AP 4021 Task Force Report:
Historic Preservation and Restoration (HPRT)
Fall 2013
Task Force Members
Bill Hole
Tony Sartori
Lynn Thiesen
Task Force Co Chairs
Bob Brown
Jeff Cummings
A recommended course of action
The committee voted to revitalize this program with significant qualifications by a
vote of 3-2.
Qualifications of the recommendation
The committee agreed that the HPRT program does not adequately address specific
industry targets or demand as a stand-alone program, nor should it continue as a full
standalone Associates Degree program. The qualifications of revitalization for this
program include redesigning the course offerings and curriculum to be an optional
certificate of achievement track that enhances the training and experience for students
pursuing a career in Construction Technology and also having an interest in green
sustainable/ reuse construction principles. This significant program modification will
require collaboration and support of the faculty in Construction Technology.
The factors used to make the recommendation
a. a summary of the data
The 5 year enrollment trend is downward from 164 students enrolled in 09/10
to 122 students enrolled in 12/13. Course fill rates have been consistently
below the district average with the exception of the 10/11 academic year that
was higher due to grant funded courses for the CCCs. The average course
enrollment in HPRT courses for the past 5 years has been 10.8 students per
section. Per section costs for the HPRT courses is well above the district
average with a 5 year average of $3895 per section.
The labor market demand score of 8 indicates moderate demand and
alignment locally and regionally.
b. an analysis of the data
The committee concluded that the data indicates enrollment levels and
program costs do not indicate that this is a sustainable program in its current
state. Despite significant anecdotal evidence and testimonials in support of the
program, and with large amounts of program funding raised through special
projects and grant writing over the years by faculty to develop the program
infrastructure, and its positive impact in the community, no significant
quantitative positive data has been seen in enrollments. The committee
recommends that specific courses that have historically higher enrollments be
the focus of a comprehensive program redesign.
A detailed assessment of the recommendations’ impact on the college’s overall
educational program and budget, impact on students, faculty, and staff involved
The committee feels that a significant program overhaul can improve the overall
enrollments in the HPRT courses and better serve a broader industry need within
construction technology. The anticipated higher enrollments will also reduce
individual section costs that are currently well above district averages. This
revitalization could potentially have a positive impact on the district’s overall
enrolments and help strengthen our Construction Technology student’s marketability.
The committee recognizes that the proposed revitalization would require a strong
collaboration effort between current CT faculty members in order to create an
effective new HPRT option to the existing CT program. Please note that the labor
market demand for green construction training and certification are marginal at best.
Details specific to the recommendation
a. A recommendation to restructure an existing program for greater effectiveness.
The comprehensive restructuring of this program would include the teach-out
and retiring of the HPRT Associates Degree as a standalone academic program.
The HPRT Certificate of Achievement would be aligned with the Construction
Technology AS degree as an optional certification with a focus on green
building to include the reuse and restoration of existing buildings. This process
and the development of the new certificate will require input from the
Construction Technology advisory committee and other industry leaders to
identify specific skills and course content.
b. Training/professional development for faculty and/or curriculum
changes/updates.
Program curriculum is current. The revitalization of this program would require
substantial curriculum development and potentially the creation of several new
courses, possibly requiring added faculty compensation. Current faculty and
staff would likely need to be retrained to properly deliver the new course
material.
c. Reallocation of resources.
Since there is already a full time tenured Construction Technology faculty
member assigned to this program, additional district resources for staffing
would not be required. A district commitment to the purchase of additional
equipment, supplies, training, and marketing efforts would have to be made.
d. A plan to teach out the current students enrolled in the degree.
In the spring of 2013 an analysis of current HPRT student’s degree and
certificate progress status was completed. At that time there were less than 20
students declared as HPRT majors. Course offerings in the fall of 2013 and in
the spring 2014 semester have been targeted towards those courses needed
for these students to complete their current course of study. If the
determination is to accept this recommendation for revitalization, further
effort will be made to ensure those students who have completed at least 75%
of the HPRT degree are given the opportunity to complete that pursuit by the
conclusion of the spring 2014 semester if at all possible.
A timeframe for resolution
The committee recommends that work begin immediately to address the
qualifications outlined in this recommendation with a goal of new program approvals
be secured prior to the Fall 2014 semester.
Addendum – all distributed and discussed documentation and meeting notes
AP 4021 Addendum
HPRT
College of the Redwoods Historic Preservation Revitalization Task Force Meeting Wednesday, October 28, 2013 Agenda 1. Introduction A. Overview/Review of the AP 4021 Process B. Expectations/objectives of the Task Force Committees 2. Review of Appendix B‐Quantitative Data 3. Review of Appendix C‐Qualitative Data 4. Scheduling Second and Third Meetings (1st and 3rd weeks of November) College of the Redwoods HPRT Revitalization Task Force Meeting Monday, October 28, 2013 Summary Notes Present: Bob Brown, Jeff Cummings, Tony Sartori, Bill Hole, Lynn Thiesen, Crislyn Parker‐support 1. Introduction  Clarifying what the process steps will be.  This is an interim AP; evaluation of the process will inform the permanent policy/process.  This process may be folded into other processes such as faculty prioritization (i.e. if program is recommended for revitalization, and full time faculty is needed, where does it fit into faculty prioritization process). A. Overview/Review of the AP 4021 Process:  Step 1, the Program Analysis Request Form, (Appendix A), was completed and signed off by the President, based on the recommendation of the program review committee.  Step 2, formation of the task force has also been completed.  Step 3 and 4 will be completed over the next two meetings.  Upon completion of discussion and data consideration, a voting rubric will be submitted, either by email or anonymously. Crislyn will tally and report to the committee. B. Expectations/objectives of the Task Force Committees  Ultimately, the task force role is to provide a recommendation to the president based on discussion of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.  Goal of each task force group is to maintain consistency during the process and remain objective.  The second and third meetings will be working through the data and deciding whether the program should, based on documentation, be revitalized, suspended or discontinued. This will be done by anonymous ballot.  The Co‐chairs will prepare the report, including evidentiary observations and, possibly, include program revitalization suggestions, and submit to the president by December 1. 2. Review of Appendix B‐Quantitative Data:  IR prepared the quantitative data and it was sent to committee members.  There was some discussion regarding the quantitative data, regarding information not available through data. This is the type of information that comes under the qualitative heading. 3. Review of Appendix C‐Qualitative Data:  Between Monday’s meeting and the second meeting, qualitative can be gathered and sent to Crislyn, who will put into one PDF for distribution; or submitted to the committee as a whole via email. Qualitative data can be more subjective, and it is agreed that any brought forward needs to include some type of quantifiable data.  Targets of Opportunity and regional data may be used, as well. College of the Redwoods HPRT Revitalization Task Force Meeting Monday, October 28, 2013 

The committee discussed how to address the qualitative data. For example, Title V states a student should reasonably expect to complete a program in a two year time frame (or four consecutive semesters), and this can be factored into the qualitative considerations. The committee should look at a program from the perspective of how it fits into the institution’s mission and goals. 4. Scheduling Second and Third Meetings (1st and 3rd weeks of November):  Wed 11/6 (tentative) and Wed 11/20, 9a – 11a College of the Redwoods Historic Preservation Revitalization Task Force Wednesday, November 6, 2013, 9am ‐ 11am General Agenda Objective: The purpose of this meeting is to objectively review all information 1. Program Analysis Form: Why this program is in the AP 4021 process (attached) 2. Review quantitative and qualitative data in areas specified 3. Review prior year’s program year reviews (Please go to http://inside.redwoods.edu/programreview/archives.asp to review prior years’ program reviews.) 4. Complete Strengths and Challenges Table College of the Redwoods HPRT Revitalization Task Force Meeting Monday, October 28, 2013 Summary Notes Present: Bob Brown, Jeff Cummings, Tony Sartori, Bill Hole, Lynn Thiesen, Crislyn Parker‐support 1. Introduction  Clarifying what the process steps will be.  This is an interim AP; evaluation of the process will inform the permanent policy/process.  This process may be folded into other processes such as faculty prioritization (i.e. if program is recommended for revitalization, and full time faculty is needed, where does it fit into faculty prioritization process). A. Overview/Review of the AP 4021 Process:  Step 1, the Program Analysis Request Form, (Appendix A), was completed and signed off by the President, based on the recommendation of the program review committee.  Step 2, formation of the task force has also been completed.  Step 3 and 4 will be completed over the next two meetings.  Upon completion of discussion and data consideration, a voting rubric will be submitted, either by email or anonymously. Crislyn will tally and report to the committee. B. Expectations/objectives of the Task Force Committees  Ultimately, the task force role is to provide a recommendation to the president based on discussion of the quantitative and qualitative evidence.  Goal of each task force group is to maintain consistency during the process and remain objective.  The second and third meetings will be working through the data and deciding whether the program should, based on documentation, be revitalized, suspended or discontinued. This will be done by anonymous ballot.  The Co‐chairs will prepare the report, including evidentiary observations and, possibly, include program revitalization suggestions, and submit to the president by December 1. 2. Review of Appendix B‐Quantitative Data:  IR prepared the quantitative data and it was sent to committee members.  There was some discussion regarding the quantitative data, regarding information not available through data. This is the type of information that comes under the qualitative heading. 3. Review of Appendix C‐Qualitative Data:  Between Monday’s meeting and the second meeting, qualitative can be gathered and sent to Crislyn, who will put into one PDF for distribution; or submitted to the committee as a whole via email. Qualitative data can be more subjective, and it is agreed that any brought forward needs to include some type of quantifiable data.  Targets of Opportunity and regional data may be used, as well. College of the Redwoods HPRT Revitalization Task Force Meeting Monday, October 28, 2013 

The committee discussed how to address the qualitative data. For example, Title V states a student should reasonably expect to complete a program in a two year time frame (or four consecutive semesters), and this can be factored into the qualitative considerations. The committee should look at a program from the perspective of how it fits into the institution’s mission and goals. 4. Scheduling Second and Third Meetings (1st and 3rd weeks of November):  Wed 11/6 (tentative) and Wed 11/20, 9a – 11a PROGRAM ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Program Name: Historic Preservation and Restoration
This Program Analysis Request must be supported by the program review or other appropriate data and shall be
submitted to the President/Superintendent and the President/Superintendent will determine if a Task Force
should be convened to evaluate the program for revitalization, suspension or discontinuance.
Please check the indicators that triggered the initiation of the program revitalization, suspension or
discontinuance process. Please attach the program’s most recent Program Review to this proposal request.
MULTIPLE INDICATORS (please check multiple indicators below)

