Chabot College
Academic Services
Program Review Report
2016 -2017
Year in the Cycle: TWO
Program: MUSIC RECORDING &
TECHNOLOGY
Submitted on: October 26, 2015
Contact: Eric Schultz
FINAL 9/24/15
Table of Contents
___ Year 1
Section 1: Who We Are
Section 2: Where We Are Now
Section 3: The Difference We Hope to Make
___ Year 2
Section 1: What Progress Have We Made?
Section 2: What Changes Do We Suggest?
___ Year 3
Section 1: What Have We Accomplished?
Section 2: What’s Next?
Required Appendices:
A: Budget History
B1: Course Learning Outcomes Assessment Schedule
B2: “Closing the Loop” Assessment Reflections
C: Program Learning Outcomes
D: A Few Questions
E: New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects
F1A: New Faculty Requests
F1B: Reassign Time Requests
F2A: Classified Staffing Requests
F2B: Student Assistant Requests
F3: FTEF Requests
F4: Academic Learning Support Requests
F5: Supplies Requests
F6: Services/Contracts and Conference/Travel Requests
F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests
F8: Facilities
YEAR TWO
Resource Request Spreadsheet Directions:
In addition to completing the narrative portion of program review, add all your requests to a single
Resource Request Spreadsheet:
a. Follow the link to the spreadsheet provided in Appendix F1A, save the spreadsheet where you
can continue to access it and add requested resources from each appendix to it as appropriate.
Once completed, submit to your Dean/Area Manager with this finalized Program Review
Narrative.
b. Requests should be made for augmented/ additional resources (more than what you are already
receiving). If you have questions about what constitutes an “additional/augmented” request,
please talk with your administrator who can tell you what maintenance resources you are
already receiving.
c. Prioritize your requests using the criteria on the spreadsheet. Your Administrator will compile a
master spreadsheet and prioritize for his or her entire area.
d. Submit resource requests on time so administrators can include requests in their prioritization
and discuss with their area at November division meetings.
1. What Progress Have We Made?
Complete Appendices A (Budget History), B1, C (PLO's), and D (A few questions) prior to writing your
narrative. You should also review your most recent success, equity, course sequence, and enrollment
data at http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data2015.asp. Limit your narrative to two
pages.
In year one, you established goals and action plans for program improvement. This section asks you to
reflect on the progress you have made toward those goals. This analysis will be used to inform future
budget decisions. In your narrative of two or less pages, address the following questions:
 What were your previous Program Review goals?
 Did you achieve those goals? Specifically describe your progress on the goals you set for student
learning, program learning, and Strategic Plan achievement.
 What are you most proud of?
 What challenges did you face that may have prevented achieving your goals?
 Cite relevant data in your narrative (e.g., efficiency, persistence, success, FT/PT faculty ratios,
CLO/PLO assessment results, external accreditation demands, etc.).
2. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Review the Strategic Plan goal and key strategies at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/StrategicPlan/SPforPR.pdf prior to completing your narrative.
Please complete Appendices E (New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects) and F1-8 (Resources
Requested) to further detail your narrative. Limit your narrative here to one page and reference
appendices where further detail can be found.
 What initiatives or projects are or could be underway to support student learning outcomes,
equity, and/or the College Strategic Plan Goal?
1
NARRATIVE
I. What Progress Have We Made?
Success Story
Simply put, last academic year was the best year for the Music Recording Technology
discipline at Chabot College in the history of the program. We enjoyed our highest
rates of student retention and success, we heard the highest quality student output
since the MURT program was created, and, most importantly, we cultivated a very
strong community in our program. By the end of last academic year, everyone involved
in the MURT program at Chabot felt like they were part of something.
This sense of community manifested itself in many positive ways. Students were more
intrinsically motivated to put in the hours and effort to do good work because they
knew that they had to keep pace with their peers—no one wanted to let anyone else
down. Students had a sense of ownership in the program, not only over their own
work, but also over the facilities and each other. Our students demonstrated a strong
sense of investment in each others’ work that had never been seen before.
Collaborations were numerous. Projects were abundant. The lab and studio were
constantly popping with activity. People were genuinely invested. Real student success
was everywhere.
In just the first few months of this ‘15/’16 academic year, it is quite clear that this
community spirit and rising tide of success has not diminished. Rather, we have
picked up right where we left off and at the time of this writing seem to be inevitably
headed for an even better year than last year (which is, of course, always the goal).
So, how did we get here? The biggest factor in all of this has been, without question,
the increase in student access to open lab/studio hours. That our excellent facilities
and equipment are available to our students—with instructor supervision—means that
students in the MURT program have a home. There is a place to go to where students
work on music, learn from each other, and have informal access to instructor
expertise.
This has been huge. Increased open lab/studio time has significantly enhanced every
student’s opportunity to work with technology in a technology-driven discipline. It has
provided the physical space—and headspace—for students to learn together. The
availability to the facilities has provided students with availability to each other, and
this has been the driving force behind the cultivation of a community that feeds itself
the intrinsic motivation and support system necessary to sustain success.
Another important factor in our current tide of success has been the return of the sole
full-timer in the discipline. As was discussed in depth in last year’s Program Review,
‘14/’15 was the first full year that Eric Schultz spent teaching in the MURT discipline
in 3 years. In fact, it was his first full year spent teaching in our new facility since it
was opened in 2012. Having a full-time lead faculty 100% immersed in program
instruction for the full year was yielded a highly positive impact, for all of the reasons
outlined in last year’s document. In truth, this was a more critical factor, with more
trickle-down impact, than was even imagined. Speaking frankly, I was a fool ever to
leave.
