Redwoods Community College District
PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC)
Friday, February 25, 2011, Boardroom
NOTES
PRESENT
Utpal Goswami, Cheryl Tucker, Mike Peterson, Paul Hidy, Vinnie Peloso, Mike
Cox, Zach DeLoach, Hillary Reed, Karen Nelson; Melody Pope, Rachel
Anderson, Justine Shaw and Michael Regan, guests
CALL MEETING
TO ORDER,
APPROVE
MEETING NOTES
Called to order at 10:05am; Approved after amend meeting notes to include
DSPS update
GENERAL
DISCUSSION
•
•
SUB COMMITTEE
REPORTS ON
PROGRAM
REVIEWS
Athletics
• Trends: not done
• Budget: Athletics needs more staff, program is being downsized. Red flag,
the department requires a lot of funding. They survive off fundraising. It
was noted if CR could upgrade the pool and gym equipment we could bring
in outside fees
• Assessment: only 50% of students passed 12 units in the fall of 2010 and
only 10% had a Student Ed Plan. It is noted that now an advisor is assigned
to focus on athletics and monitor progress
IR
• Trends: many changes this year, loss of staff, increase in data requests, and
loss of grant funds
• Budget: need people
• Assess: PLOs developed by prior director are being used to develop
strategies
• There will be ongoing discussion if CR brings in staff, should that person
simply produce data and have others draw conclusions, or should IR provide
data and analytics, with emphasis on instructional criteria (makes data
interpretation more scientific).
ECE:
• Trends: no system to track labor statistics or graduates
• Budget: program surviving on CTEA grant. A coordinator is needed
between the CDC and ECE, but wasn’t requested in program review
• Assess: assessment on the tools of assessment rather than the results of
assessment
Business Office Technology
• Trends: enrollments trending upward but overall success going down due to
online courses. No data to determine employment trends
• Budget: break out budgets for each department /discipline. Clarification of
why BT doesn’t need software or hardware. DN needs a lab assistant
• Assess: Updating curriculum; no previous assessment for PLOs and SLOs –
Each sub-committees will report-out by review
CDC is not on the program review schedule. Michelle and Keith need an
email stating it will be due March 25
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARIES FOR
GROUP 2
Dental Assisting:
• Trends: well done
• Budget: trouble getting associate faculty; equipment is expensive and no
budget set aside to repair. Program generates revenue. Can CR purchase
equipment insurance? Hillary will follow up. Recommend including
plumbing and flooring issues
• Assess: not done
LVN
• Trends: limited size in one class impacted whole program. No labor market
data review, so no narrative on job success/placement
• Budget: again, a combined budget. Staff development funds are desired
• Assess – PLOs are based on state certification exams and not stated per se.
RN
• Trends: significant impact due to changes at HSU; downward trend in
enrollments, but data not included. Anecdotal evidence is good but citable
data is needed. High post-graduate employment noted, but no supporting data
• Budget: clarify grant funded positions – what happens when grant expires
(for classified lab coordinator and associate faculty positions).
• Assess: SLOs and PLOs based on successful completion of state exams
which are not listed. Recommend adding curricular and program outcomes.
All Health Occ programs should be detailed better if using state requirements
for assessment. Recommend establishing a few program level outcomes to
be assessed separately to inform the overall program success and adapt
outside data to better fit institutional requirements and data collecting
• PRC suggestion: develop a grid of all grant funded positions, include
expiration dates and operational dollars that will go away; i.e. DOL
Medical Assisting:
• Trends: faculty narrative is unclear; no identifiable basic skills patterns;
minimal labor market review;
• Budget: more information on the DOL grant and how decisions are made
about grant funded positions
• Assessment: assessment is performance based and results unclear. Need
more detail of the assessment planning (five-year assessment plans will help
with these programs)
PE/HE/Dance
• Trends: no significant changes. Evening classes not well attended. DN
success rates are low; retention generally high; no rational for basic skills;
not enough labor market information
• Budget: red flag - need priorities for expensive equipment; issues with
ventilation, weight room floor repair; (a document listing total needs exists)
• Assess: should inactivate some courses. SLOs, PLOs are adequate but the
time line is open ended
Discussion on how to proceed with remaining time, included:
• Items 4, 6 and 7 of Exec summaries are being covered in the sub-committees
and the rest need to be addressed by the PRC as a whole. In order to provide
quality executive summaries, detailed enough for integrated planning, the
Committee agreed to follow last year’s process (project each program review
for reference to complete summary)
• Next steps: Agenda item 1: Group 5 sub-committee rubrics will determine
what might need clarification or should be redone, note specific questions
(first 30 minutes)
•
Agenda item 2: Go through all group 1 and group 2 exec summaries (hour
and a half)
• Mike Peterson oversea Real Estate program review completion; (moved to
Group 6) and HRC is moved to Group 5
Crislyn will contact Maggie regarding IT program review and email Pat to
address issues in writing
GUIDELINES FOR
COMPREHENSIVE
REVIEWS
Tabled
OTHER/PUBLIC
COMMENT
•
•
•
•
•
Per Justine –discussion to change jargon to “degree learning outcomes.”
Five-year assessment documents will be completed for both courses and
degrees by April 8, including reducing those with too many goals (optimum
is 3 to 5 per course). Assessment is asking the PRC to include and update the
5-year assessment plans annually
Utpal noted that with most two year institutions, student tracking is difficult.
Maybe the PRC should recommend we take an institutional look at how we
track students
Per Michael Reagan, the job market has the capability of identifying of
whether someone is employed (not where) and provide information as part of
their contract. This has not yet been done
Per Cheryl, when cuts were made last year, special programs had to prioritize
mandated services and mandated district contributions, resulting in a loss of
temporary employees and shortage of staff. One classified position was
moved to another and associate faculty were able to fill teaching positions.
When categorical programs are created, there are detailed instructions on
spending. Staff hired under grant funding can be laid off; language for hiring
is very specific and there is a process to do this.
Crislyn will change Executive Summary footers to read:
Process: Completed Executive Summary forms will be sent to program review authors. PRC will forward Executive Summaries to the appropriate integrated planning committees.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 4th
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 12:05pm
SUBMITTED
cp