saturdays, scheduling additional sections at the more popular times to match demand, and surveying students to find out their scheduling needs and preferences more exactly.  None of these are new ideas, most require more money, some have conflicting effects, and most are already being used by most units.  Some are likely to degrade the quality of education.  

III.B.15.  As “customer service” improves, customers’ expectations rise.  Complaints will persist, though perhaps at a lower level and about less important matters.  It is unrealistic to expect that “Unmet Demand” numbers will ever drop to zero, if we also attempt to maximize resource utilization (faculty, space) and service to the largest number of students.

III.C.  Issues and Findings Concerning Class Scheduling and the University Time Bands Policy

III.C.1.  The issues of Teaching Space and Unmet Enrollment Demand are inextricably linked to matters concerning Course Scheduling.  

III.C.2.  The discussion here concerns so-called “organized classes,” for which a regular meeting time and room are scheduled.  The discussion does not target courses for which time is individually arranged, such as private lessons, some studios and laboratories, internships, independent study, thesis, asynchronous distance media, etc.  

III.C.3.  For simplicity, the discussion here focusses on three-credit lecture/recitation courses and on suggestions for change.  It is assumed that provisions of the current University Time Bands Policy that are not changed will remain in force, such as the requirement that one- and two-credit courses that use only part of a time band must begin or end on a time band.

III.C.4.  Because a majority of UH students also work, it has long been a stated objective to offer classes mornings, afternoons and evenings.  Demographic studies show that UH students commute from greater distances than formerly and are more likely to be employed and to have family responsibilities.  A survey and other input suggest that students have trouble getting to campus in time for 5:30 PM classes because of city traffic conditions.  Anecdotal input suggests that attendance and punctuality may be declining.  The rising popularity of TV and Internet classes and the North Houston and West Houston Institutes suggests that the traditional time bands of residential campuses are becoming less attractive for many UH students.  All of these factors suggest that it is time to take a fresh look at the University Time Bands Policy.

III.C.5.  From enrollment data we see that many of our students want to be able to build a morning, or afternoon, or evening schedule, or a three-day or a two-day or a one-day-a-week schedule.  If they are required to cross those parameters, then the UH may not be meeting their needs.  

III.C.6.  There may be a problem with “stacking” of courses into the most popular hours, making it difficult for some students to schedule a full load. More early morning, afternoon, and late classes should be scheduled, both to meet special scheduling needs of students and to make more efficient use of classrooms.   Perhaps more one-day-a-week classes should be offered.  Perhaps more Saturday classes should be offered. 

III.C.7.  On the other hand, the demand for courses in prime time is demonstrable. The real shortage is faculty.  Moving an instructor from a prime-time slot to a late afternoon time does not maximize enrollment.

III.C.8.  Many students prefer a two-day week, which causes congestion in T-TH offerings.  At present 31% of courses are offered in the 12 MWF and MW time bands (55% of time bands), while 32% of courses are offered in the 10 TTH time bands (45% of time bands).  Anecdotal input from instructors and students suggests that Friday attendance in MWF morning classes is deteriorating, and that some students will register for a MWF class but choose to work on Fridays unless there is an exam.  The fact that these MWF morning time bands are rarely used for graduate courses (and in some programs rarely used for upper-division classes for majors) suggests that they are becoming less attractive to the UH faculty and student populations or are felt to be less appropriate for certain curricula.

III.C.9.  Fall 1996 data show the following distribution of organized classes by days:  MWF 15%, TTH 32%, MW 16%, on M or T or W or TH or F only, 7% or less each, and on Saturday less than 1%.  For comparison, Fall 1991 data show the following distribution of classes by days:  MWF 15%, TTH 30%, MW 19%, on M or T or W or TH or F only, 7% or less each, and on Saturday less than 1%.  There is little change in this pattern over the past five years.

III.C.10.  Fall 1996 data show the following distribution of organized classes by hours of duration:  0-1 hour 23%, 1-2 hours 47%, and 2-3 hours 28%.  For comparison, Fall 1991 data show the following distribution:  0-1 hour 25%, 1-2 hours 47%, 2-3 hours 26%.  There is little change in the pattern over the past five years.

III.C.11.  Fall 1996 data show the following distribution of organized classes by starting time:  before 8:00 AM less than 1%, 8:00-8:59 AM 8%, 9:00-9:59 AM 7%, 10:00-10:59 AM 13%, 11:00-11:59 AM 14%, Noon-1:59 PM 18%, 2:00-3:59 PM 13%, 4:00-5:59 PM 19%, 6 PM and after 8%.  For comparison, Fall 1991 data show the following distribution:  before 8:00 AM less than 1%, 8:00-8:59 AM 9%, 9:00-9:59 AM 7%, 10:00-10:59 AM 13%, 11:00-11:59 AM 13%, Noon-1:59 PM 18%, 2:00-3:59 PM 13%, 4:00-5:59 PM 19%, 6 PM and after 7%.  There is little change in this pattern in the last five years.