2
The above text has served as a narrative story telling of the MURT program in ‘14/’15.
As this is, after all, a bureaucratic document, it feels appropriate to bullet point the
relevant specifics of last academic year:
By the numbers: a comparison from 2013/2014 to 2014/2015







Overall MURT success rate in Fall up from 54% to 62% .
Overall MURT success rate in Spring up from 69% to 81%.
MURT success rate among African-American students up from 42.5% to 55%
(aggregate).
MURT success rate among Latino students up from 62% to 69% (aggregate).
MURT success rate among female students up from 25% to 59% in Fall; 64% to
90% in Spring.
Female course completion up from 16 students to 22 students (up 37.5%).
Discipline wide 3% non-success rate in Spring 2015
Collaborations, Events and Partnerships
 Chabot College was one of 12 schools on the Ableton College Tour in
2014/2105
o Ableton LIVE is one of the primary software platforms in the MURT
discipline and the industry standard music production software in the
commercial music industry. Based in Berlin, Germany.
o Dave Hillel, North American Brand Manager for Ableton, said that the
visit to Chabot was “the most enjoyable, memorable and fun” stop in his
memory. He has reached out to us to continue to develop a relationship
between Ableton and Chabot, which we are eager to reciprocate.
 Chabot students now attend monthly sessions of the San Francisco Ableton
User Group en masse at Ex’pressions College in Emeryville. We have had at
least 10 students in attendance at every session since our Ableton College Day.
We are easily the most well represented institution at these meetings, as well as
being one of the loudest and most participatory.
 Chabot Electronic Music Production II class enjoyed a successful collaboration
with the Digital Photography class in the Spring semester. Led by faculty
Aaron Deetz and Eric Schultz, students in the classes partnered up and
collaborated on 20 photo slideshows set to new music. The work was premiered
at the Chabot Student Art Spring Exhibit and was shared at the May CLPCCD
Board Meeting.
 Chabot Audio Recording I students participated in a collaboration with Acting
I students in a recorded voice over project that was graded work for each class.
Led by faculty Michael Rosen and Linda Amayo-Hassan, over 35 projects were
created in the Fall semester.
3
Pathways Clarification
In last year’s Program Review, we discussed the very pressing need for a codified
pathway (or set of pathways) in the MURT discipline. As of the time of this writing,
those needs are very much in the process of being addressed.
Specifically, there is a fully-formed proposal in Curricunet which updates all existing
MURT courses, adds 5 additional courses, creates 3 Certificates of Completion and
one A.A. degree in Music Industry & Technology.
All of these plans have been made with the support of discipline faculty and the
Division Dean. Tentative schedules, complete with projected faculty loads have been
created. CAH/FTEF calculations have been made which reflect the new schedules, and
a very shrewd scheduling plan has been outlined which keeps the increases in FTEF
expenditures to their most efficient possible totals.
These proposals are scheduled to be heard by the Curriculum Committee on the day
after this Program Review is due, so we cannot address them as if they are fait
accompli. Assuming the existing proposal is approved, Chabot students will have the
following to look forward to:
 Certificates of Completion in Audio Recording, Music Production, Music
Business Entrepreneurship, and Video Game Audio.
 AA in Music Industry & Technology.
 Brand new sub program in Video Game Audio, complete with 3 new courses.
 New course arrangement that significantly clarify the overall pathway of the
MURT track. (Specifically, Digital Audio Workstation MURT 20 as a universal
intro course)
We are very excited about these substantial and innovative improvements to our
curriculum. We feel that they reflect a leading edge of music industry & technology
education at the community college level, and that they have been constructed with
our students specifically in mind. This proposal is most definitely consistent with the
strategic plan of the college, and our hope is that these new courses and pathways will
provide students with a clear and relevant channel of study at Chabot College.
All of that said, these proposals will require some degree (although relatively quite
small) of increased institutional support. Those specifics are outlined in section 2 of
this narrative.
4
II. What Changes Do We Suggest?
Continuing Challenges
Despite the fact that last year was, by any measure, the best year in the history of the
program, we still face a number of ongoing challenges. Below is a summary of largescale issues that still present a barrier to student success:
Ongoing, sustainable financial support for software and hardware maintenance
While we enjoy one of the very best music technology facilities in the Bay Area—
especially among community colleges—there is yet to be any form of ongoing, annual
institutional support for software upgrades and hardware maintenance. This is
unacceptable.
Just this August, our technology lab faced a serious crisis. Lab computers were
upgraded to the newest operating system, but our primary recording software (less
that 2 years old at the time) had critical compatibility issues and needed to be
upgraded, program wide. Since there is no established budget for this, we had to fund
this mandatory, emergency upgrade out of our co-curricular fund. This fund had
enough to cover the cost, but only because the full-time instructor had the entire
share of the earned funds from a benefit concert (at which he was one of only 2
performers) into the co-curricular account. Were those funds not present, we would
have been without one of our three primary software platforms for what would likely
have been an extended period of time.
In the commercial music industry, software platforms evolve rapidly. In order to keep
up with these changes and provide our students with access to the most relevant and
up-to-date software, we are going to need an annually funded software budget. This
will provide both the instructor and Institutional Technology professionals at Chabot
with the ability to plan ahead the expenditures of a set budget to keep the lab and
studio seamlessly updated as needed.