X
Multiple Indicators (please check the indicators below)
Enrollment has declined at least three of the last five years.
FTES/FTEF is consistently below the district average, or has declined at least three of the last
five years.
Success rates are consistently below the district average, or have declined at least three of the
last five years.
Retention rates are consistently below the district average, or have declined at least three of
the last five years.
Program completions are consistently below the division’s district average, or have declined
at least three of the last five years.
Insufficient availability of courses for students to complete the program within its stated
duration
Nonaligned with state, the Chancellor’s Office priorities or College mission
Nonaligned with federal and state law
Lack of available program personnel (faculty/staff)
Inadequate equipment and/or facilities
Changes in the local and/or regional job market
Changes in community/student needs or interests
Change in transfer requirements
Diminished outside funding resources
Program creates financial hardship for the institution
Budget concerns and lack of sufficient funding
Outdated curriculum (greater than 10% of courses out of date)
Course and/or program outcomes not on track for complete assessment during 2-year cycle.
Other:
The PRC noted that if HPRT is only one of two programs of this type offered in
the west; however, if so, why are there not more enrollments? One way to support programs
low in enrollments is by aligning with another program; however, HPRT is a stand-a-alone
program that does not carrying its weight as a program and that other classes cannot support.
PRC also noted that the two year assessments are not on track and assessment reporting is not
completed.
PRC and Keith Snow-Flamer
Name of Requestor
Approved
President/Superintendent
April 29, 2013
Date
Denied
Date
Office of Institutional Research
Oct 25, 2013
Historic Preservation & Restoration
Program Analysis Form – Quantitative Date
Program Revitalization, Suspension and/or Discontinuance
Indicator # Indicator Title
1 Student Enrollment
2 Class Sections
Offered
3
4
5
6
Fill Rates
FTES
FTES/FTEF
Term-to-Term
Persistence
7 Course Retention
8 Course Success
9 Degree & Certificate
Completions
10 Instructional
Cost/FTES
11 Labor Market
Demand
20092010
164
15
20102011
144
10
20112012
127
13
20122013
122
13
48%
18.9
14.9
66%
22.6
19.7
85%
26.7
23.6
57%
20.8
15.4
44%
20.5
16.5
88%
72%
AS: 3
CA: 0
95%
84%
AS: 2
CA: 0
89%
77%
AS: 2
CA: 0
95%
83%
AS: 1
CA: 8
89%
82%
AS: 1
CA: 4
87%
69%
$4,816
$3,386
$2,938
$3,817
$4,520
$2,127
8/15
Targets
of
Opport
unity
3
12 Number of
Program/area
transfers
District
Average Rates
(2012-2013 )
20082009
124
12
66%
26.8
Not available
15 indicates a program highest in labor market demand.
Priority
Sectors
Emergent
Sectors
Most Job
Openings
Fastest
Growth
Total
1
1
2
1
8
Not available
Indicator
#
1
Indicator Title
Student Enrollment
Definition
Census enrollment in all courses identified as belonging in the program. This is the same set of
courses included in the 2012-2013 program review dataset.
2
Class Sections
Offered
The number of class sections that were active at census. Does not include cancelled sections.
Cross-listed sections are counted separately.
3
Fill Rates
The total census enrollment in all sections divided by the total capacity of those sections.
4
FTES
Full-time equivalent students enrolled in all courses identified as belonging to the program. One
FTES is equivalent to 525 student contact hours.
5
FTES/FTEF
6
Term-to-Term
Persistence
7
Course Retention
The amount of full-time equivalent students yielded by every full-time equivalent faculty. One
FTEF is equivalent to 45 TLUs.
This element is not available at this time because it requires reliable identification of students in
the program prior to graduation. Student's declared program is found to be unreliable by many
programs.
The percentage of students enrolled on Census Day who remained enrolled in that course
through the last day and received any grade other than a “W”.
8
Course Success
9
Degree & Certificate
Completions
Instructional
Cost/FTES
10
11
The ratio of the instructional cost of program course offerings to the number of full-time
equivalent students yielded. Cost is based on the average cost per TLU of full- and part-time
faculty.
Labor Market
Demand
Targets of
Opportunity
Priority Sectors
Emergent Sectors
12
The percentage of students enrolled in a course on Census Day who complete the course with a
successful grade (A, B, C, P, CR).
The number of students awarded degrees and certificates recognized by the Chancellor's Office.
The six targets of opportunity were evaluated to determine if the program (3) was closely
related, (2) was indirectly related, or (1) was not related to a target of opportunity. The target
area yielding the highest number was used. http://www.northcoastprosperity.com/localeconomy/targets
Sectors identified in the "Doing What Matters for Jobs and the Economy" in the Northern
Coastal Region that are a priority focus. The program (3) was closely related, (2) was indirectly
related, or (1) was not related to a priority sector.
ahttp://doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu/ResourceMap/NorthernCoastal.aspx
Sectors identified in the "Doing What Matters for Jobs and the Economy" in the Northern
Coastal Region that are emergent. The program (3) was closely related, (2) was indirectly
related, or (1) was not related to an emergent sector.
ahttp://doingwhatmatters.cccco.edu/ResourceMap/NorthernCoastal.aspx
Most Job Openings
Uses the top 50 fastest growing occupations in the North Coast Region between 2008-2018.
This information comes from the State of California's LMI for the North Coast Region:
http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/humbo.htm The program (3) was directly related
to a job that fell into the top 1-25, (2) was directly related to a job that fell into the bottom 2550, (1) was not related to a job that fell on the list of top 50.
Fastest Job Growth
Uses the top 50 occupations with the most job openings in the North Coast Region between
2008-2018. This information comes from the State of California's LMI for the North Coast
Region: http://www.calmis.ca.gov/htmlfile/county/humbo.htm
The
program (3) was directly related to a job that fell into the top 1-25, (2) was directly related to a
job that fell into the bottom 25-50, (1) was not related to a job that fell on the list of top 50.
Number of
Program/area
transfers
This element is not available at this time because it requires reliable identification of students in
the program who are not necessarily degree/cert recipients. Student's declared program is found
to be unreliable by many programs.
AP4021–CT.HPRTDiscussionTopics–BillHole
November6,2013
PreparedforAP4021Taskforcemeetingasevidence
Topic1–HPRTshouldnotbechallenged,yetsupportedbytheDistrictforthequality
ofstudentlearningandtheaddedbenefitsitbringstothecollegeandcommunity.
CT.HPRTmeetsbothChancellor’sOfficepriority#2,andCRMission#2.Itisaviable
CTtrainingprogramforsustainableconstructionskillsusedinbuildingreuse,
remodelingandrehabilitationofhistoricresources,theonlybranchofCTatCR.
Programmarketingislargelyfacultydrivenandhasreachedmanybecauseof
newspaper,mediacoverageonprojects,webpresence,postedfliersaboutclasseseach
semester,etc.
Thecommunityandprogramalumnipartnerwiththecollegetosupportthisprogram
andseeitasaviablepartofHumboldtCountyandanassettoCollegeoftheRedwoods.
Data:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Lettersofsupport
StudentsstillmovingtoHumboldtCo.despiteaction–Fall2013
FieldSchoolsupportbycommunity
CTProgramumbrelladiagram
HPRT10/25/13ProgramOverview
Awardsbylocalpreservationsociety
Topic2–DistrictinitiatedprogramdiscontinuancebyearlyMarch,withoutdue
academicprocess,andoutsideofexistingAP4021process.
NormalexpendituresforfinalCTEAgrantfundswerecancelledbyMarch12,“untilthe
futureofHPRTisdecided”.Thiswasafacultywrittengrantthatcompromised
instructionalsuppliesneedstocompletetheannualgrantplanandshouldnothave
beenrestricted.
ProgramreviewexecutivesummarywasnotreleasedtofacultyuntilafterApril23rd,
yettheprocesshadbegun.StudentswerebeingadvisednottomovetoHumboldtfor
HPRTbetweenMarchandJulybecauseofdiscontinuance,thoughtheprocesswas
officiallyimplementedinJulyandwithoutreviewuntilOctober.
March25thFacultyBillHolewasdirectedtoconsider2013/14yearwithoutHPRT.
April3rdjointCT/DTfacultymeetingwithDeanCummingstodiscussthe2013/14
yearwithachangeinloadforBillHolewiththereductionofHPRTsections.
April8thmeetingwithDeanCummings.“IwillwriteallofHPRTstudents”…”HPRThas
tobeapartoftheCTprogram”.ScottStoverwasassignedtodevelopalternative
coursesforexistingHPRTstudents.BillHolewaslefttoworkwithstudentsand
discussalternativeEd.Plans.Todate,HPRTstudentshavenotbeencontactedby
DistricttodiscussalternativeEducationalPlansconsideringFall13course
discontinuance.
1
1
AP4021–CT.HPRTDiscussionTopics–BillHole
November6,2013
May1,CTEmarketingbrochureswereorderedforStudentServicesandCTEoffices,
excludingHPRT.
DeanCummingsdidnotattendthe2HPRTcommunityadvisorycommitteemeetings
onFeb.22nd,orApril27th,wherecommitteemembersbegantoaddressCRbudget
issues,andideasofrebrandingforincreasedenrollmentsandasustainablefuture.
Bymid‐summeranewAP4021InterimProcesswaspassedwhichdeniesthefair
processofpeerreviewthatincludescommunity/industryadvisorycommittee
membersatthetable,alegalrequirementforfacultyinCTEprograms.
Data:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Calendarofevents–BillHole
E‐mailrecords
AP40212011version
HPRTCommunityAdvisoryminutes2/22,4/27/13
Email/phonecommunicationbyBillHolewithstudentsadvisednottoenrollinHPRTbecause
ofdiscontinuance
May1,2013CTEBrochureprintingrequests:StudentServices,CTEOffice
BoardPolicy4102,CTEAPerkinsGrantcriteria,CA.TitleVEd.Code,DeanCummingsdirectives.
Topic3–April23,2013ProgramReviewexecutivesummarymisrepresenteddata,
andasinyearsbefore,gavetheauthornoopportunitytoexplainandinterpret
narrative.TheAP4021processbeganbeforePRCcompletedreport.
ProgramReviewApril22minutesdidn’tincludeHPRTwithotherfourprograms,asif
thiswasmanipulatedafter‐the‐fact,outsideofcommittee.
April23Executivesummarystated“…thecollegecannotrunaprogramwith8
students”.Districtdatareflectsmorelikea101.Somearetakingfocusedcourseswhile
othersarefollowingtheired.Plansforone‐yearcertification,ortwo‐yearA.S.degree,
andothersentertheprogramwithoneplan,andstayontocompletemorecourses,
andsometimestheCT.Res.certificate.
November1AppendixAstatesaquestionforthefirsttimeabout2programsofits
typeinthewest…whyaretherenotmoreenrollments?,doesn’tappearfromoriginal
PRCsummary.Theanswerisprettysimple,asstatedovertheyearsinprogramreview
summariesbyauthor…lackofDistrictmarketingandfundingisaproblem.
Also,dataseemsincorrectthat“HPRTisastand‐a‐aloneprogram…andthatother
classescannotsupport”.HPRT is another of many “stand-alone” programs at CR, carries
more than its weight and has always been an integral component of CT as the only
construction training on existing buildings, not a new fad, but mostly what Humboldt
County builders have to do to make a living.
2
2
AP4021–CT.HPRTDiscussionTopics–BillHole
November6,2013
HPRT is one of the more inclusive of Applied Tech. programs. Other programs that are
supported by HPRT:
 DT (DT23 required for degree). DT 23 students drew plans for both the 1892 field
school, and the 1885 Carson Mansion,
 CT.Res.Carpentry (CT 80, 90 required for degree). Some CT.Res. students take
HPRT courses.
 CT.Cabinetmaking. CT students constructed period cabinets for the 1892 Annie B.
Ryan field school in 2012 when CT was not constructing a student project house.
 HPRT’s CT16 Architectural Millwork is a course offered to Cabinetmaking
certificate students as an option for completion.
 CT.Res.Wiring students have on 3 separate sessions used the 1892 field school to
remove 3 generations of electrical wiring, then completely rewire new to modern
code, while being trained on techniques to avoid damaging original lath and plaster
walls/tall wooden baseboards.
 IT25 is required for HPRT degree.
 Welding Tech. (demo cast iron repair and brazing).
 DM63 (student class-project book).
 Community Ed. Offers Maintenance Technician and Basic Home Repair courses at
the HPRT field school, taught by associate faculty Bob Felter.
 Community Ed., EDD, and WIB all relied on HPRT lead faculty to train 50 CCC
pre-apprenticeship students and advanced jobs-retraining workers for the hands-on
component of the Green Jobs training in Fall 2010, Spring 2011.
Data:
1. 2009‐13filldata
2. Programreviewsummaries2007‐13
Topic4–HPRTisnotexpensivetotheDistrict.
ConsideringALLoffactors,itmaybelookedatasfinanciallyneutral,considering
expensesandcostssavedbythedistrictfromcommunitysupportandfacultydriven
grants,communitygrantsanddonations/contributionstotheprogram.
DistrictdataisnarrowandnottakingintoaccountthatHPRTisoneofthebest
examplesofself‐reliancethroughfacultycommitmenttoCRandqualityofstudent
learning.
CarpentryandtradecrafteducationisessentialtothefutureofCollegeofthe
RedwoodsConstructionTechnologyPrograms.Asin2010,withtheproposalby
PresidentMarseetodismantleandstoptheStudentProjectHouse,thisprocessof
dismantlingHPRTisnotprudentfor“what’sbestforCRstudentsandthecommunity”;
onlyeconomicallymotivated.
3
3
AP4021–CT.HPRTDiscussionTopics–BillHole
November6,2013
SinceBillHole’s2004/05sabbaticalandsubsequentintegrationofthe“no‐cost”field
schoolintoaregularclassroomenvironment,studentshavebetterqualityoflearning,
andthecollegehasfewerexpensesforfacilitiesbecauseofthefieldapproachto
learning.Thisaddsworktofaculty,yetmaintainsahigh‐qualityfieldexperiencethat
improvesstudentsuccess.
Data:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
CT:HPRTProgramandFieldSchoolExpenseHistoryGraphMay2013update–BillHole
GrantsearnedforConstructionTechnologyDepartment4/29/13update–BillHole
HPRT10/25/13ProgramOverview
Marketing–media,conferencelectures&workshops,coursefliers
Communitypartnerships–PresidioTrust,CityofEureka,InkPeopleCenterfortheArts,
PiersonsBuildingCenter,ArcataScrapandSalvage,DancoandSamoaGroup,RobArkley,Kurt
Kramer,AlexStillman,QualityInn,TrueCutLumber,Don’sRental,R&SRoofingSupply,
CamptonElectric,HumboldtBayFederalWildlifeRefuge,ArcataCity,HumboldtCounty
PlanningDept.,andmore.
6. Specialtrainingprojects
7. State,national,internationalexposure
8. StudentClubinvolvement
9. InternshipOpportunities–BLM/Falk,CA.StateParks,HistoricGreen,PreservationTrades
Network,HistoriCorps,WorldMonumentsFund,andmore.
10. ServiceLearningandcommunitysponsoredfieldschoolsitesinclude:
a. CarsonMansion–Ingomarclub
b. BaysideGrange
c. HumboldtCountyAirport
d. ArkleyCenterfortheArts
e. MorrisGravesArtMuseum–HumboldtArtsCouncil
f. InkPeopleCenterfortheArts–AnnieB.RyanFieldSchoolpast7years
g. HumboldtBayFederalWildlifeRefuge
h. HumboldtCountyHistoricalSociety
i. KellyMartin
j. PresidioofSanFrancisco
k. SamoaTown
l. …andmore
Topic5–Enrollmentisbothhigh&low,notconsistentlylow.
WhileHPRThasearnedasolidreputationforqualityhands‐ontraining,sometime
coursesarecancelledforlowenrollment,onlytobeofferedatalatertimewithhigher
enrollment.
Technicalhands‐onlabssometimesdorequire<20studentsthatBoardPolicy
requestsbecause:
 Facilitiesaren’tappropriatelyoutfitted,yetweworkwithwhatwehave
 Fundingforinstructionalsuppliesareinsufficient,leadingtolesstoolsand
hands‐onpracticewhentheclasscountsarehigher.
 Safetyofstudentsdecreasesafter12‐15:1trainingratio(student:instructor)in
fieldschoolandmaterialsciencelaboratorysettings.
4
4
AP4021–CT.HPRTDiscussionTopics–BillHole
November6,2013
CT.HPRTisaprogramnotmarketedoftenbytheDistrictandhashistoricallybeen
drivenbyleadfaculty/programdirector.OftenHumboldtCountyresidentsare
surprisedtofindthecoursesavailable,claimingtheyhadnoknowledgeofsuch
coursesatCR.OutofareaandstatestudentsfindCT.HPRTontheweblargelybecause
ofleadfacultywebsitedevelopmentandHPRStudentClubBlogsite.
Data:
1. Enrollmentdataovertheyears
2. Programreviewsummaries2007‐13
3. MarketingexamplessuppliedbyBillHole
4. Preserveandrestore.blogsot.com,
http://redwoods.edu/departments/construction/Restoration/index.asp
Insummary,CT.HPRTisaviablecomponentofConstructionTechnology.Thevast
investmentofmoneyandmanpowertocreate,expand,market,fund,andprovide
excellenteducationinanichefieldofconstructionwouldbestservetheDistrictinthe
long‐runtoaddsupporttocontinue,notjeopardizethefuturebydisregardingand
harassingfacultyandstudents.AllinvolvedwithHPRTwouldaskyoursupportto
maintainthisasthetruly“sustainable”constructionprogram.
Caveat:Informationgatheredisbasedonavailabledatatoleadfaculty/programdirectorand
timeavailablegivenanacceleratedtime‐tabletodigestextensiveHPRTprogramarchives.
5
5
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview
The data below was compiled to support the history CT.HPRT as it progresses through AP4021
process during Fall 2013. It is not all-inclusive, yet a fair summary of the amount of work is involved
to develop, and then maintain a dynamic hands-on, rigorous construction technology program, unique
to College of the Redwoods.
The economics of developing a program like HPRT is well over $2,000,000 when you consider faculty
and staff salaries, along with the magnitude of investment in equipment, instructional supplies,
marketing and grant writing.
It is clear by this process that the District has no depth of knowledge of the commitment and
investment to develop the still only building preservation construction training program in California.
As a niche program, it has earned its role in the national arena of hands-on preservation training
programs that continues to draw out-of-area students to Humboldt County.
As we move into a new generation of students and changing economy that weighs interest in
sustainable and green buildings, preservation of existing buildings becomes a key player in the
movement. Maintaining a well-rooted program with a 17-year history would cost less than removing it
as one would an “old building” to then invest anew into something that would still revolve around
teaching sustainable building practices.
1. Students first – program focus is on student success and job training in a broad field



Program Completers – earned Certificate and/or A.S. Degree, or completed focused
courses for current job improvement.
Student demographics – age 14–74, undergraduate degrees/certificates, working students,
youth conservation corps, homeowners, agency planners and staff, agency maintenance
workers, high school HROP, graduate students, art students, Academy of the Redwoods
students, tradespeople.
6 more students out of our community…that’s all we need on a regular basis to keep lab
classes and the Field School working every semester…instead of the repetitive issue of
“Bill, this class needs to be cancelled because there aren’t enough students enrolled”.
Marketing strategies generally fall solely on faculty w/o District support.
2. What has with HPRT? 1996-2013
 $114,075 State grant for Rick’s House - year 1 and over the past
12 years, brought to CR over $300,000 in grants.
 First certificated HPRT program west of Mississippi.
 First A.S. degree HPRT program west of Mississippi, now the Rockies.
 Presidio Trust – 2 years resulting in approx. $150,00 contract funds and FTE’s for approx.
165 students through the training. Presidio Trust also allowed CR students Fine
Woodworking Program, Ft. Bragg campus, and Eureka Art Program to be lodged in the
Presidio historic buildings when they attended San Francisco field trips – 2002-?
 Helped facilitate OHP grant funded “Taking Care of History Workshop” @ Presidio
 Pt. Cabrillo Light Station – 3 years.
 Attended Pacific Northwest Field School, Univ. Oregon to analyze “field schools”, 2004.
1
10/25/13 update
6
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview



Sabbatical granted to purchase historic home, develop work strategy and curriculum to
continue into “field school” training for future HPRT students, performed numerous
building assessments to develop curriculum for CT 13, 2004-05.
Greater Little Zion Baptist Church Floor Restoration, Holy Cross neighborhood, New
Orleans, 2006 – 1st neighborhood church to re-open post-Katrina
Developed first Field School for building conservation and sustainable rehab in CA., in
community partnership with the Ink People Center for the Arts, Eureka City, past HPRT
alumni, local supplier Bill Pierson, 2006
3. Awards






