Program Review Committee
Friday, April 30, 2010
10:00 am – 12:00pm
Meeting Notes
Present: Marjorie Carson, Keith Snow-Flamer, Maggie Lynch, Mike Peterson, Karen
Nelson, Cheryl Tucker, Rachel Anderson, Cindy Hooper, Steve brown, Crislyn Parkerrecorder
1. Executive Summary Author Feedback
a. Barbara Jaffari, Business Tech:
 Executive summary captures concerns and key points of the program review
b. Pat Girczyc, RN, LVN, Dental Assisting, Medical Assisting
 Commented on some revisions and more detailed explanations of executive
summaries for the RN, LVN, Dental Assisting and Medical Assisting programs
2. Final Master Executive Summary
 The final master executive summary should go to the Academic Senate prior to the
board
 Suggested the College would be strengthened in having several forums at end of
year, asking how we (PRC) have done as a college as a whole;
 Several changes will be made to the final summary; basically grammatical and
placement of information changes.
 There was a recommendation to start administrative program reviews; need to give
Zach a heads up to fill templates
 The appropriate next step is to identify each roll within departments; Keith will
take part; need to determine criteria for evaluation;
 Suggested a group should meet with Zach and Karen; also, most of data is not data
Zach has access to; give Karen and Zach examples of what data to look for; w/b
more involved on where is data or how get
 Are smaller committees ever reviewed for efficiency – should have some process in
the institution to look at efficiencies of committees. Suggested one reason
committees are behind timeline, because no efficiencies have been established.
3. PRC Calendar Updates
 Discussion on moving program review to spring, from fall because of the concern
on the integration of data in a timely fashion to the IPM “blue groups.” The gist of
the discussion, should this change be initiated, was to provide people a means to do
an update. Because of self study, instead of asking to do an extensive form, do a
simpler form to update what done the previous year with pre-populated data
templates; in the fall do the short form updates, (data tear-outs and assessment) use
bulk of program review docs next fall, for integrated planning committees with
updates and then full annual in the spring of 2011; some feel it is critical CR makes
this change because the budget committee did not get critical information from
program review to inform their decision and that the process is not transparent.

It was also discussed that while this is where we need to be eventually, if we
change now, because CR’s history of changing things every year, we need to
continue the laborious process, at least for another year so we can remain consistent
for two years; with everything we do, we must be sure we support accreditation.
There is agreement on the concept, disagreement is on how to make process work
(IPM) and when to implement

Other concerns: if people believe that all the work they do isn’t being used to form
decision-making process, then they won’t do it; purpose to move to spring is
better, to be sure IP gets information to inform; takes 4 weeks for information to
process thru blue people and budget people want to have time to interview people
regarding needs, as well,
4. IPM Model Narrative


College council has sent IPM narrative to constituents, for feedback
PRC can note that we endorse to this point, start flow of constituent reviews
through the college; it is not felt there will be many changes; has more to do with
narrowing down language to be sure it is accurate.

College council meets Monday,
5. Other






Regarding Comprehensive program reviews: if we follow the calendar to 2016,
graphic communications, hospitality, real estate and welding are due next year;
Does not include new AG or Health Occ programs;
CR comp every 5 years, but the State requires CTE every 2 years, but because we
are so robust in our annuals, just need to include labor market information, for
example
Noted that graphic communications has been removed from inventory so can be
removed from comprehensive review schedule
Need to go back number of years to see if students need to complete anything and
notify students;
No general studies annual review this year;
6. Adjourn