We are requesting an annual budget of $5,000 for this purpose, as well as an
additional $1,000 for maintenance of the lab/studio hardware.
Increase Student Access To Open Lab/Studio
As stated above, the overwhelming, program-wide increase in student success can be
directly correlated to an increase in student access to the facilities. As the students
have more access to the facilities (since Fall 2012), student success has risen sharply.
The reasons for this should be self-evident: in a technology-driven discipline, the more
access that students have to the technology, the better they will do.
The data:
‘12/’13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 51% success rate (program-wide)
‘13/’14 – 12 open lab/studio hours per week – 61.5% success rate (program-wide)
‘14/’15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 71.5% success rate (program-wide)
We want to create even more opportunity for our students to have supervised access
to our lab/studio facility to further increase student success. This will prove to be
5
especially critical as our curriculum is about to expand significantly, potentially
increasing enrollment while decreasing open lab/studio access.
Our goal is to have the music technology lab and recording studio be accessible to
students—while supervised by either faculty or a qualified classified professional—for
30 hours a week during the semester. We have proposed two ways of supporting this
goal:
1) Add a 20 hour per week instructional computer lab specialist classified
position for the MURT lab; and/or
2) Provide 10 hours per semester of faculty reassign time for the explicit
purpose of providing more hours of supervised student access to the open
lab/studio.
Both of these requests have been detailed within the program review document.
Further, we feel that these requests qualify for equity funding, and we have included
these requests in the equity section of this document as well.
Technology Lab/Recording Studio Upkeep & Maintenance
Our music technology facility is among the very best educational facilities in all of the
Bay area, and it is arguably the very best facility among all the community colleges
north of Los Angeles. That said, we would very much like to keep it this way, and this
takes time, effort, and expertise.
Here is an itemized list of the aspects of our 2,300 sq. ft. facility which require
constant upkeep:
 Music Technology Lab
o 24-student stations and 1 instructor station, each with a computer,
audio interface and MIDI controller
 Each of the above stations has 8 independent user accounts,
meaning that there are 200 unique user accounts active in the
music tech lab in a given academic year
 Nearly all software and audio plug-ins must be separately
installed and activated for each user on each computer.
 Student Mixing Room
o In addition to our full studio, we have a small-scale student mixing room,
outfitted with its own computer, mixing console, 8-channel audio
interface, outboard signal processing, and 2.1 monitoring system
 Recording Studio
o We have an industry-standard, proper recording studio with a highly
complex, industry-standard computer setup in the control room. This
terminal has its own independent, more advanced set of software and
hardware. This must be in a constant state of readiness and functionality
as it is our primary port for all student recordings.
o Our recording studio is a 32-channel studio, meaning we can record 32
independent channels of audio simultaneously. It is not unusual for us
to do so in any given session. Some of the hardware involved in this
include:
 32 channel mixing console
 3 synchronous HD audio interfaces
6
240 points of balanced audio patching, integrating all audio links
within the control room
 104 independent tie lines of audio coming into the control room
from other rooms throughout the 1200 building
 4 channels of audio monitoring in the control room, with
capability for 5.1 surround
 16 channels of digitally interconnected (CAT-5) hearback lines
(monitoring for performers), which utilize a separate machine
room outside the studio.
 26 channels of ultra-high quality microphone preamplification in
addition to our console, in the form of 7 rack-mounted external
preamps
 A microphone cabinet of over 40 different microphones, exceeding
total value of $50,000
Musical Instruments
o Our facilities are stocked with an impressive array of industry-standard
musical instruments, all of which are regularly played by students and
require upkeep. They include:
 4 electric guitars
 2 acoustic guitars
 2 electric basses
 Full drum set
 5 foot baby grand piano
 76-key electronic drawbar Hammond organ
 $9,000 modular analog synthesizer
 3 table top analog synthesizers
 3 guitar amps
 2 bass amps
 3 keyboard amps
 3 DJ turntables and a DJ mixer
 6 live sound reinforcement mixing boards (4 analog, 2 digital)
 2 main PA speakers, a matching subwoofer, and 4 stage monitors
 Several thousand feet of cables


All of the above software and hardware are maintained by the music technology
faculty, of which there are presently two.
This is, as has hopefully been demonstrated, a very large job. At present, there is no
compensation for faculty to maintain the facility—it has all been done on a
volunteer basis.
In order to keep our facility and the equipment within it running at a level that our
students deserve, we are asking for 2 CAH per semester of reassign time for
faculty to maintain the music technology lab and studio as outlined above.
7
Increased FTEF for Proposed MURT Curriculum Expansion
As discussed above, we are currently on the verge of expanding our MURT curriculum
as we establish 3 new certificates, an A.A. degree and a brand new Video Game Audio
branch of our program. All of these plans have been made with the knowledge and
approval of the Division Dean, and we have worked to minimize the impact to our
FTEF expenditure. That said, these important changes will require an increase in
FTEF allocation to the MURT area.
Specifically, we are requesting an additional 11.5 CAH (.77 FTEF) per year for the
MURT program. Mostly, this covers the addition of the Video Game Audio courses.
The numerous positives of adding a Video Game Audio branch to our offerings should
be self-evident, even to non-industry observers. The Bay area is one of the major
world-wide hubs of the video game industry, and we will be only the second
community college in the Bay area to offer this kind of instruction. Jobs are available
in this industry, and there is a strong student interest in this field. It is a win-win-win:
students win, the college wins, and the community wins.