Governors Award for Historic Preservation (HPRT Program) – 2001
Governors Award for Historic Preservation (Pt. Cabrillo Light Station Restoration Project)
– 2007
California Preservation Foundation Presidents Award (HPRT Program) – 2001
Eureka Heritage Society Annual Preservation Award (HPRT Program) – 2001
Eureka Heritage Society Annual Preservation Award (HPRT Instructors…all) – 2010
Eureka Heritage Society Preservationist of the Year Award – Bill - 2013
4. A Sustainable Future





Job Placement – Local, state and nationally. Completers mostly find work, not all in
HPRT.
Internship opportunities – Local, state and nationally. (DPR, HistoriCorps, Historic Green,
NPS)
Curriculum upgrades and modifications are implemented to support today’s
sustainable/green needs for building reuse and carpentry for existing building training.
Building maintenance and adaptive reuse training fits employment targets of opportunity.
Community Education program at CR begins Basic Home Repair and Maintenance
Technician training using HPRT field school and associate faculty.
5. CT.HPRT needs your help






2
Your support and input is valuable to succeed into a sustainable future.
Six more students needed on a regular basis…vs. – “class needs to be cancelled because
there are only eight students enrolled.” Marketing funding is necessary.
Marketing on internet, national publications and local media.
State advocacy through letters of support; follow through with inter-agency internship
agreements (California Conservation Corp, Dept. of Parks and Recreation).
Support staff to keep program outreach current and marketing/survey data compiled for
meaningful data;
District buy-in to support to carry the smaller enrolled courses while we build the next
phase of program.
10/25/13 update
7
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview
HPRT Program Timeline
1996 –
1. By Administrative request, began Certificate of Completion six-course program “First
Certificate Program in Hands-on Historic Preservation trades west of the Mississippi”…the
only one in California.
2. Applied for and earned $114,075 Heritage Fund Grant from State Office of Historic
Preservation (Cherilyn Widell, acting SHPO) – out of 75 submissions. This allowed CR to
seismically retrofit their “Ricks House” in Eureka. District commandeered grant from program,
but numerous class sections used the facilities.
3. Joined National Council for Preservation Education (NCPE), meeting membership standards.
1998 – The first five Certificates of Completion in HPRT were awarded
2001/02 - Entered contract education with Presidio Trust – 110 students, $96K contract price, plus
FTES
2002/03 - Entered year 2 Presidio Trust Training Program – 65 students, $65K contract price, plus
FTES
2003 – A.S. degree in HPRT established with 60 units total
2003 – “Taking Care of History workshop” @ Presidio – 65 attendees (re: HPRT: Presidio Training
Model.ppt)
2004/05 - Lead faculty/program director sabbatical to study historic home rehabilitation and develop
“field school” curriculum materials.
2005 – Attended University of Oregon’s Pacific Northwest Field School, Idaho – investigate
established summer field school model to develop CR version.
2005 – 1st HPRT graduate, Michael Ciani – hired full-time by Montana Heritage Associates at
Virginia City, in front of graduate students with M.A. degrees (for hands-on experience)
2006 – 2nd HPRT graduate, Paula Long completes her A.S. degree
2008 - CR lost HPRT A.S. and C.C. degree/certificate because Chancellor’s Office discovered
District was at fault for 24+ violations of not submitting original documentation per rules.
2008 – CT.CC.HPRT changed to CT.CR.HPRT and students no longer receive official credit on
transcripts. District stops tracking CT.CR student completers, skewing completion data.
2009 – CT.AS.HPRT re-authorized after new application submitted by faculty
2011 – CT.CA.HPRT re-authorized after new application submitted by faculty
2013 – HPRT enters program revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance AP4021 process to review
viability of program
Contract Education Projects
 Presidio of San Francisco/CR contracted training – 2 years, due to Cherilyn Widell, Federal
Preservation Officer – 2001-03
 Pt. Cabrillo Light Station Restoration and Rehabilitation training and consultation 2003-07
 Samoa Town training as hired preservation consultant through Samoa Group Inc. 2008-10
(resulted in 10 Danco workers enrolled in HPRT courses)
3
10/25/13 update
8
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview
Marketing












Largely faculty driven.
No faculty written grants directly support ongoing marketing.
CR invested 1000 to produce HPRT program overview as a marketing video, 2006
Printed fliers handed out around town, posted on campus and HSU, ongoing.
$1000 donated by community member to run three consecutive Times Standard adds, 2010
Student Club attends some “Arts Alive” events in Eureka to market program.
Faculty has purchased newspaper space to run advertising card, Northcoast Journal Do-It-Green
guide, 2010.
Faculty invites media to field school sites for photo/article opportunities.
Two HPRT faculty volunteered to write editorial section of Preserve and Restore for six years,
2002-08
Faculty attend local, statewide, national and international conferences, symposiums, workshops to
promote College of the Redwoods HPRT training program.
Faculty take any opportunity to talk on camera, radio, or for newspaper.
Student Club maintains both Facebook and Blogspot (@ preserveandrestore.blogspot.com) sites to
market and share program.
Student “project-based learning” - field school sites
 1996 - 1999 Historic C.S. Ricks house – CR property and starting location for HPRT program CT
10, 12, 13, 15, 16
Earned $114.075 restoration grant from Office of Historic Preservation in 1996.
This was the startup project that gave HPRT a beginning and later helped earn the
2001 Governor’s award and allowed CR to complete seismic restoration to allow for use by
Continuing Education courses.
 Campton Ranch, Rohnerville Restoration, 1999-2000 - Four Semesters CT 3, 13, 15
 Rio Dell Elementary School Bell Restoration, 2001
o School-to-Career grant-funded 30- 3rd, 7th, 8th graders did the work.





4
Senior Resource Center housed in the Historic Washington School, 2002 - CT 15, 16 (two
semesters)
o 13 Windows restored
o New Entry Portico Railing
Bayside Grange Hall, 2002/03 – Two Semesters CT 15
Arkley Center for Performing Arts housed in the Historic State Theater, 2004 CT 3, 8
o Facade Restoration moldmaking, CT8 - Casting & Moldmaking in conjunction with
adjunct faculty, Peter Santino completing interior restoration
Eureka Woman’s Club, 2004 – CT4, Peter Santino trained students to restore original shellac
finishes on interior wall paneling.
Historic Falk Engine House Reconstruction Summer 2008 – CT15 Students in 3-week
collaboration with:
o
BLM
o
Colorado Mountain College students and faculty
o
Department of Agriculture’s National Forest Service’s Mountain Heritage Group
10/25/13 update
9
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview

Eureka Heritage Society Wooden Window Restoration Workshop – CT 15/General Public One
day special workshop, Fall 2008

Condition Assessment Training Locations: CT 13, all historic buildings
o Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge cookhouse - twice
o Arcata Airport Nosehanger
o Samoa Block Building
o Samoa Cookhouse
o Carnegie Library which houses the Morris Graves Art Museum
o City of Eureka Redevelopment Agency historic home – 6th & Myrtle Ave.
o Jacoby Creek School House
o Carson Mansion (two semesters 2010/12)
o McBride Farmhouse – Wildlife Refuge across from CR - twice

Published by students
o Term project reports – CT 10, 12, 13. These are required each semester. 110 total
 CT 10 - Compose 3 - 5 page term paper on a preservation topic of choice with PowerPoint
presentation.

o
o
CT 12 - Complete an historic research on a barn or property of choice using DPR
(Dept. Parks & Rec.) #523 Primary Survey forms. Projects require historical
research and documentation to support findings. Present findings in class with
PowerPoint presentation.
 CT 13 - The student will perform an existing condition analysis of a chosen historic
property using prescribed techniques for evaluation on DPR #750 Historic
Survey forms. Through observation, documentation, and analysis, an
explanation of the existing conditions will be formulated, as well as specific
weatherization and stabilization recommendations for mitigation of deficiencies.
Arcata’s “Bayview Neighborhood Conservation Area Survey”, 2006 – CT 12 research study,
site walk, extensive editing and scripting reports.
“Historic Humboldt Barns”, 2013 – a compilation of 15 student projects of primary surveys
and historical research about barns and farms they occupy, supported by the U.C. Davis
Ag. Extension’s Deborah Giraud – CT 12, 2009-11
Published by Bill Hole
 Editorial author of “Past Perfect”, a monthly anchor column in the Times Standard’s Restore &
Preserve insert. Restore and Preserve gave an ongoing voice to the community about CR’s HPRT
Program by advertising courses and field school project updates. 2002-08
 Contributor to “Introducing Preservation Trades to High School Students”, Michigan H.S.
curriculum model, 2009
 Contributor to EPA’s “Sustainable Solutions for Historic Houses in Northern California”, 2009
 “Hands-on Education That Works” paper published from International Trades Education
Symposium – Leadville, CO - 2009
 International Trades Education Symposiums – Paper presentations 2005, 2007, 2009, 2011
5
10/25/13 update
10
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview

Co‐author for Preservation Trades Network “Trades Education Certification of Competency for
Trades Trainer or Tutor” project with colleague, Dr. Gerard Lynch in England, an effort to train
and certify crafts trades people to better deliver workshops and hands‐on demonstrations by
focusing on student learning outcomes. 2011-2012
Speaker Conferences

“Taking Care of History workshop” @ Presidio – 65 attendees , 2003
 Ft. Bragg City Preservation Awareness Training Day, 2004
 This Old House Workshop, California Council for the Promotion of History Conference, Eureka - 2004
 McCloud Town, Historic District Preservation Awareness Training Day, 2005
 International Trades Education Symposium speaker – Belmont Technical College, Ohio, 2005
 New Orleans, Holy Cross Neighborhood, Greater Little Zion Baptist Church, Post-Katrina Floor
Restoration Workshop (Funded through Nathan Cummings Foundation, World Monuments Fund
and Preservation Trades Network), 2006
 International Preservations Trades Workshop Presenter, Holy Cross Neighborhood -2006
 “Leadership for the Trades: An International Priority Issue” paper presented at International
Trades Education Symposium – Tällberg, Sweden - 2007
 2006-2012 Preservation Trades Network Board Member and workshop presenter

“Is Craft Education Obsolete? Sustainable Trades Education…that Works!” International Trades
Education Symposium speaker – Lincoln Cathedral, England, 2011
 Speaker session Plan It Green conferences – Arcata, 2009, 2011
 Panel Speaker California Preservation Foundation Conference – Grass Valley, CA - 2011
Consulting
 Eureka City Historic Preservation Commissioner 12 years
 Edited grants for Presidio Trust/CR 2001, 2002
 Edited Certified Local Government application for CA. Office of HP and Eureka City, 1998
 Developed glossary terms in current Historic Preservation Ordinance for Eureka City, 2007
 Little River Dam survey report – California Department of State Parks, 2002
 California Department of Forestry Red School House – Hwy 20, 2004
 McCloud Town, Shasta – Survey new HPRT program with Ray Geary, Community Education
Director
 Branscomb General Store – Existing Conditions Assessment , 2004
 Odd Fellows Hall, Mendocino Town – Existing Conditions Assessment and Report, 2004
 Historic Navarro Inn conditions report, 2004
 Trinidad Museum historic house survey and adaptive use assessment, 2004 – Resulted in
relocation and is now the new Trinidad Museum
 Liaison for Preservation Trades Network, PTN/Architects Institute of America, AIA for continuing
education units for AIA members at PTN workshops
 Wrote the MOU between Windows Collaborative Initiative founders and PTN for research and
publication of “Windows Standards”, published 2013
6
10/25/13 update
11
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview
Municipality Consulting projects include:
 Arcata*
 Eureka*
 Trinidad*
 Fortuna
 Blue Lake*






Mendocino Town
Fort Bragg*
McCloud
Bayside
Ferndale*
Humboldt County*
*Staff and/or Council members have taken HPRT courses.
HPRT Program Goals
FTES Growth










Maintain HPRT and market to the local and broader community that HPRT is still active.
Develop and foster concurrent enrollments with local High Schools.
Improve marketing on CR website to accurately represent HPRT.
Market in national publications for one-year, then once per year to attract new students from outof-state. (Fine Homebuilding, This Old House, Old House Journal, Preservation).
Upgrade classroom lab facilities, per 2005 Measure Q plan, to facilitate growth and HPRT
Material Science course work.
Offer courses during winter and summer sessions that count towards full-time faculty load.
Develop new course “The Sustainable Building” to teach world building history and sustainability.
Continue community events with all CT full-time faculty like: WoodFair, Women in Construction,
Science Night, Career Fairs, H.S. Industrial Arts Show Judging, Campus and Field School Open
House events, etc. to market the CT program as a whole unit.
Develop an integrated A.S.CT that requires 2 one-year certificates, in Res. Carpentry, HPRT, or
Cabinetmaking. This would facilitate shorter certificates that lead to comprehensive CT degree.
College district purchase HPRT student project house.
Reality






7
Preservation is sustainable building maintenance.
CR purchase a student project house that can restored, sold to first-time or low income home
buyers, with the profits going into purchasing the next house on a continuum.
Update curriculum to include sustainable building lessons. (Sustainable means to be able to meet
“the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own
needs.”, USGBC)
Preserving buildings is a sustainable practice. It not only reduces waste and sprawl, but also leads
to economic and social sustainability.
Develop sustainable/green into preservation curriculum aimed at teaching building rehabilitation
and adaptive reuse.
Field Schools. They offer project-based learning and complete projects out in the community that
result in invaluable public relations. Property owners pay for materials, District doesn’t own
property.
10/25/13 update
12
College of the Redwoods
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology (HPRT) Program Overview



HPRT has been successful with 90% of grant applications resulting in awards over the last 17
years.
Develop internship program with Department of Parks and Recreation for summer training and
work force opportunities
Develop Field School workshops for fee and credit based summer workforce training and graduate
student internship experiences.
Here’s the Bottom Line






HPRT is one of the most viable construction training programs moving into the future. It has roots
and a good reputation for quality education that works. This is not the time to stop the program.
Revitalize HPRT with District support that includes a statement to local community of renewed
effort to expand successes.
Support economic needs through Measure Q funds to jump-start marketing blitz and increase field
school support on a 3-year track to success and sustainability.
A letter of support from the District is needed, targeting CA. State Parks, for funding, projects, and
internship opportunities.
Increase CT 15 enrollments by including high school students, community education students,
HSU and general CT.Res. students as a component to sustainable build curriculum.
District funding support for web page maintenance, national marketing in periodical (2-yr/1-yr.
plan), workshop training on local, state, and national levels.
Program Goals included in:


CTEA grant applications, 2000-12
Program Review Reports, 2007-13
2008 Program Goals – Ongoing. These are an example of drivers to improve program on a regular
basis.
This program seeks to embrace the mission of the college through the achievement of the
following goals and objectives:








8
Offer quality career-focused degrees and certificates in vocational technical fields.
Provide courses that encourage intellectual growth development side-by-side with social and
communication skills in all programs.
Create a student-learning environment which values individual differences, emphasizes a
collaborative approach, stimulates creativity, and promotes individual potential by
encouraging students to recognize their self-worth.
Recruit and retain students to complete their programs.
Support student growth and development through services, activities, and programs.
Foster lifelong learning by assisting students to pursue advanced degrees through articulation
agreements with other institutions of higher education.
Offer hands-on education opportunities in the field of residential construction, sustainable
building and restoration carpentry.
Expose students to the realities of industry by providing opportunities for internships, part-time
employment, industry-led projects, and related experiences.
10/25/13 update
13
AP4021 APPENDIX A - PROGRAM ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Program Name: Historic Preservation and Restoration
This Program Analysis Request must be supported by the program review or other appropriate data and shall be
submitted to the President/Superintendent and the President/Superintendent will determine if a Task Force
should be convened to evaluate the program for revitalization, suspension or discontinuance.
Please check the indicators that triggered the initiation of the program revitalization, suspension or
discontinuance process. Please attach the program’s most recent Program Review to this proposal request.
MULTIPLE INDICATORS (please check multiple indicators below)

