
7351 Tompkins Hill Road, Eureka, FM 110 (Associate Faculty Workspace)

Fort Bragg: 440 Alger St (Fine Woodworking)
Friday, September 26, 2014
3 PM
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, Connie Wolfsen
3.1.
List of ASPC Priorities for 2014-15
3.1.1.
BP/AP 4020 Program, Curriculum and Course Development
3.1.2.
BP/AP 4021 Program Revitalization, Suspension, and/or Discontinuation
3.1.3.
BP/AP 4260 Prerequisites & Corequisites
3.1.4.
BP/AP 4231 Grade Changes
3.1.5.
BP/AP 4235 Credit by Examination
3.1.6.
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)
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)
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
October 10, 2014

3
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 26, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Administrative Procedure
PROGRAM, CURRICULUM AND COURSE DEVELOPMENT
AP 4020 Program and Curriculum Development
AP 4020
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.
ASPC - Page 3 of 29

4
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 26, 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.
ASPC - Page 4 of 29

5
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 26, 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
ASPC - Page 5 of 29

6
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 26, 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
ASPC - Page 6 of 29

Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
7
El Camino AP 4020
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.1
July 2010
ASPC - Page 7 of 29

8
ASPC - Page 8 of 29

9
AP 4020
Academic   Standards   &   Policies   Meeting   –   September   26,   2014  ‐
AGENDA   ITEM   3.2.1.2
99 N. State Street
San Jacinto, CA 92583
New: April 18, 2007
Chapter 4
Academic Affairs
Page 1 of 5
Revisions: October 25, 2010
AP 4020 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 co- requisite 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
ASPC - Page 9 of 29

10 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 Member s -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.
ASPC - Page 10 of 29

11 approval of courses:
ASPC - Page 11 of 29

12
Academic   Standards   &   Policies   Meeting   –   September   26,   2014  ‐
AGENDA   ITEM   3.2.1.2
ASPC - Page 12 of 29

13
Academic   Standards   &   Policies   Meeting   –   September   26,   2014  ‐
AGENDA   ITEM   3.2.1.2
ASPC - Page 13 of 29

14
ASPC - Page 14 of 29

15
Academic Standards & Policies Committee Meeting
September 26, 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:
AP 6.13.1 Curriculum Development, Program Review, and Program Viability
4/13
References : 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
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:
ASPC - Page 15 of 29

16
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.
ASPC - Page 16 of 29

September 26, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development AP 4020
Reference: 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 com- plete 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 recommen- dations, 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 Aca- demic 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.
ASPC - Page 17 of 29
AP 4020 - 1

May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development
ASPC - Page 18 of 29
AP 4020
AP 4020 - 2

May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
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 DIS-
CONTINUANCE
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 pri- marily transfer division and one from a largely vocational division.
・
Four faculty members appointed by the Academic Senate; one from the vocation- al/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 serv- ing more than four consecutive years. The intention of this recommendation is to achieve continuity in membership while also providing periodic freshening of the com- mittee. Membership terms should be rotational (as decided by the initial permanent
・
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.
ASPC - Page 19 of 29
AP 4020 - 3

May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
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 Of- ficer 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 re- view 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 op- portunity to advocate for their program prior to the initial recommendation by PIC.
ASPC - Page 20 of 29
AP 4020 - 4

May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
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 Di- vision 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 docu- ment.
3. PIC will formalize recommendations and options for program improvement in an Anal- ysis Report. In this report PIC will determine a timeline for additional review of the pro- gram. They may also decide at this point to recommend the program for discontinuance.
ASPC - Page 21 of 29
AP 4020 - 5

May 9, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.1.4
Shasta-Tehama-Trinity Joint Community College District
Board of Trustees
Administrative Procedures Manual
Program and Curriculum Development AP 4020
4. 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 Discon- tinuance within three weeks of notification that the program is recommended for discon- tinuance. The plan must contain detailed provisions for meeting the needs of the stu- dents currently enrolled in the program. Career and technical programs require consul- tation 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
ASPC - Page 22 of 29
AP 4020 - 6

23
ASPC   Meeting   September   26,   2014     College   of   the   Redwoods                                            AGENDA   ITEM   3.2.2
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.
ASPC - Page 23 of 29

24
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.
ASPC - Page 24 of 29

25
ASPC September 26, 2014
AGENDA ITEM 3.2.3 Latest revised AP 4021
REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT Proposed Revised Interim AP 4021
Administrative Procedure February 7, 2014
PROGRAM REVITALIZATION, SUSPENSION,
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 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
ASPC - Page 25 of 29

26
ASPC September 26, 2014
3.2.3 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.
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 programprior 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 President CIO/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-cha i rs .
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
ASPC - Page 26 of 29

27
ASPC September 26, 2014
3.2.3 Latest revised AP 4021 satisfying the mission of the College and accreditation standards, meeting student needs, and addressing fiscal realities.
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 Officer/Chief Student Services Officer (CIO/CSSO). The
VicePresidentCIO/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 Dean s or Director s 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
ASPC - Page 27 of 29

28
ASPC September 26, 2014
3.2.3 Latest revised AP 4021 greater effectiveness; reallocation of resources; or a recommendation to develop a new program from the existing program.
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
ASPC - Page 28 of 29

29
ASPC September 26, 2014
3.2.3 Latest revised AP 4021
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
ASPC - Page 29 of 29