In order to add this program with minimal FTEF impact, the rest of the MURT area
has been streamlined and clarified. We feel that these changes are going to strengthen
all parts of the program, and that we have a plan that will accomplish this in the most
efficient way possible.
If anyone is interested in seeing the fine details of this plan, please contact Eric
Schultz, who will happily share the excel spreadsheets that outline all of the aspects of
these curricular changes and their impacts.
Thank you for reading.
8
Appendix A: Budget History and Impact
Audience: Budget Committee, PRBC, and Administrators
Purpose: This analysis describes your history of budget requests from the previous two years and
the impacts of funds received and needs that were not met. This history of documented need
can both support your narrative in Section A and provide additional information for Budget
Committee recommendations.
Instructions: Please provide the requested information, and fully explain the impact of the budget
decisions.
Classified Staffing (# of positions)
Supplies & Services
Technology/Equipment
2015-16
Budget
Requested
1
$1200
$49,500
Other
TOTAL
$2550
$53,250
Category
2015-16
Budget
Received
0
0
$49,500
(mid-year)
0
$49,500
2016-17
Budget
Requested
1
$1,000
$113,227
2016-17
Budget
Received
$5,000
$119,227
1. How has your investment of the budget monies you did receive improved student learning? When
you requested the funding, you provided a rationale. In this section, assess if the anticipated
positive impacts you projected have, in fact, been realized.
The equipment (6000) that was requested and funded have enhanced student learning by giving
students access to numerous pieces of industry-standard, up-to-the-minute equipment in the
professional audio world.
2. What has been the impact of not receiving some of your requested funding? How has student
learning been impacted, or safety compromised, or enrollment or retention negatively impacted?
Lack of funding for a classified studio position has limited the number of open lab hours to only those
that are directly supervised by Chabot faculty. Several time slots that could otherwise be used to allow
student access to the lab/studio continue to remain unused, limiting student access.
Lack of ongoing funding for software in our music technology lab has put us in a bad situation. This Fall,
we had to do an “emergency” upgrade to our primary software (ProTools) as the mandatory new
operating system created catastrophic compatibility issues. We ended up upgrading all of the
computers, but did so out of co-curricular funds, which is neither appropriate nor sustainable. We are
again asking for $5000 per year in ongoing software funds.
Lack of funding for conference attendance and professional organization dues has negatively impacted
opportunity for faculty to both engage fully in the larger professional audio community, thus limiting
networking access for student internships and opportunities. Lack of funding for Lynda.com
subscription has lead to diminished opportunity for faculty to stay up to date on critical industry
standard software development and updating.
9
Appendix B1: Student Learning Outcomes Assessment Reporting Schedule
I.
Course-Level Student Learning Outcomes & Assessment Reporting
(CLO-Closing the Loop).
A. Check One of the Following:
X No CLO-CTL forms were completed during this PR year. No Appendix B2 needs to be
submitted with this Year’s Program Review. Note: All courses must be assessed once at
least once every three years.
NOTE: We are assessing all MURT courses this semester and next
using the new PLO’s & CLO’s that have been introduced as a
component of our extensive Curricular proposal.
B. Calendar Instructions:
List all courses considered in this program review and indicate which year each course Closing
The Loop form was submitted in Program Review by marking submitted in the correct column.
Course
*List one course per line.
Add more rows as
needed.
All MURT courses being
assessed this semester
and next.
This Year’s Program
Review
*CTL forms must be
included with this PR.
10
Last Year’s Program
Review
2-Years Prior
*Note: These courses
must be assessed in the
next PR year.
Appendix C: Program Learning Outcomes
Considering your feedback, findings, and/or information that has arisen from the course level
discussions, please reflect on each of your Program Level Outcomes.
Program: __MURT____
NOTE: These are NEW PLO’s that are being implemented this academic year.
1. PLO #1: Students will learn and implement the fundamental technical skills
upon which to build a meaningful professional pathway into the music
industry.
2. PLO #2: Students will cultivate an essential aesthetic basis upon which to
make artistically viable, personally meaningful musical decisions.
3. PLO #3: Students will practice and demonstrate professional behaviors
required in the music industry.

PLO #4:
What questions or investigations arose as a result of these reflections or discussions?
These new PLO’s are the result of a revisiting of the MURT program in general as new courses
and degree/certificates are introduced. We feel that these are much more concise and a more
accurate reflection of the pedagogical goals of the program.
What program-level strengths have the assessment reflections revealed?
We’ll find out next year after we assess…
What actions has your discipline determined might be taken to enhance the learning of
students completing your program?
Without question, more access to the lab and studio have greatly enhanced student success. We’d like
to even further open up supervised lab/studio time to provide even more opportunity for student
access.
11
Appendix D: A Few Questions
Please answer the following questions with "yes" or "no". For any questions answered "no",
please provide an explanation. No explanation is required for "yes" answers. Write n/a if the
question does not apply to your area.
1. Have all of your course outlines been updated within the past five years?
a. Yes. Updated this semester.
2. Have you deactivated all inactive courses? (courses that haven’t been taught in five years or
won’t be taught in three years should be deactivated)
a. N/A
3. Have all of your courses been offered within the past five years? If no, why should those
courses remain in our college catalog?
a. As of this coming Spring, yes.