X
Multiple Indicators (please check the indicators below)
Enrollment has declined at least three of the last five years.
FTES/FTEF is consistently below the district average, or has declined at least three of the last five
years.
Success rates are consistently below the district average, or have declined at least three of the last
five years.
Retention rates are consistently below the district average, or have declined at least three of the
last five years.
Program completions are consistently below the division’s district average, or have declined at
least three of the last five years.
Insufficient availability of courses for students to complete the program within its stated duration
Nonaligned with state, the Chancellor’s Office priorities or College mission
Nonaligned with federal and state law
Lack of available program personnel (faculty/staff)
Inadequate equipment and/or facilities
Changes in the local and/or regional job market
Changes in community/student needs or interests
Change in transfer requirements
Diminished outside funding resources
Program creates financial hardship for the institution
Budget concerns and lack of sufficient funding
Outdated curriculum (greater than 10% of courses out of date)
Course and/or program outcomes not on track for complete assessment during 2-year cycle.
Other:
The PRC Jeff Cummings noted that if HPRT is only one of two programs of this type
offered in the west; however, if so, why are there not more enrollments? Good question…perhaps
district supported marketing and funding. One way to support programs low in enrollments is by
aligning with another program; however, HPRT is a stand-a-alone program that does not carrying
its weight as a program and that other classes cannot support. HPRT is another of many “standalone” programs at CR, carries more than its weight and has always been an integral component
of CT.
Other programs and classes that are supported by project-based learning are: DT (DT23
required, CT.Res.Carpentry, CT.Cabinetmaking, CT.Res.Wiring, WT (demo cast iron repair and
brazing), DM63 (student project book), and Community Ed.
PRC also noted that the two year assessments are not on track and assessment reporting is not
completed.
Assessments were completed in October with follow-up work scheduled with Dave Bazard.
PRC executive summary report submitted to ACCJC in 10/15/13 follow-up report – The PRC
noted that the program has weak enrollment trend, creates a financial hardship for the institution,
and has outdated curriculum. It is a stand-alone program that does not carry its weight as a
program and that other classes cannot support.
Enrollment trend fluctuates, yet many courses have strong enrollment. Fall 13 has 17 in CT7, 15
in CT 14/15/55 combo. CT 70 only has 9 students.
Curriculum update is scheduled to be approved at Nov. 8th curriculum meeting. Only 3 of 18 were
14
scheduled for S13 update, but AP4021 commandeered faculty schedule.
Stand-alone program is no different than many others in District, and inaccurate to state “other
classes cannot support”…see data.
PRC and Keith Snow-Flamer
Name of Requestor
Approved
President/Superintendent
April 29, 2013
Date
Denied
Date
15
October 28, 2013 AP4021 Task Force Data
Source: Bill Hole
PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM – QUALITATIVE DATA
This report will address all applicable criteria below unless information is unavailable or not
applicable.
1. The impact the action will have on the general education curriculum or the curriculum of other
programs.
a. Program students enroll in general education course and support the district.
b. Specific general education curriculum is not at purview of this program.
c. HPRT supports students in: Drafting Tech., CT.Cabinetmaking, CT.Res.Carpentry, Digital Media,
CT.Res.Wiring, Welding Tech., Academy of the Redwoods, and Community Education
2. The ability of students to complete their degree or certificate or to transfer. This includes maintaining
the catalog rights of students.
a. The ability of students to complete their degree or certificate is the main focus of students. Most
enroll in CT.HPRT for the specialty training, some add CT.Res.Carp. during the process. Transfer
is generally from program completers who already have a Bachelorette degree and choose this
hands-on training and go further to a Masters’ program. The timing can take 1-3 years depending
on the students’ goals for a one-year certificate or A.S. degree in CT.HPRT, or if they earn a
double A.S. in CT.Res.Carp. and HPRT.
b. Historically, individual CT.HPRT courses are sometimes cancelled for low enrollment, causing
students to spend more time to complete their program of study. This can hamper success to
students on funding programs that allow only one-year to complete their program. Other
examples show that students enroll in other CT courses, and Welding.
c. Marketing is often a problem, because local community members as well as those around the state
often don’t know what training is offered at CR with regards to CT.HPRT, though it’s the only
program in the state community college system.
3. The College’s ability or inability to provide the resources to maintain the program.
a. The College is able to provide classroom facility, instructor pay and support faculty in writing and
authorizing grants for program funding, and limited shared instructional support with
Cabinetmaking.
b. Faculty supports off-campus “field school” sites that allows carpentry and sustainable building
reuse training in line with historic preservation standards and modern jobs-training. This
program has maintained itself largely because of community support and faculty dedication to
student learning by providing “real” construction field learning environments.
c. Current field school site “Annie B. Ryan” historic home 2006-13 has cost the District no $$$ for
rent/lease, utilities (electric, gas), water/sewer, insurance, custodial help (faculty/students clean
and dump trash), support staff, or building materials. Community members have supported
overhead and a local supplier has supported construction materials “at-cost”. When we provided
Green Jobs Pre-Apprenticeship training, program director was able to negotiate discounted tool
prices for student tool kits, along with raise $9,800 in donations for roof supplies needed for
training. This is typical work to keep creative and innovative training programs alive, as normal
College budgets don’t support what is needed to train job skills in the field.
d. College does not justify financial resources to maintain national membership to National Council
16
October 28, 2013 AP4021 Task Force Data
Source: Bill Hole
for Preservation Education (NCPE) membership that allows national web-based marketing and
outreach for program faculty and students. NCPE offers summer internship training opportunities
to students in the numerous college and university programs across the country. NCPE has
extensive membership standards (http://www.ncpe.us/about-ncpe/standards/#.UmWL6ezcjPY) that
CT.HPRT has always met (from 1996 conception).
e. College does not justify support of expensive hands-on laboratory expenses as safety equipment,
or an instructional aide to support faculty and off-campus field school sites. A general CT supply
budget is divided between three FT faculty for the three categories of CT at Eureka main campus
(Carpentry, Cabinetmaking, and HPRT). However, the CT.Res.Carp. program is supported with
$400,000 form Measure Q funds and their annual student project house has the opportunity to
return money every year, thus a revolving account.
f. CT.HPRT has no special funding, nor has had this offered. In its first years HPRT supported the
College by earning a $114.075 state grant that supported the rehabilitation of the District’s
“Ricks House” at 715 H St. Eureka. Designed for program start-up funds, the College chose to
use it differently.
g. CT.HPRT faculty ran a customized training program “Presidio Training Project” between 2001
and 2003, which provided the District with about $155,000 of contract pay, plus the FTE’s for
about 165 students enrolled in CT 15 on site at the Presidio in San Francisco.
h. CR partnered with Humboldt County Workforce Investment Board (WIB), and Employment
Development Department (EDD) and Employment Training Division (ETD). CT.HPRT was the
only CT program that could provide the hands-on field carpentry training for the PreApprenticeship training to about 50 California Conservation Corps members between 2010 and
2011. This Green Jobs funded program with Humboldt County and CR cycled through about
$4.6M and the hands-on training was a significant component. College was unable to maintain a
working relationship with the CCC after this successful partnership.
data: research with Julia Peterson
i. Community Ed. special programs like Maintenance Technician and Basic Home Repair cannot
exist without the HPRT field school because the College has no facilities to offer these courses.
Also, associate faculty Bob Felter teaches the courses and can only do so with HPRT program
field school and often needing the power tools, as Community Ed. doesn’t have these.
data: research with Julia Peterson
j. Marketing –
 Lead faculty/program director initiates 90%+ of all marketing to promote the program, 1996current.

In 2006, President Crabill authorized filming and production of HPRT DVD to describe
program and course. The brochure and literature were modernized in 2011 and became the
design template for 2012 CTE program marketing brochures used today.

District response to HPRT marketing requests vary, resulting in lead faculty running
marketing tasks without direct district support. Examples include: Course fliers, upcoming
semester courses overview flier, adds in the Northcoast Journal, Times Standard (TS), Eureka
Heritage Society’s (EHS) newsletters.
17
October 28, 2013 AP4021 Task Force Data
Source: Bill Hole

“Restore and Preserve” monthly TS newspaper insert (2002-2008) was published by HPRT
student Kathy Dillon, who came to CR to learn historic preservation for authoring R&P
articles. She later wrote the “Heritage Herald” publication articles for EHS.
4. Balance of college curriculum ( for example, ensuring the non-elimination of all of one type of
programs, such as foreign languages)
a. Construction Technology is a diverse profession with many facets.
b. HPRT is the only program within the CT area that provides training in materials conservation,
carpentry for existing buildings, historic preservation specialist training, and cultural historic or
building revitalization/rehabilitation training. Also, CR maintains the only CT.HPRT in California
Community Colleges, a program that continues to draw students from within and outside of the
Northcoast Region.
c. Discontinuance of this program would severe a major training in the sustainable building facet of
Construction Technology in the region.
d. Since the Green Jobs training (see 3C.) grant funding, CT has started a small certificate program
in both Solar Thermal and Solar Photovoltaic installation training, yet carpentry and building
conservation is not covered within.
5. Replication of programs in the surrounding area and their efficacy.
a. In the 17 years of established curriculum, there still is no other program in California Community
Colleges. The same is true for the Fine Woodworking Program at CR Mendocino campus. About
27 colleges offer various construction technology curriculums.
6. The potential impact on diversity at the College.
a. CT.HPRT draws female students into a male dominant trade profession of Construction
Technology. However, HPRT is a more diverse program that draws many more women than most
construction technology fields.
7. Alignment with Chancellors Office priorities, college mission, accreditation standards, and state and
federal law.
a. CT.HPRT meets both Chancellor’s Office priority #2 (of 3), and CR Mission #2 (of 3).
b. Accreditation Standards
c. State and Federal Law
8. Effects on local business and industries- i.e., declining market/industry demand (local, regional).
a. Minimizing CT.HPRT will impact Humboldt County as it has impacted every local jurisdiction with
staff training, advice, and student service learning historic research and assessment projects that
have encompassed buildings and sites all around the county.
b. There is a growing need to fix and repair the aging building stock. When the 2010 earthquake hit
downtown Eureka, the Healy building was stated for demolition. Consultation with HPRT faculty
helped inspire the restoration, as did the 2003 Historic State Theater facade replacement that CR
students helped cast a mold that ultimately kept the original facade. Associate faculty, Peter
Santino ended up working to restore the interior of the theater with his painting and plaster
expertise, that he teaches to CT.HPRT students.
c. Carpentry for existing buildings is a root of the CT.HPRT program, along with the material
sciences courses that teach people to recycle and reuse existing buildings, material conservation
18
October 28, 2013 AP4021 Task Force Data
Source: Bill Hole
techniques, including the necessary skills of researching primary records, developing existing
condition assessments of buildings, and how to assess an existing building for strengths and
weaknesses that lead to project repair plans.
d. As the only training program of its kind in California, HPRT has been meeting labor demands in
the areas of reconstruction and building reuse (Rehabilitation), planning and assessment. The
broad areas of program training focuses on an educated workforce that allows program
completers the ability to compete with industry jobs that require accurate analysis, existing and
historic building system knowledge, craft/trade experience with hand and power tools, and creative
design applications to reuse existing buildings and meet current sustainable community
redevelopment goals and energy conservation strategies.
e. Support letters from Humboldt County Supervisors, County Planning Director, Eureka City
Planning Director, Arcata City Mayor, CR’s Architect John Ash, Past Congressman Mike
Thompson,
9. Availability of the program at other community colleges.
a. In the 17 years of established curriculum, there still is no other program in California Community
Colleges. While about 27 offer construction technology, CR maintains a unique role of providing
the variety of specialty CT training not available at any of the other community colleges (Fine
Woodworking, Historic Preservation, Student House construction program)
10. If this is a grant-funded program, what was the agreed institutional commitment for the campus to
continue this program?
Better in #3? Though not considered a grant-funded program, CT.HPRT is a program that survives on
grant-funding and community support that takes faculty commitment and direct intervention as a
regular job duty.
a. The District announced on March 14, 2013 that it exhausted reserve funds and therefore were
decreasing certain class reductions, of which CT.HPRT was identified. These reductions impacted
the certificate and degree program immediately by eliminating its introductory course (CT10),
thus not allowing new students to complete one-year certificate goals, or new Fall 2013 students
to begin the program course sequence as designed for greatest student success.
b. Since inception, the College has agreed to accept faculty-driven and written grants to support the
program. This has led to hundreds of hours of faculty volunteer time to develop technical
language and document the needs typical to new programs that are not funded within the
institution, such as effective marketing. During the last 17 years, over $1M has been raised in
grants, contract ed., special projects such as Green Jobs Pre-Apprenticeship training, S.F.
Presidio Training Program, along with community-donated materials, facilities, and supplies to
maintain a strong and growing specialty training program. The program has gained a national
and regional reputation because of dedicated efforts by faculty to grow the program.
c. In March 2013, final $2,600 grant expenditures of a 2012/13 CTEA grant cycle were revoked and
not provided to faculty to continue grant goals. This was done with an explanation that until the
District decides of the future of CT.HPRT, the remaining funds would not be disbursed.
Unfortunately, this eliminated program plans for instructional supplies for CT4, a material
science course in finishes and painting, which was also being planned as a CR community
19
October 28, 2013 AP4021 Task Force Data
Source: Bill Hole
education course to try another approach to offering this training, since the last times it was
offered as a credit course it only had a handful of students, thus cancelled before beginning.
Data: Pru email
11. List specific financial resources required to sustain the program:
 Faculty compensation FT/PT
data: Refer to Human Resource data on faculty expenditures over the last years. Faculty does not
have this information. Changes are not expected with courses maintained, and will decrease with
continued course cancellations.
 Support Staff compensation
½-time instructional aide that can facilitate laboratory and Field School setup and material
purchases, along with maintaining a web-based marketing stream. data: Refer to Bert Hafar,
Instructional Support for CT.
 Facilities costs annualized
This is a cost that lead faculty has no access. When questioned on the cost to run a construction
laboratory space (AT109 classroom on Eureka Main campus), the best answer is “CR owns the
space and therefore it costs nothing.” Over the last 6-years, a field school site at 1000 F St. in
Eureka, owned by the Ink People Center for the Arts has been a training site that has provided real
hands-on training in an existing building to about 600 students, which the College has received
FTE compensation from the State. The approximate value of this site and donated materials and
supplies to date is about $225,000 because of creative faculty.
 Equipment costs annualized
Equipment costs since 2000 have been supported through faculty grants, largely CTEA.
 Supplies cost annualized
12. Potential impact on the community.
a. CR’s Community Education department will not have a field school site or faculty to teach basic
home repair courses, maintenance technician courses that involve carpentry, as HPRT supports
this training with tools, and building site.
b. Loss of any sustainable building reuse hands-on carpentry training, integral to a community that
has the largest number per capita of historic buildings on the west coast.
c. Loss of historic preservation training to all regional local governments and community members.
d. Loss of revenue from students moving to Humboldt County for 1-3 years and enrolling at CR.
e. Loss of intrinsic revenue from material and services donations from a community that supports
CT.HPRT.
f. Loss of resource on historic properties and trained workers who can offer expertise of building
maintenance because of training at CR.
20
May 2013 Update
CT.HPRT Program and Field School Expense History
Faculty‐driven
HPRT INCOME
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
CR
EXPENSE
CR
INCOME
[$356,663]
[$359,923]
CT.HPRT is not a deficit drain to CR
[$1,132,241]
External Grant & Special Program Funding Sources *
Grants & Custom Training Income
$654,360
program tools, instructional supplies, safety equipment, & HPRT promotion
$400,000
$300,000
Cost of Courses
($356,663)
[Section Cost] CA. Preservation Heritage Fund ‐ Ricks' House Rehab.*
S.F. Presidio Training Project *
Carl D. Perkins Career Technical Education Grants *
CR Faculty Development *
CR Alumni Association *
CR Projects for Learning Enhancement *
CR Institutional Grant *
Tech Prep Externships *
Community Donations @ Ink People Center for the Arts Ryan Family Historic House Association Donations
Department of Labor Green Jobs Training
California Clean Energy Workforce Training
City of Eureka * Funds generated by HPRT director, Bill Hole to advocate "Education That Works."
State Revenue
for courses
$359,923
[Section Revenue]
Field School (2006 ‐ present)
Annie B. Ryan Historic Home
(ZERO classroom cost to CR)
$200,000
Presidio Trust Contract Income $156,000 $100,000
$0
Field School Property Cost (donated)
$185,000 2006 ‐ 2013
CR Data
2006 ‐ 2013
CR Data
2001 ‐ 2003 HPRT Data
Field School
Community Contributions
$136,881 1996 ‐ 2013 HPRT Data
1996 ‐ 2013
Ink People Data
2006 ‐ 2013
Ink People Data
Graph by: CHC ©13 21
CT
Fine Woodworking
Cabinet & Millworks
Historic Preservation
& Restoration
Technology
Contract Education
“Presidio Training Project”
Community Education
Wood Fair
Women in Construction
Violin & Bow Making
Wood Window Restoration
Wood Turning
Basic Home Repair
Maintenance Technician
10/15/12 update
BH
Residential Carpentry
Residential Wiring
Solar Photovoltaic
Solar Thermal
Green Industry Council
Clean Energy Workforce
Training – Pre-apprenticeship
training for CCCs
Future
Sustainable Building
Technology Degree
Building Maintenance
Certificate
Preservation Specialist
Green Plumbing Certificate
AIA – American Institute of
Architects Continuing Ed. Units
22
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 2007/08 VTEA Narrative for Construction and Historic Preservation Technology
Humboldt Builders’ Exchange (HBE) (our local advisory committee) concurs with EDD
statistical data in demonstrating that there will be a 28% increased demand through the year 2014
for trained and qualified workers in the construction trades. (HBE) continues to support our
program for its value to the community.
VTEA challenges us to be more flexible: the constant, ever-ratcheting-up churn of technology
will test programs to remain state-of-the-art and high quality. Programs cannot back away from
the need to be innovative and responsive to student need. Two examples of this locally are the
upsurge in Sustainable Building practices and employment needs that require well educated
workers.
Construction Technology requires that a future-thinking labor force educate itself in the realities
of global economy, energy use, natural resources and competitive marketing. Teaching for the
future will assure students are prepared for upcoming trends in the labor market. Research and
networking will persist through organizations such as:
 Local Builders’ Exchange and Carpenters’ Union Local 751
 Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’ International Association
 National Council for Preservation Education
 Preservation Trades Network
 California Preservation Foundation
 Pacific Northwest Field School at University of Oregon
 American Institute of Architects
Construction and Historic Preservation Technology plans to incorporate secondary and postsecondary education elements in addition to career/technical content, which leads to a certificate
or degree by:
 Networking with local high school instructors, career counselors, and local work investment
board
 Participating in career training events for high school students
 Marketing program at events like: WoodFair, North Coast Logging Conference, Humboldt
County Fair, Women in Construction, local and national media articles, high school visits
 Seek advice from industry experts like: Humboldt Builders Exchange, HPRT Advisory
Committee, Humboldt Regional Occupational Program, Preservation Trades Network
Construction Technology plans to incorporate secondary and post-secondary education
elements in addition to career / technical content which leads to a certificate or degree.
Secondary and post secondary education elements will be incorporated into the Construction
Technology VTEA grant through articulations, linkages and connections with local secondary
instructors, counselors and students. Ongoing activities that strengthen the linkages with area
secondary schools include:
1 23
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 1. Recruitment Activities such as:





CALSOAP
Redwood Region Logging Conference
Recruitment visits to speak to vocational classes at area High Schools
Area High school students and instructors visiting C.R.
Humboldt County Fair
2. Linkage activities such as:







Membership on Regional Occupational Program Advisory Committees
Technical consultations with Secondary Instructors
Providing Technical services to area high school programs through the use of equipment
absent at local schools
Wood Fair (3 day summer woodworking activity)
Women in Construction
Humboldt County Industrial Education Exhibition
Participation in fall High School Counselor Day at C.R.
3. New activities planned for this funding cycle





Participation in Redwood Days (Campus wide enrollment activity)
Update equipment to reflect current state of local Construction Trades/woodworking industry
Participation in national, regional, and local professional organizations, their activities and
conferences.
In-service and training that reflects the current state of the industry.
Rewrite program and course level curriculum to include student learning outcomes.
2008-2009 VTEA Application
2. Link secondary and postsecondary CTE programs.
Construction Technology offers programs leading to A.S. degrees in Construction Technology
and Historic Restoration and Preservation Technology (HPRT) as well as certificates in
Residential Carpentry, HPRT, Cabinetmaking, Fine Furniture and Residential Electrical.
Articulation agreements are currently in place with local high schools in CT and HPRT. Planned
use of funds from the ’08-‘-09 VTEA grant include high school and middle school student
outreach, development of recruitment materials, and providing training for local H.S. instructors.
Local high school vocational programs regularly visit the CR Construction Technology Lab, and
CT instructors serve on local H.S. advisory committees and make classroom visits.
2 24
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 3. Provide students with strong experience and understand of all aspects of an industry.
Construction Technology teaches students through project-based learning with a focus on lifelong trades’ employment. Construction advisory committee members are industry representatives
who work and own businesses in the construction field. The annual student house is designed and
built with all aspects of the residential industry. Students construct the cabinets, wire the house for
electricity, and pour concrete foundation and slab work, as well. The project house becomes a
portal to feedback and guidance from industry members.
HPRT students learn in a Field School setting, where students restore historic buildings as
their classroom learning experience. Students learn to rebuild all components of an historic house
by doing; learn various trade skills that include traditional carpentry, window sash repair and
glazing, plaster restoration and repair, painting, building assessment, and architectural millwork to
replicate missing and damaged trim work. These are all aspects of the restoration industry that
provide students with a strong work force development background.
2009-2010 VTEA Application



The sustainable building movement requires that faculty communicate with industry to best
teach industry needs, while finding internship and job placement for program completers.
Learning to integrate sustainable building practices into current curriculum will require
hiring industry specialists to assist in program development and faculty training.
Linking students into jobs and paid internship positions require that CT faculty network with
local business and industry to develop relationships, and understand the employer needs to
best train students for job hiring.
2010-2011 VTEA Application
Describe program improvement issue(s) concerning your program and include specific examples.
Newest to Construction Technology Department is Sustainability Building Technology that
will add an important new direction to a successful series of programs like Residential Carpentry
and Historic Preservation (HPRT). Since 2009, federal and state workforce development act
funding has been spreading out into regional programs that integrate job outcomes with education
and a green/sustainable future.
This is a multi-year plan that will include upgrading outdated equipment and provide for
instructor training, professional development and networking opportunities to work with
California community college and high school programs to coordinate curriculum and meet both
regional and statewide goals for a successful trained labor force of the next decade.
3 25
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 2011/12CTEA Application – Project Proposal
A.
Briefly describe program improvement issue(s) concerning this TOP code and
include specific examples.
Construction Technology (TOP 0952) at College of the Redwoods is continuing a multi-year plan
to expand its emphasis into green/sustainable building strategies to adhere to current building
practices that respond to the federal Recovery Act Clean Energy goals. Upgrades and
improvements to instructional equipment and tools are critical as we continue to expand and
excel in a hands-on training program unique in this Northcoast region of California.
This year’s plan addresses program issues and improvements that include:


Purchase new instructional equipment to teach existing building repair and reuse carpentry
skills and weatherization strategies. Seismic upgrade tools, building envelope weatherization
electronic equipment, wooden window weather stripping equipment.
Improve safety instruction, practices and equipment in laboratory and field school learning
environments by upgrades to outdated instructional equipment.

Provide CT faculty training and professional development to stay current with emerging
issues and technology pertaining to the profession, improve job readiness training, and
student internship opportunities.

Support faculty to coordinate curriculum development and student job-training
opportunities to meet both regional and statewide goals for an increased and successful
trained labor force into the next decade. These goals are important to current and future
budget and career training needs.

CT faculty and students are enthusiastic about “greening” the curriculum and the activities
that take place in CT courses. Increase green/sustainable CTE components into CT
curriculum and course modules.
Increase student persistence, nontraditional student participation and nontraditional student
completion. Students in Construction Technology benefit from small group and one on one
instruction.

B.
Briefly describe how the issue(s) will be addressed.

Rewrite and readdress curriculum to align with statewide goals in green/sustainable
education. This includes initiatives for secondary students obtaining post-secondary credit to
count towards an AS degree.

Project funding will support purchases of appropriate safety equipment and gear to meet
instructional goals. Safety is critical to student and program success along with job
readiness. Working in Field School setting requires a readily available set of safety gear for
the varieties of operations that occur in new construction, rehabilitating existing buildings
and demonstrating sustainable reuse of our building stock.
4 26
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 
CT faculty will participate in professional growth activities in various locations regionally,
statewide and nationally.

Instructional support will be provided for nontraditional students.
II. Explain how each of the following will be addressed in your Program Proposal by
answering the questions below using the space below each question:
A.
How will the project increase the participation rate and success rates of special population
students in the program (be specific)?
Special Populations are defined as:
~ Economically disadvantaged families
~ Migrants
~ Individuals of Limited English Proficiency
~ Secondary school drop outs or potential drop outs (academically disadvantaged)
We believe that funds from this grant will be used to further improve program quality and thus
continue to increase enrollment and program completion for nontraditional students. All courses
and programs offered at College of the Redwoods under the 0952 T.O.P.S. code are commonly
enrolled with nontraditional students. Examples of this are:









Continued work with local Workforce Investment Board and D.O.L. and E.D.D. grants from
Workforce Investment Act to provide new curriculum and career opportunities for special
populations in tomorrow’s green/sustainable future.
CT 15 Field Techniques for Historic Preservation enrolled over 50 California Conservation
Corp students (often disadvantaged youth) during Fall 2010 and Spring 2011 semesters, as
a partner in the Green Jobs Training program (see #1 above). The program provides a
Board of Governors Fee Waiver (tuition waiver) to students, and we are seeing increased
enrollment from enthused students wanting more construction training.
Flexible course scheduling and multiple campus locations for courses assist in higher
enrollment by providing easier access to working students.
Field School training at building sites increases enthusiasm and student success.
Limited English proficiency students can find bi-lingual Spanish assistance within faculty.
Provide instructional support for nontraditional (women) and educationally challenged
students (charter and continuation school students) to help learn successful school skills.
Career guidance has become a focus of the college through a career survey system, to allow
follow-up and tracking program completers.
Job placement is an important gauge to success. We have been developing internship links
(plan to add more based on this funding), and find that most of our students work in the job
market while taking courses.
Field trips and interviews always include nontraditional role models along with traditional
success stories, as a means to develop diverse business links and forward thinking about
career choices.
5 27
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 B.
How will the project promote faculty professional development?
We believe that the project acceptance will lead to greater program success from increased
faculty training, resulting in greater student success.




With the decline of California State budget and its effect on Community College funding,
faculty professional development is not likely to support the training needs and goals of
maintaining a growing and successful Construction Technology program.
Redwoods district is clearly in a rural region of California and is not close to training sites,
conference/workshop locations, and/or interaction with college, business and industry
connections. This demands that faculty travel outside of the region and often the state to
acquire relevant, leading-edge training and industry perspective.
If accepted, this project will allow faculty to step outside of the classroom and into both
academic and industry environments to meet comprehensive professional development needs.
Faculty professional development ensures integration of rigorous and coherent course
content required to maintain alignment with career and technical education goals.
Today’s fast paced Green/Sustainable building programs, federal and state goals for a jobready workforce in a short time span requires that faculty go to where the training is
provided.
C. How will the project strengthen links with business and industry (be specific)?

Through the use of regular Advisory Committee meetings, field trips and memberships in local
professional organizations (Humboldt Woodworking Society, Humboldt County Historical Society,
Humboldt Builders’ Exchange, Eureka Heritage Society) this project will strengthen links with
business and industry.

Local Businesses are supportive of improved training, and with CTEA project support, faculty will be
able to increase and strengthen business and high school connections through personal visits, which
often require classroom instructional aide support for faculty to be off campus, especially when
touring another classroom during high school hours.

During the last year, training and courses designed for Green/Sustainable building networked CT
faculty with local industry. One faculty member taught OSHA safety to grant supported Green Jobs
students, and another became a member of the Green Industry Council in Humboldt County to
participate in training and job guidance. These both will likely continue during this project cycle to
represent CT and College of the Redwoods by teaching occupational safety, and incorporating
building performance training.
2012/13 CTEA Grant Project Proposal
C. Briefly describe program improvement issue(s) concerning this TOP code and include
specific examples.
6 28
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 CT:HPRT (TOP 0952) is continuing a multi-year plan to expand its emphasis on sustainable
building strategies by training carpenters to reuse existing buildings; consistent with current
building practices that respond to the Federal Recovery Act Clean Energy goals.
HPRT is committed to train students to minimize energy consumption, and the physical
material resources we consume in construction. Over the past few years, program goals
continue to develop a community-based conservation agenda that makes sense for the 21st
century.
The environmental impacts of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change are mitigated by
reusing buildings and practicing the use of natural building materials.
Upgrades and improvements to instructional equipment and tools are critical as we continue to
expand and excel in the only hands-on Community College training program in California.
This year’s plan addresses program issues and improvements that include:

Provide CT faculty training and professional development to stay current with emerging
issues and technology pertaining to the profession, improve job readiness training, and
student internship opportunities.

Support faculty to coordinate curriculum development and student job-training opportunities
to meet both regional and statewide goals for an increased and successful trained labor force
into the next decade. These goals are important to current and future budget and career
training needs.

Building analysis training includes energy performance training to teach the various means of
conserving energy while reusing buildings.

Increase green/sustainable CTE components into CT curriculum and course modules.

Purchase new instructional equipment to improve existing building repair/reuse carpentry
skills, and weatherization strategies. Building envelope weatherization electronic equipment,
window and door weatherization.
Improve safety instruction, job-skill practices and equipment used in laboratory and field
school learning environments by upgrades to instructional equipment.


Increase student persistence, nontraditional student participation and nontraditional student
completion. Students in Construction Technology benefit from small group and one on one
instruction.
D. Briefly describe how the issue(s) will be addressed.

As our Federal Government is aggressively working to reduce pollution and energy
consumption, HPRT is training the act of recycle/reuse of existing buildings as a viable
construction solution.
7 29
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 
Rewrite and readdress curriculum to align with statewide goals in green/sustainable
education. This includes initiatives for secondary students obtaining post secondary credit to
count towards an AS degree.

Safety is critical to student and program success along with job readiness. Project funding
will support purchases of appropriate safety equipment to meet instructional goals, and train
towards industry standards. Working in a Field School setting requires a readily available set
of safety gear for the varieties of operations that occur in new construction, rehabilitating
existing buildings and demonstrating sustainable reuse of our building stock.