III.C.12.  To provide access to the greatest number of students and to minimize course conflicts for individual students, a University Time Bands Policy has been in effect for a number of years.  For some years the University Time Bands Policy was enforced.  It is now no longer being enforced.  There is a procedure for obtaining permission to an exception from the Time Bands Policy.  That procedure is no longer being enforced.

III.C.13.  It is important that organized undergraduate courses be scheduled in compliance with the University Time Bands Policy in order to serve students well.  This will minimize course conflicts, facilitate access to a wide range of required and elective courses, serve the special needs of part-time students, and encourage students to take a full program at UH rather than going elsewhere.  This will also help to optimze use of classrooms, especially those that are in short supply (large auditoria, TV studios, special laboratories, and those equipped for high-tech media).

III.C.14.  UH offers just over 3000 organized classes (both graduate and undergraduate) per semester:  3015 in Fall 1996, down from 3084 in Fall 1986, down from 3169  in Fall 1983.  According to the "Organized Classes Taught Outside of  Time Bands" report for Spring 1997, 1926 of them are out of time bands.  A first -- but  false! -- impression was that this is "out of hand."  

III.C.15.  On closer inspection, it was apparent that the large number resulted in part from the special needs of certain kinds of courses (such as studios and laboratories), as well as from the mechanical limitations of extracting the report from the database.   If only undergraduate courses plus those graduate courses taught in general-purpose classrooms are considered,  the true number is closer to 1400 classes taught outside of time bands (approximately 47%).

III.C.16.  Further examination of the list shows that the phenomenon (teaching outside of time bands) is universal (present in virtually every department and college),  nonuniform (far more common in some departments and colleges than others), and especially prevalent in graduate courses.   One must conclude that at this time the University-recognized time bands are considered to be inadequate or inappropriate for nearly half of our offerings.  This fact alone suggests that it is time to re-examine the University scheduling policies.

III.C.17.  A sizeable majority of the courses offered by certain professional colleges are out of time bands.  This raises questions about the appropriateness of the University time bands for particular disciplines, about approval of alternative scheduling plans, about impact on students, about room usage, and about interpretation of the report.

III.C.18.  The Colleges of Law, Social Work, Optometry, and Pharmacy essentially operate their own, unique scheduling systems independent of the University Time Bands system.  To the extent that these scheduling practices are driven by special disciplinary needs, that they serve a separate student population with special needs, that they use University resources efficiently, that they affect chiefly 4000-, 5000- and graduate-level courses, that students admitted to these programs are expected to have completed all coursework in other areas, that these courses are taken only by their own majors, and these courses are taught in assigned rather than general purpose classrooms, then no harm is done, and there is no need for change.

III.C.19.  The College of Business systematically schedules hour-and-a-half MW morning classes (not allowed in the current University Time Bands Policy), which are said to be popular with students and faculty.  Because these include the 2000-level courses taken by Pre-Business and non-majors, because Business majors, minors and prospective majors and minors are a sizeable fraction of the UH undergraduate population,  because many junior and senior majors will need to take courses in other colleges to complete a minor, because juniors are allowed a semester of a mixed (lower and upper division) program, and because nonmajors are allowed to take up to 21 hours of 3000- and 4000-level Business courses, this scheduling practice does generate some course conflicts for students.  Another concern is that, if this option is academically justifiable and efficient, as alleged, it should be available to all colleges and not just the College of Business.

III.C.20.  The College of Education also conducts a sizeable number of classes outside of time bands, though the scheduling pattern is less systematic.  Most courses are at the 3000-level or above, and students admitted to these programs are expected to have largely completed coursework outside the college.  Nevertheless, there is some potential for generating conflicts for students.  As this is a college with significant community outreach, it is important that the scheduling pattern be consistent and efficient, especially if in some parts it must differ from the general University plan.

III.C.21.  In the Colleges of Architecture and Hotel and Restaurant Management many of the courses are taught outside of University Time Bands.  While these idiosyncratic scheduling systems may be explainable by special disciplinary needs, it should be noted that they include 1000- and 2000-level introductory courses and even courses open to nonmajors, not just those for junior, senior and fifth-year majors.  This scheduling pattern is of concern, because it is likely to generate substantial conflicts for students needing to take courses outside the college.  These are demanding, structured majors with numerous required courses that must be taken in a particular sequence, around which Core and other requirements and electives must be fitted.  The semester by semester suggested curricula published in the undergraduate catalog for these programs show that in every semester of every year, an ideal full-time student is expected to be taking one or more courses outside of the college.  It is suggested that these colleges monitor the packing of their courses, semester by semester, to assure that their students have appropriate opportunities to complete requirements and to choose electives.