4. Do all of your courses have the required number of CLOs completed, with corresponding
rubrics? If no, identify the CLO work you still need to complete, and your timeline for
completing that work this semester
a. Every course now has updated CLO’s.
5. Have you assessed all of your courses and completed "closing the loop" forms for all of your
courses within the past three years? If no, identify which courses still require this work, and
your timeline for completing that work this semester.
a. No. My time as interim dean compromised this work. That said, we are assessing all
MURT courses this academic year.
6. Have you developed and assessed PLOs for all of your programs? If no, identify programs which
still require this work, and your timeline to complete that work this semester.
a. Yes.
7. If you have course sequences, is success in the first course a good predictor of success in the
subsequent course(s)?
a. There may be a statistical relationship there, but correlation/causation is not as easy to
pin down. Anecdotally, program instructors have a very good handle on how firstsemester “success” (in it’s various real-world forms) relate to second-semester success.
8. Does successful completion of College-level Math and/or English correlate positively with
success in your courses? If not, explain why you think this may be.
a. Not directly.
12
Appendix E: Proposal for New and Ongoing Initiatives and Projects (Complete for
each initiative/project)
Audience: Deans/Unit Administrators, PRBC, Foundation, Grants Committee, Equity, BSC, College Budget
Committee
Purpose: The project will require the support of additional and/or outside funding.
How does your project address the college's Strategic Plan goal, significantly improve student learning or
service, and/or address disproportionate impact?
We have seen clearly that increased supervised access to the MURT lab and recording studio has improved
student success. As the students have more access to the facilities (since Fall 2012), student success has risen
dramatically. The reasons for this should be self-evident: in a technology-driven discipline, the more access
that students have to the technology, the better they will do.
The data strongly supports this:
2012/13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 51% success rate (program-wide)
2013/14 – 12 open lab/studio hours per week – 61.5% success rate (program-wide)
2014/15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 71.5% success rate (program-wide)
Our goal is to create even more opportunity for our students to have supervised access to our lab/studio
facility to further increase student success. This will be especially helpful as our curriculum is about to
expand significantly, increasing enrollment while decreasing open access in the status quo.
What is your specific goal and measurable outcome? (Note: Complete the Equity/BSI proposal in Appendix E1 if
you would like to request these funds and indicate “see Equity/BSI proposal for detail”)
Our goal is to provide students with 30 hours per week of supervised open lab/studio time.
Our desired outcome is to maintain and further increase current levels of student success as the MURT
program, curriculum and enrollment continues to grow. Our (proposed) curricular changes are set to increase
the depth and rigor of instruction; we need to support this “raising of the bar” with increased student access
to the facilities.
What learning or service area outcomes does your project address? Where in your program review are these
outcomes and the results of assessment discussed (note: if assessment was completed during a different year,
please indicate which year).
Our outcomes (both course and program-wide) essentially address 3 focal areas of each course: technical
expertise, aesthetic development, and professional behavior.
Increasing supervised student access to the labs will provide the very best opportunity for students to grow
in all areas, which should then be reflected in the assessments. As we have not yet assessed these new PLO’s
& CLO’s, there is no prior data with which to compare apples to apples.
That said, increased, supervised access to facilities will provide students more time and access for the
following:
 Access to equipment to increase technical, hands-on familiarity.
 Access to the recording studio increases opportunity to create and record music at a higher level,
13

enhancing aesthetic development.
Access to the common facilities—across different courses in the MURT program—increases
opportunity for student interaction and collaboration, giving more time and occasion to hone
professional behaviors.
What is your action plan to achieve your goal?
Activity (brief description)
Hire a 20-hour classified staff to supervise open lab/studio
hours—particularly nighttime hours.
Target
Completion
Date
August
2016
If the above is not possible, having existing faculty cover these August
lab hours with reassign time
2016
Required Budget
(Split out personnel, supplies,
other categories)
20-hour per week
instructional computer lab
specialist
10 hours per week of
reassign time.
(10 hours lab reassign time
= 7.5 CAH per semester)
How will you manage the personnel needs?
New Hires:
Faculty # of positions
Classified staff # of positions 1
Reassigning existing employee(s) to the project; employee(s) current workload will be:
Covered by overload or part-time employee(s)
Covered by hiring temporary replacement(s)
Other, explain
At the end of the project period, the proposed project will:
Be completed (onetime only effort)
Require additional funding to continue and/or institutionalize the project
(obtained by/from):General Fund
Will the proposed project require facility modifications, additional space, or program relocation?
No
Yes, explain:
Will the proposed project involve subcontractors, collaborative partners, or cooperative agreements?
No
Yes, explain:
Do you know of any grant funding sources that would meet the needs of the proposed project?
No
Yes, list potential funding sources:
14
Appendix E1: Equity and Basic Skills Initiative Fund Requests:
Project Name: MURT 30 hours per week of open lab/studio
Contact Name: Eric Schultz
Division/Discipline/Program/Office: AHSS – Music Technology
Contact info: (email, campus phone, and cell phone) eschultz@chabotcollege.edu, 510-907-0196 (cell)
Check the student success indicator(s) your project will address
X ACCESS: Enroll more of a population group to match their representation in community.
X COURSE COMPLETION: Increase success rates in identified courses.
__ ESL AND BASIC SKILLS COMPLETION:
Increase success rates in ESL or Basic Skills courses, and
Increase the completion of degree/transfer courses by ESL or Basic Skills students.
