REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Meeting of the
Academic Standards and Policies Committee
 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, FM 110 (Associate Faculty Workspace)
 Fort Bragg: 440 Alger St (Fine Woodworking)
Friday, September 12, 2014
3 PM
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Introductions and Public Comment: Members of the audience are invited to make
comments regarding any subject appropriate to the Academic Standards and Policies
Committee.
3. Discussion Items
3.1. List of ASPC Priorities for 2014-15
3.1.1.
3.1.2.
3.1.3.
3.1.4.
3.1.5.
3.1.6.
BP/AP 4020 Program, Curriculum and Course Development
BP/AP 4021 Program Revitalization, Suspension, and/or Discontinuation
BP/AP 4260 Prerequisites & Corequisites
BP/AP 4231 Grade Changes
BP/AP 4235 Credit by Examination
BP/AP 3900 Speech: Time, Place and Manner
3.2. Continue Revising Working Draft of AP 4020 Program, Curriculum and
Course Development (Attachment)
3.2.1. Best Practices for AP 4020 from Other Colleges (Attachments for all four)
3.2.1.1.
El Camino
3.2.1.2.
Mount San Jacinto
3.2.1.3.
San Mateo
3.2.1.4.
Shasta
3.2.2. Notes from 4021 Task Force (Attachment)
3.2.3. Revised AP 4021 Program Revitalization, Suspension and/or
Discontinuation (Attachment [minus appendices])
4. Announcements/Open Forum:
5. Adjournment
Public Notice—Nondiscrimination:
College of the Redwoods does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, age, gender, sexual orientation, color or
disability in any of its programs or activities. College of the Redwoods is committed to providing reasonable
accommodations for persons with disabilities. Upon request this publication will be made available in alternate formats.
Please contact Debbie Williams, Academic Senate Support, 7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, CA 95501, (707) 476-4259,
8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. (except Wednesdays).
Next Meeting (first one for 2014-15):
Friday, September 26, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2
September 12, 2014
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Administrative Procedure
AP 4020
PROGRAM, CURRICULUM AND COURSE DEVELOPMENT
AP 4020 Program and Curriculum Development
College of the Redwoods is committed to the vitality and integrity of its educational offerings. Following
a transparent process and using appropriate data is central to this endeavor. This procedure outlines the
processes that will be used to initiate a new instructional program and develop curriculum.
Instructional Program Initiation
An instructional program is defined as a discipline and/or as an organized sequence or groupings of
courses leading to a defined objective such as a major (area of emphasis), degree, or certificate.
In order to create and maintain a viable curriculum compatible with the Education Master Plan, the
President/Superintendent or designee shall be responsible for recommending to the Board for approval all
new credit and noncredit programs in accordance with the Education Code. New instructional programs
are mutually agreed upon by the Board of Trustees or its representative and the Academic Senate.
The following process incorporates the criteria used to evaluate an instructional program for
discontinuance. Program initiation requires significant commitment of resources and should only occur
after serious deliberation.
The following indicators are to be considered:







Alignment with the Chancellor’s Office priorities, the College’s mission, and accreditation
standards
Alignment with state and federal requirements
Requirements from transfer institutions
Availability of fulltime and associate faculty
Budget concerns and sufficient funding
Demand in the workforce
Adequate facilities and equipment
Instructional Program Initiation Process
Step One: New Instructional Program Request
A new instructional program request can be initiated by the administration, faculty, or the Academic
Senate by submitting a New Instructional Program Request (See Appendix A) to the
President/Superintendent. Recommendations from individual departments, faculty or advisory
committees will be brought to the appropriate division dean to bring forward to the Chief Instructional
officer/Chief Student Services Officer (CIO/CSSO). The CIO/CSSO will consult with the Academic
Senate Co-Presidents on the recommendations moving forward.
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2
Step Two: Appointment of the Task Force
If a new instructional program request is approved by the President/Superintendent, he or she will, with
consultation with Expanded Cabinet, appoint a Task Force to analyze viability of the new program. The
Task Force shall be composed of the following:




2 Deans or Directors one of which will not be directly connected to the new program
Academic Senate Co-President or member of the Executive Committee
2 faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate, one of which will be a member of the
proposed division
1 representative appointed by the President
The Task Force will be co-chaired by a faculty member and a Dean or Director, to be selected from and
by the membership of the Task Force. The responsibilities of the co-chairs of the Task Force include, but
are not limited to the following:




Consultation with the Office of Institutional Research and other resources to validate information
being used in determining recommendations
Maintenance of objectivity and integrity during the entire process
Written summary recorded for each meeting
Production of a Task Force Recommendation Report
Step Three: New Instructional Program Viability and Sustainability Analysis
The first task is to draw up a matrix of criteria by which viability and sustainability may be assessed, for
example:




Best practices of other colleges
Job Market analysis
Develop a matrix for or set targets for the success rate with a timeline for assessment of the
program
Literature review
Step Four: Task Force New Program Recommendation Report
Subsequent to review of all the relevant information, the Task Force will present its finding including a
recommendation on a course of action to the CIO/CSSO and President/Superintendent. Three possible
recommendations are approval, no approval, or look for alternatives such as modifying existing programs
to fill the need/purpose.
If the recommendation is to initiate a new program, a corresponding commitment should be made to
include adequate faculty support.
The Task Force’s written report will consist of 1) a summary of the data, 2) an analysis of the data, 3) the
recommendation, 4) the factors used to make the recommendation, and 5) a detailed assessment of the
impact of the recommendations on the college’s overall educational program and budget, as well as its
impact on students, faculty, and staff involved.
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2
Step Five: Decision
The President/Superintendent has full responsibility and authority to implement the decision as designee
of the Board of Trustees. If the President/Superintendent decides to implement the recommendation for
initiation of the new program the President/Superintendent will task the appropriate administrators to
work with faculty and staff to develop the new instructional program. If the President/Superintendent
decides not to implement the recommendation for initiation of the new program, then he or she shall
communicate the reasons in writing to the Expanded Cabinet and to the Academic Senate.
CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT
Curriculum and Course Development
The primary responsibility for the establishment, development, modification, and inactivation of
curriculum resides with the faculty and the advice and judgment of the Academic Senate.
When teaching a course, faculty members shall follow the course outline of record as the framework for
the course. Within this framework, each instructor shall use the outline in a manner best designed to meet
the needs and capabilities of students and to best suit the instructional methods of the faculty member.
This flexibility in use of the outline shall be limited by the instructor’s ability to meet stated objectives
and outcomes as determined by the approved evaluative criteria.
Curriculum shall be systematically assessed in order to assure currency, improve teaching and learning
strategies, and achieve stated learning outcomes in accordance with Curriculum Committee processes and
timelines.
Curriculum Committee and Curriculum Processes
Curriculum processes are established, performed, maintained, and overseen by the Curriculum
Committee. Documentation of these processes is available on the Curriculum Committee website.
The membership of the Curriculum Committee can be found in the Curriculum Committee By-Laws. As
a standing committee of the Academic Senate, the Curriculum Committee is responsible for the review
and endorsement of curriculum in accordance with procedures set forth in the current California
Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Program and Course Approval Handbook.
Upon Curriculum Committee and Academic Senate approval, the Academic Senate recommendations are
forwarded to the Chief Instructional Officer (CIO) and then to the Board of Trustees (BOT) at least once
during each fall and spring term for approval.
The BOT recommendation(s) shall be submitted to all required regulatory bodies for approval. New
programs and courses shall be offered only after such approval has been obtained. Under the direction of
the CIO, the district shall keep program and course lists updated and publicly available. Chancellor’s
Office approved course information is published in the college’s catalog and in schedules.
The CIO, in mutual agreement with the Academic Senate, shall set timelines for regular review of
existing courses or programs as well as catalog cutoff dates. The Curriculum Committee shall publish its
calendar of meetings for the year and disseminate it to all departments and offices involved in the
curricular process.
Definition of a Credit Hour
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2
(1) An amount of student work represented in the intended learning outcomes and verified by
evidence of student achievement that reasonably approximates not less than one hour of
classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours of out-of-class work each
week for approximately fifteen weeks for one semester hour of credit, or the equivalent amount
of work over a different amount of time.
(2) For other academic work leading to award of credit hours (such as internships, practica,
studio work) the award of credit hours will be based on an amount of work implied by the
paragraph before.
(3) For asynchronous online courses, where no classroom instruction takes place per se, the
assignment of credit hour will be based on the equivalent amount of work as represented by the
definition above. An existing face to face course may be taught in an online format for the same
credit hours provided the amount of work expected remains the same.
The Chief Instructional Officer (CIO) and the Curriculum Committee are charged with the
responsibility to ensure that the curriculum adheres to this requirement. The CIO and the
Curriculum Committee must make a reasonable determination that proposed assignment of credit
hours for new courses conforms to commonly accepted practice in higher education.
Reference: Title 5 Sections 51021, 55000 et seq., and 55100 et seq.; Accreditation Standard II.A;
California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office Student Attendance Accounting Manual –
Chapter 3; 34 CFR 600.2
Approved: 04/04/2011
Former Administrative Regulation #122.01, “Program Review,”
Approved: 6/6/94
Revised: 1/9/95; 4/6/98; and 4/5/04
Former Administrative Regulation #104.01 “Curriculum Development”
Approved: 5/86
Revised: 10/91 and 1/9/95
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.1 (El Camino AP 4020)
AP 4020
Program, Curriculum, and Course Development
Procedures for program and curriculum development and review are located in the
Curriculum Handbook which is housed in the Office of Academic Affairs, division
offices and the College website.
July 2010
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
Mt. San Jacinto
Community College District
1499 N. State Street
San Jacinto, CA 92583
AP 4020
AP 4020
New: April 18, 2007
Revisions: October 25, 2010
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.2
Administrative Procedure
Chapter 4
Academic Affairs
Page 1 of 5
Program and Curriculum Development
Reference:
Title V Sections 51021, 55000 et seq., 55100 et seq.; Accreditation Standards II.A.
Curriculum Review
The Academic Senate delegates to the Curriculum Committee, without forfeiting its rights or
responsibilities under Title 5, Section 53200-53204.
The Curriculum Committee has the responsibility to establish prerequisites, co requisites,