III.C.22.  By contrast, the Colleges of Engineering and Technology and the three “arts and sciences” colleges are substantially in compliance with the present University Time Bands, except for special courses such as laboratories and studios.  

III.C.23.  University-wide, the number of courses taught in three-hour blocks may be increasing in both evening and daylight hours.  The starting times of many do not coincide with established timebands, as the current policy requires.  This semester there are evening offerings at 4:30-7:30 PM, 5-8 PM, 5:30-8:30 PM, 6-9 PM, 6:15-9:15, 6:30-9:30 PM, and 7-10 PM!  This lack of coordination is likely to generate conflict and inefficiency for students and the University.

III.C.24.  It would be timely for the Provost’s Office to instruct all colleges to review their scheduling practices, to provide justification and seek approval for those deviations that are appropriate and necessary, and to modify those that are found to be causing conflicts for students.  Particular attention should be given to 1000- and 2000-level courses and to courses open to nonmajors, for which the benefits of complying with the University Time Bands Policy are substantial.

III.C.25.  The current University Time Bands Policy should be modified to legalize those prevailing practices and innovations that are academically sound, convenient for students, make efficient use of classrooms, and serve the special needs of part-time students.

III.C.26.  The University Time Bands Policy, as appropriately modified and approved, should then be enforced. That policy allows deans to seek permission from the Provost for exceptions, and that provision should be continued and enforced.  A meaningful process for exceptions will make it possible both to enforce the policy and to monitor the need for future changes in the policy.  An unenforced policy is neither functional nor heuristic.

III.C.27. Colleges and departments should select time bands for particular courses that are academically effective for the course content as well as convenient for the students who need to take them.  Colleges that use the extended (three-hour) time bands should package their courses in such a way as to maximize students' options for course scheduling. The use of overlapping time bands may cause as many problems as it solves, unless students' needs are fully addressed.  Colleges should consider the scheduling needs of students for courses both within and outside the major field and should be prepared to demonstrate that their scheduling practices are appropriate for these needs.

III.C.28.  The University Time Bands Policy should apply to organized classes at the North Houston and West Houston Institutes, to ITV courses and to other off-campus sites (though not, of course, to broadcast TV courses and other asynchronous modes of distance delivery).  The primary objectives (to maximize students’ options for scheduling, avoid conflicts, optimize resources) are the same for off-campus as for on-campus courses, and a coordinated schedule is equally necessary.  

III.C.29.  However, off-campus institutes and remote sites with special environments, programs or clientele should have the opportunity to propose their own scheduling plans, justify them by local conditions and needs, and have them approved by the Provost’s Office, in the same manner as for the professional colleges.  They should then adhere consistently to these plans.

II.C.30.  The algorithm for producing the database report on classes taught outside of University time bands should be adjusted to disregard those classes scheduled in compliance with approved alternative college or remote site scheduling plans.

III.D.  Explanation and Discussion Of Proposal To Change The University Time Bands Policy

III.D.1.  It is expected that the proposed changes to the University Time Bands Policy will result in a small dispersion of classes from prime to non-prime times, slightly improved room utilization, and a better balance between MW and TTH offerings.  These are considered desirable outcomes.

III.D.2.  It is likely that students who prefer a two-day week will find the new MW morning time bands attractive.  Better enrollment, attendance, punctuality, completion rates and student satisfaction may be hoped for as a result.

III.D.3.  The proposed changes may result in some courses migrating from the 6 MWF morning time bands (of which 4 are prime) into the 4 MW morning (3 prime) plus 2 F or F-S morning time bands.  For units choosing these new bands, there will be no reduction in the total weekly number of non-overlapping time bands available, if the F (or F-S) time bands are utilized.  

III.D.4.  For units that choose to use the new MW morning bands in place of MWF bands, the proposed changes produce no decrease in the total number of time bands available in a week (22).  The 6 MWF morning time bands (of which 4 are prime and 2 are under-utilized) are supplemented by 4 MW (of which 3 are prime) plus 2 F or FS morning time bands.  MW afternoon and evening bands and TTH bands are unaffected.  For the week, there will be 10 MW bands, 10TH bands, and 2 F or FS morning bands.  The new Friday afternoon and Saturday bands increase the potential total number of non-overlapping time bands to 24 or 26 or more, though it is unlikely that these will see high usage. 

III.D.5.  For units that choose to use the new MW morning bands in place of MWF bands, a small shift of courses from prime to non-prime time may be expected, mostly because the balancing Friday morning bands are redefined as non-prime.  Of the courses now offered in the four MWF prime bands (at 9, 10, 11, 12), three can be accommodated in the new MW prime bands (at 8:30, 10, 11:30).  The fourth should migrate to F or F-S, to early morning (7), or to afternoon or late evening (all of which are non-prime).  For this hypothetical academic unit, only 1 of the current 12 MWF plus MW offerings (8%) will be displaced from prime to non-prime time, largely as an artifact of redefining Friday morning as non-prime.  This effect is reflected in the revised statement that colleges should schedule 40% (up from 33% at present) of their organized undergraduate classes outside of prime time.