__DEGREE AND CERTIFICATE COMPLETION:
Increase percent of degrees/certificates among degree/certificate-seeking students.
__TRANSFER
Increase percent of transfers to 4-year colleges among transfer-directed students.
Check the type of project you are proposing
X_ Curriculum/Program improvement ____ Outreach
___ Direct student intervention
___X_ Instructional Support
___ Faculty development
____ Research and Evaluation
___Other:
____ Coordination and Planning
To determine whether your project can be funded by Equity funds:
1) Does your proposal address disproportionate impact for any of the following target student
populations marked with an “X”? Please highlight the “X” that corresponds with your target
populations. (Equity funds must address specific opportunity gaps identified below with an “X”)
GOALS
Goal A:
Goal B:
Goal C:
Goal D1:
Goal D2:
Goal E:
Access
Course
ESL/Basic
Degree
Cert
Transfer
Completion Skills
Completion Completion
/ Success
Success
Rates
Males
X
Foster Youth
Students with
disabilities
Low-income
Veterans
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
American Indian or
Alaska Native
Asian
X
15
X
X
Black or African
American
Filipino
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Hispanic or Latino
Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander
White
X
X
X
X
WOMEN (MURT
courses are
historically less than
10% female,
creating a
discipline-specific
gender equity issue.
Increased access to
lab/studio time can
help to bring more
X
X
X
X
female students
into the fold by
providing access
and enhancing
success. The more
women who enroll
and succeed, the
more female
students enroll the
next year.)
2) COLLABORATIVE PARTNERS
In what ways does your project include collaboration between academic and student services and/or with the
community? (Equity proposals that partner to reach target populations are prioritized over proposals that do
not)
No partners identified at this time. The nature of the proposal is, admittedly, a much more internally focused
request.
To determine how your project fits into your discipline’s or program’s planning:
1) Is your project mentioned in your area’s latest program review?
_X_ Yes
__ No
2) Does your immediate administrator support this project?
__ No _X_ Yes
3) How have you shared this proposal with others in the relevant area, discipline, or division? When did this
conversation take place and who was involved?
16
Conversations with MURT adjunct instructors (Michael Rosen, specifically) regarding this request occur
regularly and are ongoing. Conversations with Music instructor Tim Harris has occurred this semester.
Conversation with Photo instructor Aaron Deetz and Architecture instructor Adrian Huang about the
effectiveness of supervised open lab hours have been ongoing. Conversations w MURT students about the
benefits of increased supervised open lab time is daily.
PROJECT GOALS, ACTIVITIES, BUDGET, OUTCOMES, AND EVALUATION
GOAL
What does your project hope to achieve overall?
Our goal is to provide Chabot Music Technology Students 30 hours per week of supervised open lab/studio
time. Achieving this goal will accomplish the larger goal of enhancing student retention and success in the
MURT area.
DOCUMENTING NEED AND SOLUTION
Please provide data to support the need for your project and the solution you propose.
We have seen clearly that increased supervised access to the MURT lab and recording studio has improved
student success. This is particularly true in minority groups, as well as our discipline-specific minority of
female students. As the students’ access to the facilities has risen, student success has risen. The reasons for
this should be self-evident: in a technology-driven discipline, the more access that students have to the
technology, the better they will do.
The data strongly supports this:
2012/13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 51% success rate (program-wide)
2013/14 – 12 open lab/studio hours per week – 61.5% success rate (program-wide)
2014/15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 71.5% success rate (program-wide)
This is particularly true among female, African-American and Latino students:
Female students
2012/13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 50% success rate – 12 total students
2014/15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 74.5% success rate – 22 total students
African-American Students
2012/13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 36% success rate
2014/15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 56% success rate
Latino Students
2012/13 – 6 open lab/studio hours per week – 47% success rate
2014/15 – 15 open lab/studio hours per week – 69.5% success rate
17
We would like to create even more opportunity for our students to have supervised access to our lab/studio
facility to further increase student success. This will be especially helpful as our curriculum is about to
expand significantly, potentially increasing enrollment while decreasing open access.
ACTIVITIES
Please list all the activities (A.1, A. 2, A.3, etc.) that you propose to do to reach your goal.
List activities by target date in chronological order.
Identify the responsible person/group for each activity, and who will be involved.
Request funding for 20-hour per week classified instructional technology lab specialist – Oct 2015
Request funding for 10 hours per semester reassign time for current faculty to supervise open lab/studio –
Oct 2015
Eric Schultz is contact person for both
BUDGET
Provide a budget that shows how the funds will be spent to support the activities.
Cost of 20-hour per week classified instructional technology lab specialist = ??
Cost of 10 additional hours per semester of reassign time for faculty to supervise open lab = 7.5 CAH per
semester (.5 FTEF)
EXPECTED OUTCOMES and EVALUATION
How will you know whether or not you have achieved your goal?
What measurable outcomes are you hoping to achieve for the student success indicator and target population
you chose?
How will you identify the students who are affected (are they part of a class, a program, or a service, or will you
need to track them individually)?
When the lab is open for 30 hours per week, our goal will be achieved.
Measurable outcomes are increased student success for African-American (75% target), Latino (80% target) and
female students (90% target) in MURT courses. Also, increased enrollment and retention of female students in
MURT courses (40% female overall enrollment target).
Students impacted will include all students enrolled in the MURT curriculum.