CT faculty will participate in professional growth and collegial networking activities in
various locations regionally, statewide and nationally in order to maintain a quality of
curriculum that is consistent with industry and college programs.

Instructional support will be provided for nontraditional students, and to allow for faculty
professional development goals.
II. Explain how each of the following will be addressed in your Program Proposal by
answering the questions below using the space below each question:
D.
How will the project increase the participation rate and success rates of special population
students in the program (be specific)?
Special Populations are defined as:
~ Economically disadvantaged families
~ Migrants
~ Individuals of Limited English Proficiency
~ Secondary school drop outs or potential drop outs (academically disadvantaged)
Funds from this grant will improve program quality and thus continue to increase enrollment and
program completion for nontraditional students. All courses and programs offered at College of
the Redwoods under the 0952 T.O.P.S. code are commonly enrolled with nontraditional students.
Examples of this are:







Women are increasing as a student population.
Limited English proficiency students can find bi-lingual Spanish assistance within faculty.
CT 15 Carpentry for Existing Buildings provides a Board of Governors Fee Waiver (tuition
waiver) to qualified students, allowing for enrollment from students seeking construction
training.
Workforce Investment Act provided new curriculum and career opportunities for special
populations in the green/sustainable future.
Field School training at on-site building sites in the community increases enthusiasm and
student success.
Flexible course scheduling at various campus locations demonstrate a higher enrollment by
providing easier access to working students and those restricted by transportation.
Career guidance has become a focus at CR through a career survey system that allows
follow-up and tracking of program completers.
8 30
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 

Job placement is an important gauge to success. We have been developing internship links,
and find that most HPRT students work in the job market while taking courses.
Field trips and employer interviews include nontraditional role models along with traditional
success stories, as a means to develop diverse business links and forward thinking about
career choices.
E. How will the project promote faculty professional development?
Program success from increased faculty training results in greater student success. Funds from
this grant project will allow faculty development.





Faculty professional development ensures integration of rigorous and coherent course
content required to maintain alignment with career and technical education goals.
Submitting this grant application is a key to meeting various training needs and goals
required to maintain this expanding and successful CT program. As the California State
budget declines and its effect on Community College funding shrinks, faculty professional
development is not likely to be included; therefore CTEA will fill an important gap.
A value-added benefit when faculty personally travel and network with out-of-region
colleagues is that students end up with better out of the area contacts for paid summer
internship job positions.
Redwoods district is clearly in a rural region of California and is not close to training sites,
conference/workshop locations, and/or interaction with college, business and industry
connections. This demands that faculty travel outside of the region and often the state to
acquire relevant, leading-edge training and industry perspective.
Today’s historic preservation training parallels fast paced Green/Sustainable building
programs, meets federal and state goals for a job-ready workforce in a short time span, and
requires that faculty go to where the training is provided. CTEA grant funding will allow
professional development to occur.
F. How will the project strengthen links with business and industry (be specific)?

Through an increase of Advisory Committee meetings, and making curriculum changes based
on committee member input, this project will strengthen links with business and industry.

Local Businesses are supportive of improved training, and with CTEA project support, faculty
will be able to increase and strengthen business and high school connections through
personal visits, which often require classroom instructional aide support for faculty to be off
campus, especially when touring another classroom during high school hours.

Continuing from last year, training and courses designed for Green/Sustainable building
networked CT faculty with local industry. Faculty taught how to reuse and install recycled
redwood rain gutter, completed skirting repairs and replacement with in-kind materials, and
plaster restoration, which is a key course in teaching hands-on materials conservation. These
skills are employable and CTEA funding allows for specialty tools and instructional supplies
to support the customized training.
9 31
Carl Perkins VTEA/CTEA Grant application narratives – CT/HPRT 2007‐13 
As the State budget is shrinking, it is critical to stay engaged with business and industry to
provide better training opportunities for those not working and yet wanting to gain skills to
succeed when jobs become available. Material donations are often sought after to supply
specialty materials not covered under this grant.
G. This proposal must support SLO’s if it is to be recommended for funding. How does this
proposal support them?
Student Learning Outcomes are critical to developing meaningful curriculum and an important
gauge that faculty use to determine teaching success. We continue to upgrade and improve SLO’s
in all of our courses to improve rigor and accountability.
This proposal ensures continued implementation and improvement to CT long-range goals and
individual course outcomes by stimulating new courses, faculty outreach with similar programs
and a continued integration with the business community.
Examples of learning outcomes include:
 Define terms used in building construction.
 Interpret existing building construction materials.
 Describe the sequence of steps involved in building single family dwellings.
 Describe the concepts of energy conservation, including insulation, air infiltration, and
alternative construction techniques.
 Describe how material conservation and replicating existing decorative wooden molding on
existing buildings respects "embodied energy" and meets Green jobs training needs of today.
 Communicate effectively and professionally in the Construction Industry to describe
sustainable reuse of existing buildings as making economic sense for communities.
 Communicate properly and authoritatively about the historic preservation and restoration
field using precise language, one that is universally understood and accepted.
 Accurately assess the construction components of an historic building and describe repair
strategies.
 Write an Existing Conditions Assessment which will include weatherization, stabilization, and
cyclical maintenance suggestions.
 Accurately repair deteriorated building components for continued functional use.
 Demonstrate sustainable building practices by conserving existing building components and
use recycled materials first to repair failing components.
10 32
9/29/13 update
Grants earned for Construction Technology Department**
(some are missing due to lack of Institutional Research Data)
1996
2000/01
2000/01
2001/02
2001
2002/03
2002/03
2002
2003/04
2003
2004/05
2002/03
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2003
2004
2006
2006
2006
2007
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
California Heritage Fund
VTEA
PLE
VTEA
Tech Prep Externship
VTEA
PLE
Tech Prep Externship
VTEA
CR Alumni Assoc.
VTEA
PLE
VTEA
VTEA
VTEA
Faculty Development – CPF Conference
Faculty Development – CPF Conference
PLE – HPRT Instructional Supplies
PLE – HPRT Instructional Supplies
CR Institutional Grant – HPRT Field School
PLE – HPRT Instructional Supplies
CTEA
CTEA
CTEA
CTEA
CTEA
$114,075
$16,740
^
$26,803
$ 1,000
$31, 390
$ 5,987.42
$ 1,000
$16, 837
$ 1613.49
$15,000^
$ 7,362.68
$15,000^
$26,000^
21,376
$675
$800
$2912
$3600
$9800*
$2000*
$42,212
$48,732
$23,605
$35,221
$16,561
TOTAL
$654,360^
** Faculty volunteer efforts – Bill Hole (and Paul Kinsey after 2004 with VTEA/CTEA)
*To date, Bill Pierson, owner of Pierson Building Supply has provided approx. $12,000 for
tools, supplies, and equipment to be paid for at his cost (with no markup), for HPRT Field
School.
^ Exact amounts not available at time of report.
Presidio Training Project brought approx. $96,000 contract price the first year and $67,000 the
second, plus state apportionment monies for FTES ($$ amount not available at this time)
Acronyms
HPRT PLE VTEA CTEA -
Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology
Projects for Learning Enhancement
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act (aka: CTEA)
Career Technical Education Act (Carl Perkins funds)
33
Is Craft Education Obsolete? Sustainable Trades Education…that works!
Presented at:
4th International Trades Education Symposium
Lincoln Cathedral
Lincolnshire, England
May 20, 2011
Presented by:
Bill Hole
Professor of Construction and Historic Preservation Technologies
College of the Redwoods
7351 Tompkins Hill Rd.
Eureka, CA 95501-9300
bill-hole@redwoods.edu
707.476.4353
34
Introduction





I’m excited to be here in Lincolnshire and engage with all of you this week, especially with the
grand millennium birthday of this Cathedral.
Without collaboration like this, we live in isolated communities without a global perspective.
Thank you to Carol Heidschuster, Lincoln Cathedral and the Cathedrals Workshop Fellowship,
along with the entire ITES planning committee and Preservation Trades Network for making this
symposium real.
My dedication as a tradesperson, PTN Board Member, and an educator is focused on
teaching and promoting trade skills and work ethic that must persist for our youth.
As a designer, faculty, director, and advocate for a two-year degree program in Construction and
Historic Preservation Technologies, my work has been relentless to sustain viable hands-on
training in a public education setting. I’ll share in this paper some of the successes of shifting
the terms associated with “Historic Preservation” into “Sustainable Building Technology.”
Redwoods/Lincoln Cathedral comparison
 How do I relate to Lincoln Cathedral celebrating near 1,000 years, when I live in a 160 year old
community?
 Redwood trees, not stone are the building material of the region.
 I share these c.1890 photographs to share my respect for the ancient trees.
 You can see the immensity of the Redwoods, the manner in which they were originally harvested
and how men managed to move these ancient monsters to the mill.
 This was truly hands-on and physical work.
 To mill these huge trees, the redwood industry was responsible for inventing new logging and
milling machinery, like the Dolbeer Steam Donkey, small Gypsy Steam Engines, and the large
band saw.
 Redwood trees are considered the oldest living organism on the planet; facts trace their roots
back to the Mesozoic era – the time of the dinosaurs – between 65 and 225 million years ago.
 60 - 125 year old buildings in Eureka are constructed with redwood from trees as old as the year of
Christ.
 One old-growth redwood tree can make enough lumber to build five eight-bedroom houses
 1500 – 2000 years of growth is not uncommon for an ancient tree.
 90 – 105 meters tall, 6 – 7.9 meters diameter, 900 – 1200 m3 volume, 24 – 60 ring count in a
one-inch cross section.
 Similar to swamp Cypress in New Orleans region, redwood (also cypress family) is very rot and
bug resistant.
 Redwood is such a durable wood that an average century old redwood building may need no more
than 5% material replacements to make repairs. Lazy carpenters could replace up to 20%, if
including the viable wooden gutters and sash windows.
Summary of Points


The U.S. has shifted from the world leader in building and manufacturing industries to a country
that has all but removed crafts and vocational trades’ education out of our school system.
Most young students no longer encounter formal hands-on trade classes in their public
schooling experience.
BillHole
ITES2011SustainableTradesEducation
Page2
35










As a preservation craft educator today, I am faced with a new challenge, a green and sustainable
challenge to train new a “Green Collar” class of workers in “sustainable” and clean, green
energy production.
I believe that “Restoration is Green”.
Government claims we can train, and employ thousands of workers that in turn will save us
“billions” in energy cost savings, while lowering greenhouse gasses.
The smallest carbon footprint is the oldest carbon footprint.
Embodied energy is part of the entire life cycle costs of a building.
What about the sustainability of trades’ education? This seems to fall farther from reality as the
“new is better” mentality drives industry and marketing.
The business of career-technical education in California schools has changed dramatically over the
last 40 years.
Overall program discontinuance of trades’ and career technical education has become
normal in our school systems. This is both a national and international trend.
The sad truth is that vocational education, as it currently stands in the United States, is
simply not sustainable.
Two generations ago the United States of America was the worlds’ leader in manufacturing. Today
the labels read “Made in China”.
Green Jobs Training
Over the last several years California has committed massive funding to becoming the greenest
state in the USA. Unfortunately, as historic preservation advocates now race to maintain and salvage
existing buildings under the auspices of “sustainability”, they discover that trades education programs
have disappeared, and skill levels remain low.








BillHole
The U. S. 2009 federal stimulus package was valued at $787 B.
During the last two years, green/ sustainable building projects and training programs have
been on a swift rise.
California has committed massive funding to becoming the greenest state in the USA, yet,
we don’t require “Green Collar Workers” to be skilled carpenters, or tradespeople
knowledgeable about existing and historic buildings.
Green Jobs Pre-Apprenticeship Training programs were one of the outcomes of federal
funding. There is no Historic Preservation component.
$75M was invested into what is touted as the nation’s largest state-sponsored green jobs
training program. My region of Humboldt County was awarded about $4.2M to run several
parallel yet distinct training programs. None included building conservation and reuse as
a focus of training.
After the local Green Jobs Training program started, the grant managers quickly realized
that nobody knew what the “hands-on” component of pre-apprenticeship training
involved.
I was invited to develop a hands-on training component and designed project-based
learning to weave historic preservation building conservation and reuse into the
Green/Sustainable goals of grant funding.
As words mean everything, I’ve shifted “historic preservation” into the “sustainable
building technology” vocabulary with a change in curriculum language, while still
ITES2011SustainableTradesEducation
Page3
36







teaching the craft trades surrounding historic preservation and regards to the Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Dovetailing building reuse with field techniques for historic preservation created a
new approach to gaining student enrollment in a “green jobs training” program and
almost doubled my students.
By training local Youth Conservation Corps, I’ve been able to demonstrate that a trained
crew of Corps Members could actually maintain buildings, and provide contract work in
their districts for the State Parks, BLM, CalTrans, and other municipal agencies doing
building maintenance, energy upgrades, and rehabilitation projects that allow an old
building a continued and viable future.
I learned last week that the Green Jobs Training program brought together a partnership of
State Parks and Conservation Corps youth to begin the rehabilitation of an 80 year-old
house in a local campground that’s been abandoned for 20 years.
State Parks will pay for the material and hire the Conservation Corps members to fix the
building.
Normally, the Conservation Corps youth are hired to clear trails, highway weeds and brush,
build trail retaining walls and fight forest fires.
Rehabilitating an actual building creates a new job skill base for the Corps youth.
When you consider that the 18 – 24 year old youth have no building skills, this type of
work is useful to developing future skills specific to conserving historic resources.
Hands-on Education that works










BillHole
We know that hands-on field school experience results in greater retention of real
trades skills.
80% of people learn-by-doing; Project-based learning is a key to this population.
Practice what we teach; which means to me that we teach to fix the community; teaching
how to preserve and reuse buildings while we provide service-learning opportunities for
the student. This builds job-ready skills while giving back to the community by making
the field school a real working school.
Work becomes the kinesthetic activity that accompanies learning.
At the first ITES, I heard Takashi Watanabe from Japan offer that “Old buildings
themselves are the perfect textbooks for craftsmen”, which is the reason Field School
settings are so important.
The most sustainable building is already here. Carbon credits are not given out for
building reuse as I think they should. The embodied energy invested in an existing building
is important to economic value of building reuse.
Sustaining the trades’ education programs in schools is not supported by “the system”.
Government funding does not honor the importance of vocational training.
Hands-on education is work. What we teach is lifelong income producing skills and a
passion to restore.
I engage with young people and give them permission to not only pick up and use the tools,
but encourage them tear apart deteriorated building parts.
Modifying traditional preservation craft trade curriculum to incorporate green jobs
training dovetails clean energy grant funding with education costs.
ITES2011SustainableTradesEducation
Page4
37
Field Schools









Developed from graduate-level university programs, field schools are site specific training
sites where students gain a hands-on experience about the theory they learn in a classroom.
I have developed and successfully trained in many on-site settings, with varieties of
students from federal and state trades’ employees, to private contractors and trades people,
to homeowners and students of all ages (8 – 74 yrs).
Instead of a field school as a university graduate student experience, I believe that projectbased learning must take place in hands-on training opportunities for all levels of
education, as service-learning.
Field Schools should be community projects; non-profit groups, and public maintenance
projects; not private property, as a conflicts of interest arise.
In training the Green Jobs students, it was evident that the 18–24 year old age of
young adults thrive on learning “how to” and being “given permission” to physically
work and creatively problem solve how to fix historic buildings.
Contemporary buildings don’t have the charm and history of traditional craft, and became
boring; therefore historic buildings are perfect candidates.
The current HPRT field school project house is an 1892 Queen Anne style cottage that was
abandoned for twenty-two years and derelict.
Students have completed 13,000 hours of work to date on foundation repairs, an engineered
seismic stabilization, siding and exterior trim repair and replacement, double-hung window
restoration and repairs, wood lath and plaster restoration of interior walls and ceilings,
electrical wiring removal and new upgrades, cast iron door/window hardware restoration,
plumbing removal and new upgrades, site drainage and vegetation repairs, and roofing
removal and installation.
All in all, students have become proud of their work to restore one of our local jewels, a
classic little cottage.
Materials Science Labs