advisories on recommended preparation, curriculum development, general education
requirements, graduation requirements, general education requirements, program review,
grading policies, and certain limitations on enrollment using the curriculum review process
and, program review, and program discontinuance.
The Curriculum Committee also reviews the course and prerequisites in a manner that meets
each of the requirements under Title 5, Section 55201(b.1), and those specified in the
curriculum review process. (http://www.msjc.edu/currcomm/) Any prerequisite or corequisite which is successfully challenged under Title 5, Section 5520 (f), subsections (1), (2),
or (3) shall be reviewed promptly thereafter to assure that it is in compliance with other
provisions of this policy and the law.
On curricular and grading issues of a daily operational nature, this committee will make
recommendations to the Board of Trustees with College Council review.
Program Review
Program review is a systematic process of data collection, analysis, and interpretation for
effective planning and accreditation review. Evaluation of programs includes: curriculum
development and review; student access and success; and inclusion of program goals into
institutional planning. The review of the quality and effectiveness of Mt. San Jacinto College
programs is an ongoing professional responsibility and should be both meaningful and
practical. In accordance with Title 5, Section 51022, Mt. San Jacinto College has adopted this
program review plan. the program review plan has been adopted by Mt. San Jacinto College.
Any prerequisite or co-requisite which is successfully challenged under Title 5, Section 5520
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.2
(f), subsections (1), (2), or (3) shall be reviewed promptly thereafter to assure that it is in
compliance with other provisions of this policy and the law.
Instructor’s Formal Agreement to Teach the Course as Described
Instructors will be provided with a copy of the course outline of record for all courses to
which they are assigned. By accepting employment with the District, faculty agree to teach in
accordance with the course outline, particularly those aspects of the course outline that are
the basis for justifying the establishment of the prerequisite or co-requisite
District Curriculum Approval Process
This Curriculum Committee shall serve to consider and recommend policies and procedures
regarding curriculum development, prerequisite, graduation requirements, general education
requirements, program review, grading policies, and program discontinuance. On curricular
and grading issues of a daily operational nature, this committee will make recommendations
to the Board of Trustees with College Council review. The membership of the Curriculum
Committee shall consist of:
Co-Chairs:
•
•
Vice President of Instruction
One Elected Faculty Member
Membership:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
One Faculty Member from each cluster designated discipline group
Faculty Members-at-Large
Counselor
Distance Education Coordinator Representative
Vice President of Instruction as a Non-voting Chair
Two (2) Instructional Administrators
Articulation Officer
Librarian and Learning Resource Center Representatives
Classified Staff Member
Two (2) Students, preferably 1 from each campus
At the annual organizational meeting the Curriculum Committee establishes the annual
calendar for meeting schedule, and timelines for submission to the committee. These are
posted on the MSJC Curriculum Website http://www.msjc.edu/currcomm.
Publication of changes and maintenance of records is distributed in print and available on the
college website (minutes, class schedule, annual catalog). The college website is updated
regularly.
A wide range of delivery systems and modes of instruction are used that include distance
education and honors sections.
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.2
The following chart designates the responsibility and authority for initiation, review and
approval of courses:
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.2
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.2
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.3
CHAPTER 6: Educational Program
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE NO. 6.13.1 (AP 4020 and 4022)
ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE
San Mateo County Community College District
Subject:
Adoption Date:
References:
AP 6.13.1 Curriculum Development, Program Review, and Program Viability
4/13
Title 5 Sections 51021, 55000 et seq. and 55100 et seq.; Accreditation
Standard II.A
_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. The District Colleges comply with Education Code and Title 5 requirements regarding credit and
non-credit proposals and revisions.
2. The activities of Curriculum and Program Development, Program Review, and Program Viability and
Discontinuance shall have Districtwide oversight and coordination through the office of the Vice
Chancellor of Educational Services and Planning, in consultation with the District Academic Senate
Governing Council.
3. Curriculum and Program Development and renewal is the lifeblood of an institution of higher
education providing the currency and relevancy to the overall academic environment. Curriculum and
Program Development shall:
 Rely upon the discipline expertise of the program faculty,
 Depend on environmental scanning and verifiable need for program in terms of regional
workforce or transferability,
 Depend on values and goals established in the college planning process and existing in the
published college Educational Master Plan,
 Result in a published proposal that will be presented to the college community through the
shared governance process.
4. Program Review is a self-study conducted by program faculty and is a component of college planning
that identifies strengths and weaknesses in each college program and assists program faculty,
Academic Senate leadership and college administrators increase the quality of instruction and
services. Program Review shall:
 Rely upon the discipline expertise of the program faculty,
 Include input from advisory committees when appropriate,
 Be based on institutional and environmental data,
 Be conducted at least every six years or in the case of vocational programs every two years in
compliance with Ed Code,
 Result in a published document that will be presented to the college community through the
shared governance process.
5. Program Viability and Discontinuance is a component of college planning that leads to increased
quality of instruction and service and to better use of existing resources. Quantitative and qualitative
data are used to assess a program’s academic relevance and vitality with the specific goal of assessing
discontinuance of the program. Major changes in course scheduling for a specific program shall be
considered in the Program Discontinuance process. Program Discontinuance shall:
September 12, 2014
AP 6.13.1 Curriculum Development, Program Review, and Program Viability (continued)









