Program Review Committee
Friday, April 29, 2011
9:00 – 11:30 am
Boardroom
PRESENT
Utpal Goswami, Rachel Anderson, Cindy Hooper, Todd Olsen, (a full
accounting of those present is not available; it is noted that a quorum is
present); guest Justine Shaw
CALL MEETING TO
ORDER, APPROVE
MEETING NOTES
The meeting was called to order at 9:12am
STREAMLINING
THE PROGRAM
REVIEW PROCESS
(UTPAL 9:05 –
9:30AM) (SEE
HANDOUT)
Utpal outlined some suggestions, to use as a beginning point, for streamlining
the program review process:
The minutes of 4/22/11 were approved as amended
 Separate program review into two parts: Academic and Service Areas.
 At the academic discipline and program level IR will provide a range of
basic program/course data, similar to what we already use (see handout).
Discussion of the data takes place at the discipline level. Each
discipline/program conducts an external scan, for trends in that discipline, to
discover what is happening in the field. Assessment is conducted of the
data and the external trends in relation to SLOs and PLOs. The report to the
PRC will be a summary document showing compliance based on
(previously) agreed-upon target indicators (refer to handout for ideas).
 Benchmark indicators of discipline/program success will be determined by
an internal ad-hoc committee and based on various internal and external
criteria. A five year trend can be captured using the Pearson Coefficient:
for example, a program with a Pearson coefficient of -.4 would need to
submit a QIP. The PRC can do the following: accept and endorse the QIP,
request modification or flag it with significant indicators. If a program is
healthy, a QIP will not be necessary. Flagged programs will be discussed
with the Academic Senate.
 The summary report to the PRC, should only need to be about two or three
pages, and should include an area for explanatory narrative.
 Conclusion: Departments/disciplines will look carefully at their data and
based on indicators, will see if there is a problem and submit a plan of how
they intend to address the issues. The PRC won’t need to meet weekly for
an entire semester to do this work.
 Service area program reviews will need to include more student data to be
better aligned with instruction; there are many meaningful metrics that can
tie the service areas to the strategic plan.
 Justine feels the authors need to submit program outcomes to the program
review, as well as their assessments, in order to assure compliance. The
question the PRC needs to address is what, as a committee, do they need to
know about the health of a program.
REMAINING
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARIES
The committee will complete the following executive summaries during this
meeting: L.A. Science Exploration; General Business; Technology Services
MASTER
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The sub-committees reported out on overall trends in their areas for the Master
Executive Summary. The Master Executive Summary was completed and
final will be approved via email.
AP 4021 PROGRAM
REVITALIZATION/
DISCONTINUATION
The committee discussed concerns that to be completely removed from the
process, as suggested in AP 4021, would create duplication of work. Cindy
will take this concern to the Academic Senate May 6, 2011 meeting.
REVISE OPERATING
AGREEMENT FOR
2011/12
The PRC agreed by consensus to several changes to the Operating Agreement.
Crislyn will send to Sally and the Academic Senate, along with the Master
Summary
MEETING
SCHEDULE FOR
FY 2012
It was agreed the PRC will meet early in September, create and refine a
program review schedule similar to this year and which will be available prior
to mid-October.
OTHER/PUBLIC
COMMENTS
 It is noted the needs addendum process for fall is expected to be the same.
 The process of how/when program review information goes to the IPFC’s
needs to be refined. This reflects a need for a program review coordinator;
which, according to Ed Buckley, is a common position at other community
colleges.
 Justine would like to participate in the summer program review realignment ad hoc committee. She feels assessment documents should be
required parts of program review. She would like to know if IR has the
potential to pre-populate forms with assessment information from prior
years so changes are addressed and improvements to learning are noted
(close the loop). Also, we don’t have degree learning outcomes; who will
address this?
 A discussion is needed with the new IR director on how to manage
assessment. We need to look at how we can manage data collection and
flow, as well as course assessment.
 Cindy will present the Master Executive summary to the Academic Senate
on 5/6/11. Crislyn will send out Friday afternoon to the committee for a
final review.
NEXT MEETING
Program Review will commence in the Fall of 2011. A meeting schedule has
not yet been set.
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30am
SUBMITTED
cp