Workshop space allows for focused material and technique training; key to
developing good conservation skills.
HPRT strives to teach hands-on skills focused on local building techniques.
Leaded and copper foil glass, wood lath & plaster repair, mold-making, decorative
finishes/painting, wood milling and bending, masonry pointing, decorative wood molding
knives and replication techniques.
Closing





BillHole
Craft trades education requires weaving creative funding with education
opportunities.
Qualified trainers/educators are necessary to teach success.
As we reach to the future it becomes important to link hands-on education with
community projects; to tie Green Collar jobs into building conservation and reuse.
I am honored for this opportunity to listen to all of the speakers here, to share our stories
and experiences.
Thank you again, especially to Lincoln Cathedral for the warm hospitality.
ITES2011SustainableTradesEducation
Page5
38
Hole rebuttal responses to 4/23/13 Program Review Executive Summary
10/25/13
Section 7‐ Program Review Committee Response - black is PRC, blue is Bill Hole, 9/29/13
update
Do not type in this section. To be completed by the Program Review Committee following
evaluation. Author never had an opportunity to clarify or defend statements and data, yet submitted to the Board and ACCJC 10/15/13 final accreditation report…unfortunate that PRC can’t reflect accuracy, yet force a program into AP4021
7.0 The response will be forwarded to the author and the supervising Director and Vice
President:
S.1. Program Information: Satisfactory Really? Then why does PRC recommend AP4021
S.2. Data Analysis: The narrative evaluation of the data references a shift to “green” and
was more a discussion what might be (WIB/CR Pre-apprenticeship green jobs training was
successful because of CT.HPRT, and author has been improving by including
“green/sustainable” building practices into preservation training, BH) and what the author’s
preference is, (inaccurate observation. Author has attended and presented lectures at international, national, state and regional conferences and symposiums that include: National Trust for Historic Preservation, Historic Green, Preservation Trades Network, International Trades Education Symposium, Plan It Green, California Preservation Foundation, Eureka Heritage Society. U.S.Green Building Council has given a $300/yr membership to CR because of Bill’s connections with the organization and benefits can be gained by all CT faculty. The “shift to “green” is not a whim, or preference of the author, but rather a global issue of energy conservation and carbon footprint knowledge that begins with embracing sustainable and green building practices; of which Historic Preservation is a key player.), rather than an evaluative
response to the changes in the data. Author cited repeated requests to drop enrollment
numbers for ideal learning. The comments focus on fewer students to improve data (not
learning).(Section 2, Fill Rates were stated by author as not correct. Further, describes the changes through adding advanced lab courses CT 14/17. These courses, if evaluated by data show that 8 is high for enrollment based on tracking over time. Author is reflecting honesty and self‐evaluation when discussing lowering max. students on the COR. Other discussions about CT 15, 16, 7, 8, 4, 3, 2 lowering numbers from 20 to 10‐18 reflect the available lab space, tools, valid safety concerns and best teaching practices that would be excessive in student/teacher ratio above 20…this discussion is to inform PR of program fill rate issues, BH)
Success and retention are noted at or above district levels, but the persistence narrative is
unclear. Author is explaining that by “counting” enrollment on archived rosters, by hand, and comparing with IR, that the District data seems low. Equity seems low based on Humboldt
County demographics. CT.HPRT has a strong relationship with women in construction, yet in Humboldt County many women don’t approach the construction industry for employment. More
detail on persistence rates for equity would be helpful.
In summary: it is not clear to the PRC how students complete and move into the work field; pg. 7
refers to labor market data and notes that the labor market is not fast growing, but notes
there are areas of expertise that may be strong‐how does affect/apply to the program?
(There is no doubt that the new construction carpentry field is in decline statewide compared to the building reuse and rehabilitation of the classic existing and historic buildings throughout 4/23/13
39
Hole rebuttal responses to 4/23/13 Program Review Executive Summary
10/25/13
communities. Author has stated in many ways that CT.HPRT is a niche training program that is teaching trades skills focused on sustainable building reuse and restoration. This is a growing market that doesn’t have its own standardized labor market data categorized specifically (there is none available on state and federal labor data), yet the facts are real that students with this training are employed in the construction labor force. BH) If there is local employment, details on
where students are getting hired; discuss local needs on green side. Author mention total student
hours which no one else measures and is not helpful. If the context of this statement were understood one would recognize that the parallel drawn is to a field school site that costs the District no money to operate (rent/lease, water, gas, electric, materials and supplies, custodial support, sewer/portable toilet costs), yet has produced over 19,000 student hours of learning to about 600 students. Economically, the author looks at this as a pretty good return on the money that the District spends for classroom facilities, utilities, sewer, maintenance, and supplies (as instructor also writes the grants and develops community relationships that allow this to occur). I find it unhelpful for collegial discourse not to have an opportunity to clarify my statement before the misinterpretation is turned against the intent. It’s unfortunate PRC doesn’t choose to interview faculty to clarify data before printing an executive summary. The author’s arguments are not supported in many cases by college processes, nor backed up
by data nor is the data available addressed. This last sentence is not accurate, as data is the process we use for evaluating programs. Since 2007, author has provided program review using professional practices and data. The fact that labor data in the United States is antiquated and does not specifically address the title of this program does not mean that data is neither available, nor used. Interpretation of data is the closest method of analyzing incomplete data sets available to the author. PRC would like to note the college cannot run a program with
only 8 students. This statement is totally inaccurate is referring to CT.HPRT program
having only 8 students, and should be struck from this summary.
District data reflects 121. “One” course, CT16, had 8 students in the spring 2013, because of a need for graduates. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: two year assessments are not on track.
Once course needs SLOs reduced. The author did not seem to know how many PLOs were
assessed and reported. Most of the course outlines are updated. Assessment reporting is not
completed. HPRT program is work intense for the one full‐time faculty who spends a good deal of time with fundraising, grant writing and marketing, along with professional relations in the community and outside of the region to attract students to CR. Advisory committee is meeting. (met twice in S13 semester(without Dean participation) to address future program direction and marketing strategies to increase enrollment and develop further employer relationships and internship opportunities for program completers). SLO and
PLO assessment led to improving the course outlines of record and updating to more ecological
practices.
S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Previous action plans stated and outcomes notes as
successful.
4/23/13
40
Hole rebuttal responses to 4/23/13 Program Review Executive Summary
10/25/13
S.5. Planning: Good job connecting planning to the strategic plan and mission. PRC suggest
that, given the low number of students, marketing could be a focus in planning for next year;
“green” practices should be marketed as well. Thank you for positive on connecting planning. Thank you for the “good job”. The District does little to market CT.HPRT and the author spends more time than average faculty in direct marketing outside of CR. Look at the marketing literature, the program brochure, and faculty fliers distributed to promote classes. Green practices is the root of building conservation and restoration what we train people about the needs of rehabilitating existing buildings for current and future use vs. tear‐down and start over. This is the only program of its kind in California and clearly not understood by the members of this committee authoring insensitive responses to thoughtful dialogue. It would be beneficial in the future for PRC to interview the faculty to avoid these errors in executive summary; comments that have now gone forward to the Board and ACCJC 10/15/13 report. S.6. Resource Requests: The resource request was not directly mentioned in the planning
section, although referenced transfer education. This was clearly and extensively addressed in
5.2
PRC suggests moving this to AP 4021 …based on what data? This is a subjective and
arbitrary statement considering that the author has had no opportunity to address the
PRC committee to clarify provided data and dialogue. July 9, 2013 Board Meeting packet…PRC Report exerpts:
Number of Instructional Programs Referred to AP 4021 Revitalization and
Discontinuance Process* see below. 5* 16%
Addiction Studies
Fire Tech –
Marine Science – The PRC noted Marine Science as a program is offered only in Mendocino,
with just two unique courses offered on the Mendocino sight. PRC recommends review with
possible revitalization and expansion to a district-wide program.
HPRT – The PRC noted that 1. the program has weak enrollment trend, 2. creates a
financial hardship for the institution, and 3. has outdated curriculum. 4. It is a stand-alone
program that does not carry its weight as a program and that other classes cannot support.
When were these comments added to the PRC executive summary…not on the April 23, 2013 report. Hole Response:
1. There’s no cross-pollination of CT students, which would help enrollment numbers. CR
cancels courses when under enrolled, which happens from time-to-time. CR doesn’t invest in
marketing, leaving faculty responsible for teaching the community of available classes. The
4/23/13
41
Hole rebuttal responses to 4/23/13 Program Review Executive Summary
10/25/13
reality that certain hands-on lab courses should never have more than 12-15 students for
safety, lack of teaching space and tools, goes unrecognized and criticized a negative.
2.
Hardly a true statement. Financial hardship avg. $300/semester (Graph of 2008-13 IR Data
of cost differential between student income from the state, and faculty costs to the District).
Special projects have earned CR good money and press, but don’t return any due credit to
this program.
3.
3 of 18 courses…April/May time that had been budgeted to curriculum upgrades was spent
defending the discontinuance proceedings of CT.HPRT. 3 courses (21%) are outdated as of
May 13…one faculty is responsible for CTEA grants, program review, curriculum upgrades,
program marketing, community service learning projects for students, running hands-on
courses without assistance to purchase supplies, prepare labs, represent advisory committees,
and more.
4.
Not a true statement. Construction Technology is a broad field that includes HPRT. Building
repair, reuse, restoration, etc. is important in all trades and a component of carpentry. It is the
only Community College program in CA and not repeated in other college programs. It is
locally, regionally, and nationally recognized as a viable training program. CT.HPRT
program supports CT.Res Carp, Cabinetmaking, Drafting, Res. Wiring, Digital Media,
Academy of the Redwoods, Community Ed. (Building Maintenance Technician, Basic Home
Repair) . Those programs don’t require any CT.HPRT coursework in their certificates or
degrees, except Cabinetmaking uses CT16 Arch.Millwork as a certificate course option.
4/23/13
42
HPRT: 4021 Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Present: Bob Brown, Jeff Cummings, Lynn Thiesen, Bill Hole, Tony Sartori
Third meeting will likely be only one hour, vote will be held and co-chairs will then write the
report based on the vote and task force discussions. The report will include criteria and timelines
as per AP 4021 specifications. Intention is to vote, and then discuss what should be included in
the report.
There was discussion at the beginning and end of the meeting whether the process allowed for
accurate evaluation of the program, both from the program review committee and within the AP
process. The focus today needs to be on the evidence.
Review Appendix A:
 Discussion on Appendix A: additional information included on a second appendix (pg. 14
of the 11/13/13 packet) that was not on the original- where and when did this happen; and
the official signed versions were not available initially.
Look at Data:
 Question regarding quantitative data: Highest enrollments in 2010-11, Bill noted it was
due to a grant funded additional section offered in green technology (CT 15). As a
standalone course CT 15 provided a one-time need, with several students returning.
 Question: There is some question that the AS degree is still pending from the
Chancellor’s Office (catalog notes the AS degree is still pending). This will be confirmed
through the Curriculum office. The Certificate of Achievement has been confirmed with
chancellor’s office; and a Certificate of recognition is not counted toward success.
 Discussion and dispute of the actual number degrees and certificates of achievement
granted. Apparently there were a number of certificates and degrees that were not
submitted to the Chancellor’s office; however the data shows there were a couple degrees
and certificates awarded, (per the Chancellor’s Office, in order to prevent hardship to the
students, due to a problem with degree and certificate submissions).
 Noted: Fill rate includes combined lab numbers. Fill is based on a cap of 20 in the lab.
 Discussion about the importance of fill rates being placed higher than completion in the
past; but going forward, the college must be concerned with higher completion rates to
receive funding. The current statistics could impact the future of the program.
 CTE Cost per FTES is around $2300/2400. HPRT costs per FTES are high.
 Discussion on the cost of the program, and the amount and effort being put forth in grant
funding acquired over a period of years.
 Discussion of increasing student fees and whether this will increase student participation.
 Discussion no institutional commitment over the years.
 Discussion that a request for funds through CTE was not submitted for this year (Carl
Perkins Funding will not look the same in the future. Perkins funds are to improve access
and success of special programs in CTE; not to sustain a program. Over three years is
considered program maintenance).
 The program is deemed not sustainable with current equipment after the next couple
years.
HPRT: 4021 Task Force Meeting
Wednesday, November 13, 2013


