Depend on the discipline expertise of the program faculty,
Reference current Program Reviews,
Depend on a detailed SWOT Analysis,
Depend on values and goals established in the college planning process and existing in the
published college Educational Master Plan,
Be based on a current, published list of criteria for considering which programs to
discontinue. The criteria must be established through the shared governance process,
Include input from advisory committees when appropriate,
Consider the intended and unintended consequences of discontinuance,
Consider viability, vitality, revitalization, suspension or discontinuance,
Result in a document that contains recommendations that will be presented to the college
community through the shared governance process and be given sufficient time for final
public comment.
6. All plans for Curriculum and Program Development, Program Review, and Program Viability and
Discontinuance will culminate in recommendations to the Board of Trustees through the Chancellor,
or designee, for approval of curricular additions, program evaluations, and deletions.
7. “An instructional program is defined as a discipline and as an organized sequence or grouping of
courses leading to a defined objective such as a major, degree, certificate, license, the acquisition of
selected knowledge or skills, or transfer to another institution of higher education ” [Title 5
§55000(g)] .
8. The Office of Instruction at each College will be responsible for maintenance of all records regarding
Curriculum and Program Development, Program Review, and Program Viability and Discontinuance.
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
Reference:
AP 4020
Title 5, Sections 51021, 55000 et seq. and 55100 et seq.; Accreditation
Standards 4.A and D
PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERING/APPROVING NEW PROGRAMS
1.
Sponsor identifies need.
2.
Sponsor, together with interested faculty and Dean of appropriate discipline, (hereafter the
“oversight committee”) develop abstract for new program. Use NFNRC format. Vice President of Academic Affairs informed of proposal.
3.
An abstract is presented by the oversight committee to Instructional Council, Curriculum
Council, and Center faculty for feedback.
4.
The oversight committee develops the complete proposal (NFNRC proposal and the complete Chancellor’s Office proposal).*
5.
Complete proposal presented by oversight committee to Instructional Council, Curriculum
Council and President’s Cabinet for feedback.
6.
Complete proposal submitted to Curriculum Council TRC, changes modifications sent
back to oversight committee. Complete proposal re-submitted to….etc.
7.
Curriculum Council considers proposal. The Curriculum Council forwards the proposal to
Academic Senate Executive Committee with its recommendations.
8.
The Academic Senate Executive Committee considers the Curriculum Council recommendations, then forwards the proposal to the Vice President of Academic Affairs and the
President with its recommendations.
9.
In the case of a proposal of 18 or more units: Relying primarily on the advice of the Academic Senate, (Curriculum Council and Academic Senate Executive Committee) the President recommends, or fails to recommend, the new program to the Board of Trustees and
the process is complete.
*For AA/AS degree programs and certificates requiring 18 or more units.
AP 4020 - 1
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
AP 4020
AP 4020 - 2
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
AP 4020
PROCEDURES FOR EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM ASSESSMENT, IMPROVEMENT OR DISCONTINUANCE
Procedures for Educational Program Assessment, Improvement or Discontinuance is a formal
process designed to assist instructional programs to review base line quantitative and qualitative data, and when necessary, define corrective action that leads to measurable improvement
of a program. Through the auspices of the Program Improvement Committee (PIC), a collective
supportive effort is formalized that assists in the analysis and assessment of programs that
need to develop a plan of action that leads to program improvement.
Instructional Program Improvement Process
"Educational program" is an organized sequence of courses leading to a defined objective, a
degree, a certificate, a diploma, a license, or transfer to another institution of higher education.
(Title 5 5500)
Within the first six weeks of the fall semester, or whenever directed by Cabinet, the Program
Improvement Committee (PIC) meets to review programs.
The Program Improvement Committee (PIC)
The PIC committee will be comprised of:

Two Instructional Deans appointed by the Chief Instructional Officer; one from a primarily transfer division and one from a largely vocational division.

Four faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate; one from the vocational/professional technical areas, one from the transfer disciplines, one from Student
Services and one that is an academic senate liaison.

The appointments will be for a minimum of two years of service with no member serving more than four consecutive years. The intention of this recommendation is to
achieve continuity in membership while also providing periodic freshening of the committee. Membership terms should be rotational (as decided by the initial permanent
committee members).

The Chair of the committee shall be one of the Instructional Deans as designated by
the Chief Instructional Officer.
Deans or faculty who are members of the PIC will not participate as PIC committee members in the assessment of their own programs, but will be expected to participate in the
advocacy for their programs or disciplines.
AP 4020 - 3
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
AP 4020
Determination of Programs for Review:

Programs may be recommended for review by a dean or the Chief Instructional Officer at any time. Recommendations from individual departments or advisory
committees will be brought to the appropriate division dean to bring forward.

All Programs recommended for voluntary discontinuance will be brought forward by
the appropriate division dean.

Programs which do not meet a pre-determined benchmark may be selected for review by PIC without being brought forward by a dean or Chief Instructional Officer.
Established benchmarks must be approved by the Academic Senate and the Chief
Instructional Officer in consultation with the Deans.
Any program being recommended for review must be supported by data. Possible
Criteria for discussing programs will include qualitative and quantitative measures.
These criteria include but are not limited to:


