18
Appendix F1B: Reassign Time Request(s) [Acct. Category 1000]
Audience: Administrators
Purpose: Provide explanation and justification for work to be completed. (Note: positions require job
responsibility descriptions that are approved by the appropriate administrator(s).)
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Cite evidence and data to support your request,
including enrollment management data (EM Summary by Term) for the most recent three years,
student success and retention data, and any other pertinent information. Data is available at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/programreview/Data2015.asp
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Add
your requests to your spreadsheet under the 1000b tab and check the box below once they’ve been
added.
Total number of hours requested and the type of contact hour:
2 lab hours per semester for
studio maintenance (1.5 CAH per
semester)
10 lab hours per semester for
increased open lab/studio time
supervision (7.5 CAH per
semester)
☐
XXX
Summary of hours requested completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet
(please check box to left)
CHECK! (That box won’t check) 
19
Appendix F2A: Classified Staffing Request(s) [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Classified Prioritization Committee
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement positions for full-time and
part-time regular (permanent) classified professional positions (new, augmented and replacement
positions). Remember, student assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please complete a separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form for each position
requested and attach form(s) as an appendix to your Program Review.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet AND a
separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form must be completed for each position requested.
Add your requests to your spreadsheet under the 2000a tab and check the box below once they’ve
been added.
Please click here to find the link to the Classified Professional Staffing Request form:
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/prbc/APR/2016-17%20Classified%20Professionals%20Staffing%20Request%20Form.pdf
This is a fillable PDF. Please save the form, fill it out, then save again and check the box below once
you’ve done so. Submit your Classified Professionals Staffing Request form(s) along with your Program
Review Narrative and Resource Request spreadsheet.
Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested):
1
☐
Separate Classified Professionals Staffing Request form completed and attached to Program
Review for each position requested (please check box to left)
☐
Summary of positions requested completed in Program Review Resource Request
Spreadsheet (please check box to left)
(the above boxes will not check, but if they would, I’d have checked them!)
20
Appendix F2B: Student Assistant Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for student assistant positions. Remember, student
assistants are not to replace Classified Professional staff.
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal, safety, mandates, and accreditation issues. Please
cite any evidence or data to support your request. If these positions are categorically funded, include
and designate the funding source of new categorically-funded positions where continuation is
contingent upon available funding.
Rationale for proposed student assistant positions:
We are asking for 20 hours per week work study student (which we had last year, and have been
approved for this year) and 4 LA’s per semester (which we have this year). We are finding that studentto-student instruction in the lab component of MURT classes has been extremely helpful to student
learning and has positively contributed to our overall increased in student success. In the context of a
music technology class, students are often much more inclined to receive technical and musical advice
from a peer than the instructor (this is simple human nature). We have seen, both statistically and
anecdotally, that this is a very efficient and positive addition to the MURT program. We are asking only
to keep us at levels enjoyed over the past two years.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
We will know more in the next cycle.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Add
your requests to your spreadsheet under the 2000b tab and check the box below once they’ve been
added.
Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested):
☐
5 (1 work
study, 4 LA’s)
Summary of positions requested completed in Resource Request Spreadsheet (please check
box to left)
CHECK!
21
Appendix F3: FTEF Requests
Audience: Administrators, CEMC, PRBC
Purpose: To recommend changes in FTEF allocations for subsequent academic year and guide Deans
and CEMC in the allocation of FTEF to disciplines. For more information, see Article 29 (CEMC) of the
Faculty Contract.
Instructions: In the area below, please list your requested changes in course offerings (and
corresponding request in FTEF) and provide your rationale for these changes. Be sure to analyze
enrollment trends and other relevant data at
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/ProgramReview/Data2015.asp
NOTE: Based on the current proposal for overhaul of MURT curriculum—which includes, among other things,
the addition of a Video Game Audio course of study—the numbers requested below are part of a larger web
of overall program scheduling changes. As a result, the overall program impacts are being listed. Eric Schultz
is happy to supply much more detailed spreadsheets which show all of the details and calculations of these
proposed changes to anyone who is interested!
COURSE
New MURT
Curriculum
CURRENT
FTEF
(2015-16)
3.25
annually
ADDITIONAL
FTEF
NEEDED
.77 annually
CURRENT
SECTIONS
11
ADDITIONAL
SECTIONS
NEEDED
4
(due to the nature
of overall program
scheduling
changes, this is not
an apples-toapples number)
(aggregated
change,
considering all
aspects of
discipline
scheduling)
THIS INCLUDES
THE NEW
PROGRAM IN
VIDEO GAME
AUDIO
CURRENT
STUDENT #
SERVED
Max
capacity =
304
ADDITIONAL
STUDENT #
SERVED
Max
capacity =
380
76
additional
students
served
(however, this
doesn’t tell the
whole story)
22
Appendix F4: Academic Learning Support Requests [Acct. Category 2000]
Audience: Administrators, PRBC, Learning Connection
Purpose: Providing explanation and justification for new and replacement student assistants (tutors,
learning assistants, lab assistants, supplemental instruction, etc.).
Instructions: Please justify the need for your request. Discuss anticipated improvements in student
learning and contribution to the Strategic Plan goal. Please cite any evidence or data to support your
request. If this position is categorically funded, include and designate the funding source of new
categorically-funded position where continuation is contingent upon available funding.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet. Add
your requests to your spreadsheet under the 2000b tab and check the box below once they’ve been
added.