II.D.6.  Colleges that use these time bands on a particular day or days should find a matching class for the other corresponding days to assure efficient room utilization and maximum access to courses for students.  For example, a class meeting 8:30-11:30 F could be scheduled to to balance classes meeting in that room 8:30-10 AM MW and 10-11:30 AM MW.  It is expected that this is the scheduling option many colleges will choose for the courses formerly scheduled in MWF AM bands, especially for Core and service courses with multiple sections, and that those offerings will be attractive to students who prefer a one-day, three-day or five-day week.   However, “matching” in this context refers to time and room, not to content or level or program.  

III.D.7.  Students who prefer a one-day or three-day or a five-day week should have the opportunity to select Friday courses.  It will be important for academic units to provide an appropriate mix of Friday offerings (not, for example, just laboratories or just graduate seminars) -- “appropriate” being, as always, a matter of judgment for individual academic units in context of their own curricula, student populations and constraints.

III.D.8.  In testing the proposed time band changes, we may discover that a special market exists for Friday-only or Friday-Saturday courses in some program areas.   A survey of potential UH students in the local community might discover additional nontraditional opportunities.

III.D.9.  As a result of the proposed changes, three sets of time bands will be running concurrently (overlapping) on MWF mornings.  This will cause some conflicts -- indeed, such conflicts already exist.  On the plus side, we will gain flexibility to meet special needs and an opportunity to test new scheduling patterns.

III.D.9.  The proposed revisions should be adopted provisionally for a period of one year.  An evaluation of the revised Time Bands Policy after two semesters is important to provide a reality check for these predictions and to evaluate any unforeseen effects.

III.D.10.  The proposed revisions to the Time Bands Policy are not intended to apply to the Summer Sessions, though it is likely that Summer scheduling practices also deserve attention.

IV.  SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AND COMMITTEE DISCUSSIONS

These issues were discussed at meetings of the Academic Operations and Standards Committee on September 18, October 2, October 16, and November 13, 1996 and February 12, February 26, March 12, and April 2, 1997.  General descriptions of these discussions were reported in UC documents 5806 F96,  5830 96F,  5860 96F, 5892 97S and 5896 97S.  Former Committee members who participated in early discussions include Kenneth Short and Joel Westra.  Valuable assistance in these discussions was provided by Lawrence Curry and Cecil Ward.

The abundant information provided by Cecil Ward (Space Allocation & Utilization Office, OPPA) and by Mario Lucchesi (Registrar) is greatly appreciated.  

The following statistical tabulations, database reports, and other documents were examined:   

(1)  The UH space office and what it does;  

(2)  Net Assignable Facilities Space by Function in Square Feet for Public Senior Colleges and Universities for the last 10 years;  

(3)  Statewide E&G Space Summary, 1986-1995; 

(4)  Statewide E&G Space Summary/FTE per sq. ft., 1990-1995; 

(5)  Summary of Space Projection Model for Higher Education Institutions in Texas 1996, including the five-factor model of the Coordinating Board, a summary and projection of the UH space deficit, and surplus/deficit comparisons with other institutions; 

(6)  Memorandum from the Coordinating Board summarizing Fall 1995 Room Utilization;  

(7)  UH System Existing Space Standards;

(8)  Memo from Mario Lucchesi November 13, 1996 concerning Room Utilization and Time Band Policy and Concerns;

(9)  Formulas for Space Utilization;

(10)  Coordinating Board Output Report 00365s0.348 Printed 12/16/96 for Fall 1996, which summarizes the distribution of organized classes across time bands; 

(11)  For comparison, the same report for Fall 1991;

(12)  Schedule of Class Rooms with Seat Capacity of 200 to 284;

(13)  Courses (Organized Classes) Taught Outside of Time Bands, Summary Report for Fall 1996;

(14)  Fall 1994 Survey of Students Who Failed to Complete the Enrollment Process;

(15)  Numbers of General Purpose Classrooms by Capacity, Fall 1986-Fall 1996, with memos, seating inventories by buildings, Calendar Board policies, scheduling policies;

(16)  Organized Classes Taught Outside of Time Bands, Detailed Report for Spring 1997;

(17)  Unmet Demand Summary Report for Spring 1996 as of 01/29/1996;

(18)  Unmet Demand Summary Report for Fall 1996 as of 09/03/1996;

(19)  Seat Demand Report Fall 1995;

(20)  Seat Demand Report Spring 1996;

(21)  Spring 1997 Class Schedule Development Information Packets Prepared For Academic Colleges and Departments by Office of Registration and Academic Records;

(22)  Tools for Managing Enrollment.