Alignment with Educational Master Plan and Mission
Balance of curriculum including CTE, Transfer and Basic Skills.
Replication of programs in the region
Possibility of conjoint programs with other community colleges
Effects on local industry
Effects on UC/CSU transfer
Need for workers in the region in the skills taught in the program
The impact on the transfer student’s ability to complete specific lower division subject
areas and general education requirements
Success rates
Persistence of students in the program
Productivity and efficiency
Student achievement rates in terms of graduation, transfer, or job placement
ARCC data outcomes
Program review recommendations
CTE specific data that is required for Title 5 curricular review and Perkins IV reporting
Influence on related programs and services
Significant reduction, elimination of program income or diminished student enrollment
Cost of the program
The review process is meant to be an inclusive process. Program faculty will have the opportunity to advocate for their program prior to the initial recommendation by PIC.
AP 4020 - 4
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
AP 4020
After reviewing programs, the committee will submit a written recommendation with its
findings to the Office for Academic Affairs and the College Council within two weeks of
meeting. The PIC process can result in three possible recommendations. A program
may be recommended to continue, to continue with qualification, or to be discontinued.
All recommendations will be reviewed by Cabinet and taken under consideration by
the President for a final decision.
A. Recommendation to Continue: This is a recommendation to continue without qualification.
B. Recommended to Continue with qualification:
1. The program faculty and instructional program administrator will form a team to prepare
a Program Improvement Action Plan addressing the recommendations from the Program
Improvement Committee.
a) The team should include all full-time faculty members within the discipline, at least
one full-time faculty member from outside the program and at least one advisory
committee member if an advisory committee exists for the program. If the program
does not have a full-time faculty member then a full-time faculty member from the Division or a related area will be included.
b) A mentor may be requested from the Academic Senate to assist in the development
of the Program Improvement Action Plan.
c) The Program Improvement Action Plan will be submitted to the Office for Academic
Affairs within six weeks following the notification of recommendation to continue with
qualification.
d) The formalized action plan must be included with the next Annual Report or Program
Review for College Council review.
e) The Chief Instructional Officer will convene the Program Improvement Committee to
review the Program Improvement Action Plan no later than two weeks after receipt of
the document.
2.
PIC will review the Program Improvement Action Plan and then meet with the Program
Improvement Action Plan team and the Chief Instructional Officer to discuss the document.
3.
PIC will formalize recommendations and options for program improvement in an Analysis Report. In this report PIC will determine a timeline for additional review of the program. They may also decide at this point to recommend the program for discontinuance.
AP 4020 - 5
September 12, 2014
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
May 9, 2014
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
4.
AP 4020
The Analysis Report is submitted to the Chief Instructional Officer no later than four
weeks after the Chief Instructional Officer convenes the PIC committee to review the
Program Improvement Action Plan.
C. Recommendation to Discontinue:
1. Faculty and the instructional program administrator develop a Plan for Program Discontinuance within three weeks of notification that the program is recommended for discontinuance. The plan must contain detailed provisions for meeting the needs of the students currently enrolled in the program. Career and technical programs require consultation with the Private Industry Council per Educational Code 78016. This plan is then
forwarded to the Chief Instructional Officer who submits it to College Council and the
Academic Senate for review and recommendations.
2. The plan (with recommendations) is forwarded to the President’s Cabinet for review and
approval/disapproval. If the President’s Cabinet approves the discontinuance plan, it is
implemented and the program is discontinued as determined by a final Plan for Program
Discontinuance.
Approved by Academic Senate 4/28/03
Board Reviewed 11/10/04
Board Reviewed 04/11/12
AP 4020 - 6
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2
ASPC Meeting March 28, 2014 College of the Redwoods 3.2.5 Notes from 4021 Task Force AP 4021 Co‐chair Evaluation of Process January 29, 2014 Present: Jeff Cummings, Keith Snow‐Flamer, Bob Brown, Tracey Thomas, Joe Hash, Mark Renner AP 4021 Process Evaluation: Suggestions for future: 
Appendix A and the Program Review Committee Executive Summary – should not to be distributed to anyone until it is positive the program will undergo the AP 4021 process, and then all information presented must be documented and signed by the president or designee prior to beginning this process (the Appendix A document was a copy only; it did not include a signature from the president). 
Suggestion that a step be added that allows full time or associate faculty who are connected with the program an opportunity to give their perspective to the committee, but not be an integral part of the committee. Also to allow them some response the data submitted. 
Programs where the only deficiency is a lack of full time faculty should not have to undergo this process (e.g. Addiction Studies). The program review committee should make it very clear in the program and executive summaries that lack of full time faculty is the only reason they are recommending the AP 4021 process. This year it was to assist in the faculty prioritization ranking process. 
Suggestion that input from the AP4021 process is included in the rubric for faculty prioritization. It will strengthen process. 
For program initiation or revitalization, the policy should support and include language clarifying that if CR agrees to initiate or revitalize a program, a corresponding commitment should be made to include a full time faculty member, and to rank this high in the faculty prioritization process. Process: 
The Committees reviewed all data, beginning with Appendix A and why the program is undergoing the process. Appendix A was weighted heavily and all factors need to be included. Several programs should have had additional boxes checked; the task force initially did not see the overall picture. 
Aggregating all labor market data into one score was good. 
Quantitative data: add both section and average section size. The one piece of data not included and was added by the task force was average section size over the last five years. It really showed the health of the program. 
Suspension was not discussed in detail. It was an awkward vote; easier to vote suspension than discontinuance, even though the data might show otherwise. If suspension, the report should show what the suspension will look like and what is needed to make it a viable program. Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.2
ASPC Meeting March 28, 2014 College of the Redwoods 3.2.5 Notes from 4021 Task Force AP 4021 Co‐chair Evaluation of Process January 29, 2014 Initiation of Process: 
There were questions on how the program review committee made the decision to recommend a program for AP 4021. Programs should be evaluated based on a rubric and the process transparent. Communication for this year needs to start with a reminder that a process is in place, is succinct and how it will be done. Reminder: AP 4021 can be initiated by PRC, Faculty, Dean or administrator. 
Final AP should be finalized and in place by May. The process should be implemented in the spring. 
PRC discusses each program during the year. There is not a next step to link this process. 
Suggestion that the final report be treated like a personnel record, or nondisclosure, with a signed agreement up front. Like a hiring committee the report is recommendation only and final decision up to president/administration. For this year’s process, the report went to the task force committee for fact finding only and back to the co‐chairs to finalize and submit to the president. 
How and why a program is submitted to the AP 4021 should be more transparent, including who will participate in the process; that the same rubric was used for all programs, and required signatures are included. Discussed there are two processes for program discontinuance or suspension, AP 4021 and the RIF: 
17 programs were sent to CRFO for possible discontinuation during the RIF process; were reduced to 10; then faculty and the Senate were notified. Faculty felt the Senate should be advocating for their program(s). It is important the Senate knows how programs for the RIF process. 
There seems to be a disconnected between AP7217 and 4021. If the 4021 process finds a program is good but needs full time faculty, it should be weighted in faculty prioritization. 
Add language to AP 7217 for faculty prioritization based on the 4021 process. 
Suggestion: fine tune and finalize the interim process and implement for Spring 2014 to get on the right cycle. Clarify the ambiguity around program scoring rubric, and communicate. 
Include the senate in the process for determining what program will undergo the AP 4021 process, so they can inform faculty. 
Scheduling decisions should not be linked to the 4021 process. Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Proposed Revised Interim AP 4021
Administrative Procedure
February 7, 2014
ASPC March 28, 2014
PROGRAM REVITALIZATION, SUSPENSION,
AND/OR DISCONTINUATION
Philosophy and Purpose
The College of the Redwoods District is committed to the vitality and integrity of its
educational programs as validated by processes of regular and ongoing evaluation. Following
a transparent process and using appropriate data, this procedure provides a framework for the
effective consideration of program vitality that utilizes regular and rigorous institutional
evaluation, and in those instances where consideration of discontinuance is appropriate,
provides a framework and a process of effective engagement within which to consider the
relevant issues and to come to an appropriate and timely institutional resolution.
This procedure will be used to review the revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance of
instructional programs. An instructional program is defined as a discipline and/or as an
organized sequence or grouping of courses leading to a defined objective such as a major
(area of emphasis), degree, or certificate.
Changes in the following indicators may cause a program to be recommended to the
President/Superintendent for evaluation (based on quantitative and qualitative data):