Total number of positions requested (please fill in number of positions requested):
☐
4
Summary of positions requested completed in Program Review Resource Request
Spreadsheet (please check box to left)
CHECK
Rationale for your proposal based on your program review conclusions. Include anticipated impact on
student learning outcomes and alignment with the strategic plan goal. Indicate if this request is for the
same, more, or fewer academic learning support positions.
This would maintain the status quo that we have established this academic year with 4 LA’s in
the MURT program. LA’s are extremely effective in helping MURT instructors double the quantity
of one-on-one assistance during lab time. The increase in coverage also enhances the depth and
time investment of one-on-one lab assistance.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
Will know more in the next cycle.
23
Appendix F5: Supplies Requests [Acct. Category 4000]
Audience: Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for supplies and service, and to guide the Budget Committee in allocation
of funds.
Instructions: In the area below, please list both your anticipated budgets and additional funding
requests for categories 4000. Do NOT include conferences and travel, which are submitted on Appendix
F6. Justify your request and explain in detail the need for any requested funds beyond those you
received this year. Please also look for opportunities to reduce spending, as funds are limited.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet.
Follow the link below and check the box below once they’ve been added.
☐
SUPPLIES tab (4000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please
check box to left)
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
24
Appendix F6: Contracts & Services, Conference & Travel Requests [Acct.
Category 5000]
Audience: Staff Development Committee, Administrators, Budget Committee, PRBC
Purpose: To request funding for contracts & services and conference attendance, and to guide the
Budget and Staff Development Committees in allocation of funds.
Instructions: Please list specific conferences/training programs, including specific information on the
name of the conference and location. Your rationale should discuss student learning goals and/or
connection to the Strategic Plan goal.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet.
Follow the link below and check the box below once they’ve been added.
1.
2.
There should be a separate line item for each contract or service.
Travel costs should be broken out and then totaled (e.g., airfare, mileage, hotel, etc.)
☐
TRAVEL/SERVICES tab (5000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet
(please check box to left)
Rationale:
We are in serious need of ongoing, sustainable, annually-budgeted funding for equipment
maintenance and repair in the Music Tech Lab and Recording Studio. Simply put, we need to have
access to funds to pay for things when they break, which they do. We are requesting a total of
$1000 per year: half in a contract for recording equipment repair/upkeep, and the other half for
musical instrument upkeep and repair.
How do the assessments that you preformed to measure student learning outcomes (SLO’s) or service
area outcomes (SAO’s) support this request?
It has been shown that access to the facilities has led to a significant increase in student success.
Logically, if the facilities are not functional, this would be an inhibitor of student access to
equipment, which thus inhibits student success.
25
Appendix F7: Technology and Other Equipment Requests [Acct. Category 6000]
Audience: Budget Committee, Technology Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Budget Committee and to inform priorities of the Technology
Committee.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If you're requesting
classroom technology, see
http://www.chabotcollege.edu/audiovisual/Chabot%20College%20Standard.pdf for the brands/model
numbers that are our current standards. If requesting multiple pieces of equipment, please rank order
those requests. Include shipping cost and taxes in your request.
Spreadsheet: To be considered, requests must be added to the Resource Request Spreadsheet.
Follow the link below and check the box below once they’ve been added.
☐
EQUIPMENT tab (6000) completed in Program Review Resource Request Spreadsheet (please
check box to left)
Please follow the link here to make your request and summarize below
http://intranet.clpccd.cc.ca.us/technologyrequest/default.htm
We are asking for an ongoing, sustainable, annually budgeted amount of $5,000 per year
for the explicit purpose of funding software upgrading, updating and acquisition in the
Music Technology Lab and studio. Detailed justification for this can be found in the
narrative section of this Program Review.
26
Appendix F8: Facilities Requests
Audience: Facilities Committee, Administrators
Purpose: To be read and responded to by Facilities Committee.
Background: Although some of the college's greatest needs involving new facilities cannot be met with
the limited amount of funding left from Measure B, smaller pressing needs can be addressed. Projects
that can be legally funded with bond dollars include the "repairing, constructing, acquiring, and
equipping of classrooms, labs, sites and facilities." In addition to approving the funding of projects, the
FC participates in addressing space needs on campus, catalogs repair concerns, and documents larger
facilities needs that might be included in future bond measures. Do NOT use this form for equipment or
supply requests.
Instructions: Please fill in the following as needed to justify your requests .If requesting more than one
facilities project, please rank order your requests.
Brief Title of Request (Project Name):
Building/Location: MURT Lab/Studio/1224/Band Room/Jazz Room/Stage One
Type of Request
___ Space Need
___ Small Repair
__X_ Large Repair
__X_ Building Concern
___ Larger Facility Need
___ Other (grounds, signage…)
Description of the facility or grounds project. Please be as specific as possible.
Above areas of the music department promised AV upgrades and remedies to the problems of the
2012 remodel. These problems have been thoroughly documented; Horne and Horner know what
they are. To date there have been 2 independent consultant/contractors out to take notes and make
a proposal to fix these issues. I have seen and signed off on two full proposals from those companies
to remedy the issues. Nothing has yet occurred, no work has yet been done. These are issues that
are not going away, it would be nice to have these addressed after 3 years of empty promises.
What educational programs or institutional purposes does this request support and with whom are you
collaborating?
MURT/Music/Theater
Schultz/Harris/Palacio/Hassan
Briefly describe how your request supports the Strategic Plan Goal?
In this particular situation, this question is not relevant.
27