How to incorporate HPRT into CTE programs, rather than offering a stand-alone
program: incorporate green technology into CTE program.
Community has been strong in supporting program in Eureka, especially the green.
Definition of a CTE program is defined through advisory committees; HPRT has its own.
Discussed that the Targets of Opportunity is eight of fifteen; strong in our community,
but future as a viable income source is low.
Discussion on the accuracy of the labor market data and the perception of demand for the
program enrollments and jobs.
Observation that marketing is not strong for the program. Response is that it receives the
same as all CTE programs. Professor Hole also does his own marketing through
community efforts and still lower enrollments.
Discussion on integrating HPRT a part of the CT degree. This is discussed several times.
Discussion that the program meets the Chancellor’s office second priority, regarding
CTE, but the statistics do not show this.
Obeservation that the program works with community and community education.
Suggestion move to a community ed program?
Two options seen for this program: combine with CTE (an option within Construction)
or going strictly community education. Community Ed can provide a certificate.
Agreement that the content is good, but we have to look at the overall health of the
institution.
Discussion community ed doesn’t have the funding to build this program from scratch,
that classes can be offered because of the equipment and contacts put in place by the
instructor.
This provides an opportunity to review all Construction Technology programs to include.
Six courses rely on the infrastructure of the HPRT program?
If HPRT program ends, the field house would not be available for other program use.
That is/was a temporary project.
Program doesn’t have the infrastructure for sustainability. The current residential CT
program model would supposedly serve this program.
Question: How many students might we lose if HPRT were discontinued?
Questions: How to redesign the CT program to include an HPRT tract; how to create a
Certificate of Recognition for CT?
Discussion that program is not viable, even with all grant funding.
Next Meeting:
Identify specific questions to address:
Focus on the qualitative questions.
Discuss the impact should the program be suspended or discontinued and what steps would need
to be taken per AP 4021 specifications.
4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Agenda 1) Complete objective review of quantitative and qualitative data 2) Answer remaining questions 3) Discuss Strengths and Challenges document (Should this program, as it exists, be part of the future of the college) 4) Voting process (simple majority) a. Crislyn will send out the electronic ballot to vote for: REVITALIZATION‐ YES or NO (return vote within 24 hours). Discuss Qualifications related to revitalization b. If the voting result is to not REVITALIZE then the committee will be asked to vote again for DISCONTINUE or SUSPEND (return vote within 24 hours) c. Members will have a total of 48 hrs. to vote 5) Report Process a. Results of Voting b. Electronic Review of Report for Facts and Omissions 4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Notes Present: Jeff Cummings, Bob Brown, Lynn Thiesen, Tony Sartori, Bill Hole, Crislyn Parker‐notes Brief discussion on why the Co‐chairs revised the voting process. As per the AP, if revitalization is chosen, there can be qualifications to revitalization. Discussion about what the district is looking to do. Discussion that the task force objective is to make a recommendation to the president based on the task force discussions and where it goes from there is up to the president. Our task is to provide the President with the best decision based on the quantitative and qualitative data presented. College (President) needs to look to the next five years when making the final decision. Clarification that Labor market data/need is not limited to Humboldt, but is the north coast area. AP and Ed code both specify time to discontinue and process for students. Agenda: 1) Complete objective review of quantitative and qualitative data 2) Answer remaining questions 3) Discuss Strengths and Challenges document (Should this program, as it exists, be part of the future of the college) 4) Voting process (simple majority) a. Crislyn will send out the electronic ballot to vote for: REVITALIZATION‐ YES or NO (return vote within 24 hours). Discuss Qualifications related to revitalization  Rebrand, focus on CA, focus on enrollments = qualifications of revitalization  Even with qualifications, still need institutional support b. If the voting result is to not REVITALIZE then the committee will be asked to vote again for DISCONTINUE or SUSPEND (return vote within 24 hours)  What will happen to faculty c. Members will have a total of 48 hrs. to vote 5) Report Process a. Results of Voting: Crislyn will send out an email to the committee the result of the voting, but will only send the count (without names) to the co‐chairs. b. Electronic Review of Report for Facts and Omissions: The final draft will be sent to committee members for a review of facts or omissions only. See attached for extended notes. 4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Notes PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM – QUALITATIVE DATA
Strengths and Challenges Table
11/20/13 Notes
Program: HPRT (also see pg. 16 of packet with Bills responses)
1. The impact the action will have on the general education curriculum or the curriculum of
other programs. Very little overlap with other CT degrees CT: 21a, CT 80,CT 90, DT 23; 3
electives from other CT courses.
2. The ability of students to complete their degree or certificate or to transfer. This includes
maintaining the catalog rights of students.
3. The College’s ability or inability to provide the resources to maintain the program. College
provides classroom facilities, faculty and ability for pursuit of grants; lacking “lab” or field
type of facility. Facility provided by the instructor is used by other CT programs?
4. Balance of college curriculum ( for example, ensuring the non-elimination of all of one type
of programs, such as foreign languages)
5. Replication of programs in the surrounding area and their efficacy.
6. The potential impact on diversity at the College.
7. Alignment with Chancellors Office priorities, college mission, accreditation standards, and
state and federal law.
8. Effects on local business and industries- i.e., declining market/industry demand (local,
regional).
9. Availability of the program at other community colleges.
10. If this is a grant-funded program, what was the agreed institutional commitment for the
campus to continue this program?
11. List specific financial resources required to sustain the program:
 Faculty compensation FT/PT
 Support Staff compensation
 Facilities costs annualized
 Equipment costs annualized
 Supplies cost annualized
12. Potential impact on the community.
Notes:
Discussion on how this program can exist and survive under the CT umbrella.
Correction made to data interpretation: Fill rates are not combined in the data; the fill rates are
based on cap and enrollment.
Committee divided student enrollments by sections. It was commented on that the advanced
courses will skew average because of fewer numbers.
4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Notes Discussion to revisit the two year degree and keep the one year certificate.
Disagreement that the AS degree is current with the Chancellor’s office. Per Bill: Our degree
and certificates are valid with chancellor’s office. (Bill should work with Shereen to confirm
and/or correct) Bills’ chancellor’s office information is 2008; but chancellor’s office has not
approved revisions. Confusion.
Five year average students is 10.8 students per section/discussed this is more pertinent for future
decisions.
Discussion on program review notes for April. Discussion that it was a fraudulent process
leading to this process. Adding comments to program review executive summary (in Appendix
A) that wasn’t in the summary (an annotated version of version was sent to Bill). Rehashing lack
of district commitment.
Discussion that Bill’s arguments are a disconnect; with all his work, the program still has low
enrollments. Bill’s response is that it is a niche market. Bill noted that industry and students
realize a niche market but the program need more of a presence (marketing). Stresses more
marketing of the need for green training.
Can this work under umbrella of construction technology at CR? Does this need collaboration of
all faculty – yes. Is that possible, because history has shown it has not worked in the past. Bill
feels yes.
Per Bill, if the program has 15 or 16 students enrolled, the program is doing ok. It was
commented that vocational training is expensive and an issue with school districts. Does this
make it a sustainable program for CR and the district?
Bob: CT is not doing green energy as per Bill; can we take the historic preservation and green
energy aspects, and fold into CT. Jeff’s response: that is the work of a revitalization committee.
Our discussion is about whether the historic preservation program as it exists can/should
continue.
Per Bill – change name of program to meet with current interest (HPRT is “old and dull”)
Qualitative data:
Per Tony: meeting needs of labor market
Green program – we have nothing else green
Not good enrollments
Niche market
Popular with students who know about the program and they are fanatically supportive
Community involvement
Could be integrated, but need other CT faculty involvement
AS: hard to do because of time
CA would be easier to offer
Qualitative leaders need to rebrand
Bill feels threatened
4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Notes Heartwarming success stories, but all programs will have that kind of endorsement
Jeff: A certificate option giving student green training means revising of curriculum. But the
labor market needs are marginal. Certificates are not recognized by industry.
Meeting needs of labor market doesn’t mean there are jobs out there.
Wanting a degree doesn’t meet needs of students. Many students/letters are from home owners
wanting to work on own homes; doesn’t meet labor market.
Per Bill a survey in conducted in 2010; item #6 includes expectations of student completer;
based on scale of 1 to 5 (with some errors) (document A).
Angelina did CTE completer survey spring 2012 (documents B, C) which was sent to HPRT
completers. Note: survey responders only have 3 of 8 actually working in a historic
preservation field, following taking the program.
If the program is integrated, how much curriculum revision would be necessary? Response – not
fair to answer because based on what direction a revitalization committee might choose to
go.(Various options: solar voltaic, remodeling emphasis, etc. related to clean green technology
and it would have to relate to clean green labor demand)
Student club is working on social media; we draw people because of Redwoods. We want to
work on solving this problem. Bill has a huge amount of time invested, shouldn't sever it. Green
energy is very limited and this region doesn’t have people here who can afford it, don't have
contractors or home owners who are supportive,
Tony asked Bill: How many students do you have on a sustainable basis? Bill replies: numbers
say I don't...100 people to take a class through the year, but how many come to take the
certificate: not many; the degree, less. Not a single target we can land on.
Per Bill: students for a degree, few; many for job skills. Bill noted, based on numbers, not
sustainable, but his opinion is program is sustainable.
Avg. of 10.8 students consistently; 10 is not considered sustainable at CR. Argument is that some
classes draw more and have ok numbers.
Tony Q to Bill: If program continues as it has in the past with the same numbers, is it a
sustainable program – per Bill, no. It would need to be rebranded and revitalized;
If the decision is to revitalize, Tony would like to see the program shrink to a Certificate and if it
doesn’t do better in a few years, discontinue it. We can’t anticipate faculty buy in to integrating
the program into the CT umbrella. Greatest potential would be reworking a tightened certificate
and rebranding; making it more focused; students can get through in a year and it can be a track
for CT. Piggyback off CT courses. Market. CT: understanding and respect for preservation and
4021 Task Force Committee HPRT Third Meeting, 11/20/13 Notes restoration, history, and learn to build a house. Do we have the resources to make all these
changes? No.
Per Bill: would like to create a sustainable building institute; capitalize on climate and working
environment of Humboldt; e.g. summer field work, polling students and employers. Rebrand
how we deliver beyond conventional fall/spring.
How that would occur goes beyond this committee; program and curriculum changes.
Would this be a revitalization vote with qualifications: If we remove the AS degree, then
discontinuation. Focus on CA would be the revitalization with qualifier. Revitalization to make
program sustainable.
Discussion on qualifications of revitalization: i.e. significant curricular structural revision to
create a certificate of achievement. Note: a certificate of achievement has to be recognized by
the industry.
Are there certificates recognized by Chancellor’s office: currently one.
Per Bill, Parks are a big industry group of this program.
Question: Is there a single job description that shows a certificate in restoration would apply
toward hiring? Training requirements include much of the training offered through CR. Bill is
working to get a draft internship through the state parks; he believes the needs are there but
agency to agency cooperation is not.
Discussion: Many contractors move from new construction to rebuilding and remodeling, and do
not need a certificate or degree.
Bill insists skills are different for restoration. His reasons for students not coming here and
enrolling in the program are varied. This supports that the program not sustainable.
Strengths: Retention good Success good Challenges: Inadequate equipment or facilities
Low enrollments overall Instructional Costs per FTES Fill Rates Inconsistence Value of the mission of chancellors and CR institution fits into #2 goals. Full‐time faculty member PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM – QUALITATIVE DATA
Strengths and Challenges Table
11/20/13 Notes
Program: HPRT (also see pg. 16 of packet with Bills responses)
1. The impact the action will have on the general education curriculum or the curriculum of
other programs. Very little overlap with other CT degrees CT: 21a, CT 80,CT 90, DT 23; 3
electives from other CT courses.
2. The ability of students to complete their degree or certificate or to transfer. This includes
maintaining the catalog rights of students.
3. The College’s ability or inability to provide the resources to maintain the program. College
provides classroom facilities, faculty and ability for pursuit of grants; lacking “lab” or field
type of facility. Facility provided by the instructor is used by other CT programs?
4. Balance of college curriculum ( for example, ensuring the non-elimination of all of one type
of programs, such as foreign languages)
5. Replication of programs in the surrounding area and their efficacy.
6. The potential impact on diversity at the College.
7. Alignment with Chancellors Office priorities, college mission, accreditation standards, and
state and federal law.
8. Effects on local business and industries- i.e., declining market/industry demand (local,
regional).
9. Availability of the program at other community colleges.
10. If this is a grant-funded program, what was the agreed institutional commitment for the
campus to continue this program?
11. List specific financial resources required to sustain the program:
 Faculty compensation FT/PT
 Support Staff compensation
 Facilities costs annualized
 Equipment costs annualized
 Supplies cost annualized
12. Potential impact on the community.
Notes:
Discussion on how this program can exist and survive under the CT umbrella.
Correction made to data interpretation: Fill rates are not combined in the data; the fill
rates are based on cap and enrollment.
Committee divided student enrollments by sections. It was commented on that the
advanced courses will skew average because of fewer numbers.
Discussion to revisit the two year degree and keep the one year certificate.
1
Disagreement that the AS degree is current with the Chancellor’s office. Per Bill: Our
degree and certificates are valid with chancellor’s office. (Bill should work with Shereen to
confirm and/or correct) Bills’ chancellor’s office information is 2008; but chancellor’s
office has not approved revisions. Confusion.
Five year average students is 10.8 students per section/discussed this is more pertinent for
future decisions.
Discussion on program review notes for April. Discussion that it was a fraudulent process
leading to this process. Adding comments to program review executive summary (in
Appendix A) that wasn’t in the summary (an annotated version of version was sent to Bill).
Rehashing lack of district commitment.
Discussion that Bill’s arguments are a disconnect; with all his work, the program still has
low enrollments. Bill’s response is that it is a niche market. Bill noted that industry and
students realize a niche market but the program need more of a presence (marketing).
Stresses more marketing of the need for green training.
Can this work under umbrella of construction technology at CR? Does this need
collaboration of all faculty – yes. Is that possible, because history has shown it has not
worked in the past. Bill feels yes.
Per Bill, if the program has 15 or 16 students enrolled, the program is doing ok. It was
commented that vocational training is expensive and an issue with school districts. Does
this make it a sustainable program for CR and the district?
Bob: CT is not doing green energy as per Bill; can we take the historic preservation and
green energy aspects, and fold into CT. Jeff’s response: that is the work of a revitalization
committee. Our discussion is about whether the historic preservation program as it exists
can/should continue.
Per Bill – change name of program to meet with current interest (HPRT is “old and dull”)
Qualitative data:
Per Tony: meeting needs of labor market
Green program – we have nothing else green
Not good enrollments
Niche market
Popular with students who know about the program and they are fanatically supportive
Community involvement
Could be integrated, but need other CT faculty involvement
AS: hard to do because of time
CA would be easier to offer
Qualitative leaders need to rebrand
Bill feels threatened
Heartwarming success stories, but all programs will have that kind of endorsement
Jeff: A certificate option giving student green training means revising of curriculum. But
the labor market needs are marginal. Certificates are not recognized by industry.
2
Meeting needs of labor market doesn’t mean there are jobs out there.
Wanting a degree doesn’t meet needs of students. Many students/letters are from home
owners wanting to work on own homes; doesn’t meet labor market.
Per Bill a survey in conducted in 2010; item #6 includes expectations of student completer;
based on scale of 1 to 5 (with some errors) (document A).
Angelina did CTE completer survey spring 2012 (documents B, C) which was sent to
HPRT completers. Note: survey responders only have 3 of 8 actually working in a historic
preservation field, following taking the program.
If the program is integrated, how much curriculum revision would be necessary? Response
– not fair to answer because based on what direction a revitalization committee might
choose to go.(Various options: solar voltaic, remodeling emphasis, etc. related to clean
green technology and it would have to relate to clean green labor demand)
Student club is working on social media; we draw people because of Redwoods. We want
to work on solving this problem. Bill has a huge amount of time invested, shouldn't sever
it. Green energy is very limited and this region doesn’t have people here who can afford it,
don't have contractors or home owners who are supportive,
Tony asked Bill: How many students do you have on a sustainable basis? Bill replies:
numbers say I don't...100 people to take a class through the year, but how many come to
take the certificate: not many; the degree, less. Not a single target we can land on.
Per Bill: students for a degree, few; many for job skills. Bill noted, based on numbers, not
sustainable, but his opinion is program is sustainable.
Avg. of 10.8 students consistently; 10 is not considered sustainable at CR. Argument is that
some classes draw more and have ok numbers.
Tony Q to Bill: If program continues as it has in the past with the same numbers, is it a
sustainable program – per Bill, no. It would need to be rebranded and revitalized;
If the decision is to revitalize, Tony would like to see the program shrink to a Certificate and if
it doesn’t do better in a few years, discontinue it. We can’t anticipate faculty buy in to
integrating the program into the CT umbrella. Greatest potential would be reworking a
tightened certificate and rebranding; making it more focused; students can get through in a
year and it can be a track for CT. Piggyback off CT courses. Market. CT: understanding and
respect for preservation and restoration, history, and learn to build a house. Do we have the
resources to make all these changes? No.
Per Bill: would like to create a sustainable building institute; capitalize on climate and
working environment of Humboldt; e.g. summer field work, polling students and
employers. Rebrand how we deliver beyond conventional fall/spring.
How that would occur goes beyond this committee; program and curriculum changes.
3
Would this be a revitalization vote with qualifications: If we remove the AS degree, then
discontinuation. Focus on CA would be the revitalization with qualifier. Revitalization to
make program sustainable.
Discussion on qualifications of revitalization: i.e. significant curricular structural revision
to create a certificate of achievement. Note: a certificate of achievement has to be
recognized by the industry.
Are there certificates recognized by Chancellor’s office: currently one.
Per Bill, Parks are a big industry group of this program.
Question: Is there a single job description that shows a certificate in restoration would
apply toward hiring? Training requirements include much of the training offered through
CR. Bill is working to get a draft internship through the state parks; he believes the needs
are there but agency to agency cooperation is not.
Discussion: Many contractors move from new construction to rebuilding and remodeling,
and do not need a certificate or degree.
Bill insists skills are different for restoration. His reasons for students not coming here and
enrolling in the program are varied. This supports that the program not sustainable.
Strengths: Retention good Value of the mission of chancellors and CR institution fits into #2 goals. Success good Full‐time faculty member Challenges: Inadequate equipment or facilities
Low enrollments overall Instructional Costs per FTES Fill Rates Inconsistence 4