Program review and analysis trends (i.e. enrollment, FTES/FTEF ratio, success and
retention rates, etc.)
Degree and certificate completions
Alignment with the Chancellor’s Office priorities, the College’s mission, and
accreditation standards
Alignment with state and federal requirements
Changes in requirements from transfer institutions
Availability of fulltime and associate faculty
Budget concerns and lack of sufficient funding
Changes in demand in the workforce
Lack of adequate facilities and equipment
Outdated curriculum
The Program Review process, unit plans, and other strategic, educational and annual
planning activities should be referenced and considered among sources of data and direction
in this process, but it is important to emphasize that their primary purpose and use is not to
target programs for discontinuance. It is also important to note that program revitalization,
suspension, or discontinuance should occur only after serious deliberation.
It is necessary to keep in mind that during times of budget reductions or reallocations which
necessitate the reduction in (cutting) class sections and reduction in faculty positions, it is
possible that the College may not have sufficient course offerings to maintain a program or a
major at the College. In such instances, as best as possible, consideration should be given to
1
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
satisfying the mission of the College and accreditation standards, meeting student needs, and
addressing fiscal realities.
ASPC March 28, 2014
Consideration of Collective Bargaining Rights
Nothing contained in this Administrative Procedure is intended to infringe upon, diminish, or
supersede any collective bargaining rights established for employees of the District. It is the
intention of the District that consideration of issues that fall under the scope of bargaining be
addressed through the regular processes established for such consideration by the District and
its collective bargaining units.
Program Revitalization, Suspension and/or Discontinuance Evaluation Process
Step One: Program Analysis Request
Program revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance discussions can be initiated by the
administration, faculty within the discipline, the Program Review Committee or the
Academic Senate at any time by submitting a Program Analysis Request (Appendix A) to the
President/Superintendent. Recommendations from individual departments or advisory
committees will be brought to the appropriate division dean to bring forward to the Vice
PresidentChief Instruction Offecer/Chief Student Services Officer (CIO/CSSO). The Vice
PresidentCIO/CSSO will consult with the Academic Senate Co-Presidents on the
recommendations moving forward.
Step Two: Appointment of the Task Force
If a Program Analysis Request is approved by the President/Superintendent, he or she will,
with consultation with Expanded Cabinet, appoint a Task Force. The Task Force shall be
composed of the following:
 2 Deans or Directors not connected to the program of the program (Co-Chair, with
one of the faculty members described below)
 Academic Senate Co-President or designee member of the Executive Committee.
 1 faculty member who teaches in the program appointed by the Academic Senate
(or designee appointed by the President if a faculty member is not available)
 1 faculty member 2 faculty members who is are not a member of the program or
division appointed by the Academic Senate (or designee appointed by the President if
a faculty member is not available)
 1 representative appointed by the President/Superintendent
 1 manager appointed by the Managers Council
Deans/Directors or faculty who are responsible for, or teach in, the program under review
will not serve as members of the task force but will be expected to provide information to
the task force .
To protect the revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance process, all task force members
are required to maintain confidentiality throughout and after the conclusion of the
process. Confidential information includes issues discussed during the process. All
2
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
information relating to the process may only be discussed with other task force members or
administrators in the chain of command of the program under review.
ASPC March 28, 2014
The Task Force will be co-chaired by a faculty member to be selected from and by the
membership of the Task Force. The responsibilities of the co-chairs of the Task Force
include, but are not be limited to, the following:
 Consultation with the Office of Institutional Research and other resources to validate
information being used in determining recommendations
 Maintenance of objectivity and integrity during the entire process
 Written summary recorded for each meeting
 Production of a Task Force Recommendation Report
Step Three: Program Analysis
The Office of Institutional Research will complete the Program Analysis Form (Appendix B)
within two weeks of the President/Superintendent’s approval of the Program Analysis
Request and submit this to the co-chairs of the Task Force, who will then begin work
analyzing both quantitative and qualitative data provided.
Current and past quantitative and qualitative data on the program must be researched and
reported so that the Task Force can make an informed recommendation to the
President/Superintendent and Expanded Cabinet regarding the program’s revitalization,
suspension, or discontinuance.
Program faculty will have the opportunity to provide information about their program
prior to the initial recommendation by the task force(s). Deans/Directors or faculty who
are responsible for, or and Faculty who teach in, the program under review will have the
opportunity to review the initial recommendation for findings of fact.
Step Four: Task Force Program Recommendation Report
Subsequent to review of all of the relevant information, the Task Force, working with the
Office of Institutional Research, will present its findings, including a recommendation on a
course of action, and a timeframe for resolution to the Vice PresidentCIO/CSSO and
President/Superintendent. This recommendation report shall be submitted no more than 60
days after formation of the Task Force unless otherwise agreed to between the Vice
President CIO/CSSO and the task force co-chairs.
The three possible recommendations that may be provided by the Task Force include:
1. Program Revitalization: A program may be recommended to continue with qualifications.
These may include, but are not limited to, specific interventions designed to improve the
viability and responsiveness of the program. Examples of Program Revitalization may
include a plan of action to enhance the performance and effectiveness of an existing
program, which could include training/professional development for faculty and/or
curriculum changes/updates; a recommendation to restructure an existing program for
3
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
greater effectiveness; reallocation of resources; or a recommendation to develop a new
program from the existing program.
ASPC March 28, 2014
The Task Force Recommendation Report for Program Revitalization shall include a
timeline during which these interventions will occur, an assessment plan, and expected
outcomes. All interventions and timelines will also be communicated in writing to the
appropriate administrator. After the specified revitalization period is completed the
program will be reviewed again on a regular program review cycle.
2. Program Suspension: A program may be recommended for a one or more years
suspension. Any recommendation for program suspension must include the criteria used
to arrive at the recommendation. Examples or reasoning for the temporary suspension
may include but are not limited to:







Safety issues
Lack of required equipment or facilities
Lack of available fulltime or associate faculty
Regulatory suspension,
Lack of funding resources
Misalignment with state, Chancellor’s Office priorities, the College’s mission,
accreditation standards, federal law/mandates
Budget concerns and lack of sufficient funding
The Task Force Recommendation Report for Program Suspension shall include: a
detailed plan and recommended timeline for the suspension of the program with the least
impact on students, faculty, staff and the community; an impact report explaining how
phasing out the program for suspension will affect students, faculty, staff, and the
community based on the Program Analysis data; the amount of cost savings achieved by
virtue of the program’s suspension; recommendations for how currently enrolled students
may meet their educational objectives through alternative means while the program is
under suspension; and the requirements of collective bargaining for faculty and staff,
including application of policies for reduction in force and opportunities for retraining of
faculty and staff, if necessary, while the program is under suspension.
3. Program Discontinuance: A recommendation to discontinue a program will occur when,
after a full evaluation study, it is concluded that it is no longer in the best interest of the
College, its students, and the larger community for the program to continue. Any
recommendation for program discontinuance must include the criteria used to arrive at
the recommendation. The Task Force Recommendation Report for Program
Discontinuance shall include the following: a detailed plan and recommended timeline
for phasing out the program that minimizes the impact on students, faculty, staff and the
community; an impact report explaining how phasing out the program will affect
students, faculty, staff, and the community based on the Program Analysis data; the
amount of cost savings achieved by virtue of the program’s discontinuance;
recommendations for how currently enrolled students may meet their educational
objectives through alternative means; and the requirements of collective bargaining for
faculty and staff, including application of policies for reduction in force and opportunities
for retraining of faculty and staff.
4
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
ASPC March 28, 2014
The Task Force’s written report will consist of 1) a summary of the data, 2) an analysis of the
data, 3) the recommendation, 4) the factors used to make the recommendation, and 5) a
detailed assessment of the recommendations’ impact on the college’s overall educational
program and budget, as well as its impact on students, faculty, and staff involved.
Step Five: Decision
The President/Superintendent has full responsibility and authority to implement the decision
as designee of the Board of Trustees. If the President/Superintendent decides to implement
the recommendation for revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance, the
President/Superintendent will task the appropriate administrators to work with faculty and
staff to develop the program revitalization, suspension or discontinuance timeline, taking into
consideration the following:
 Faculty reassignment by FSA or termination
 Staff reassignment or termination
 Alternatives for students to complete program degrees and/or certificates
 Redistribution/discontinuance of equipment, supplies, facilities, and budget
If the President/Superintendent decides not to implement the recommendation for
revitalization, suspension, or discontinuance, then he or she shall communicate the reasons in
writing to the Expanded Cabinet. If the final decision is to suspend or discontinue the
program, then the Chief Instructional Officer or the Chief Student Services Officer, Chief
Human Resources Officer, Academic Senate, CRFO, CSEA, and appropriate deans/directors
will participate in the following steps:
 Consult with affected faculty and staff member(s) regarding their employment rights
 Consult with students regarding their options for program completion or transfer
Appendix A
5
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
ASPC March 28, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
PROGRAM ANALYSIS REQUEST FORM
Program Name:____________________________________________________
This Program Analysis Request must be supported by the program review or other
appropriate data and shall be submitted to the President/Superintendent. The
President/Superintendent will determine if a Task Force shall 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)

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
Other:
Name of Requestor
Approved
Date
Denied
President/Superintendent
Date
Appendix B
6
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
ASPC March 28, 2014
If the Program Analysis Request is approved by the President/Superintendent, the Director of
Institutional Research will complete the Program Analysis Form within a two-week period
and submit to the co-chairs of the Task Force. The form will address all applicable criteria
below for the most recent 6 terms (compared to the current district average) unless
information is unavailable or not applicable.
PROGRAM REVITALIZATION, SUSPENSION AND/OR DISCONTINUANCE
PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM– QUANTITATIVE DATA
District
Average
(if applicable)
Fall
2010
Spring
2011
Fall
2011
Spring
2012
1. Total student
enrollment
2. Number of class
sections offered
3. Fill rates/caps
4. FTES
5. FTES/FTEF
6. Term-to term
persistence of
students in the
program
7. Retention
8. Student Success
(C or better)
9. Number of
graduated/certifi
ed students from
the program
10. Expense or
annual
cost/FTES trends
11. Labor market
demand:
vocational and
avocational
12. Number of
program/area
transfers
PROGRAM ANALYSIS FORM – QUALITATIVE DATA
7
Fall
2012
Spring
2013
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 12, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3
3.2.6 Latest revised AP 4021
This report will address all applicable criteria below unless information is unavailable or not
applicable.
ASPC March 28, 2014
1. The impact the action will have on the general education curriculum or the curriculum of
other programs.
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.
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.
8