Redwoods Community College District
PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE (PRC)
Friday, February 4, 2011, 10am, Boardroom
NOTES
PRESENT
Melody Pope, Utpal Goswami, Zach DeLoach, Mike Peterson, Paul
Hidy, Mike Cox, Vinnie Peloso, Hillary Reed, Bill Honsal, Karen
Nelson, Cindy Hooper
MEETING
Meeting called to order at 10:00am. Meeting notes for 1/28/11
were approved upon amending to show Melody Pope as present.
SUB-COMMITTEE
REPORT-OUTS:
TRENDS
ASSESSMENT
BUDGET
Prior to sub-committee report-outs, the committee first agreed on
how to proceed with the Program Review Calendar.
• It was agreed that if the program review was submitted
thoroughly and the committee found no need for clarification,
there is no need to bring in authors. If the committee felt a need
for change, concerns or clarification, authors will be invited to
comment/clarify. It was discussed that the PRC should
communicate to all authors that they can talk to committee
• Each sub-committee will present a two or three minute briefing
on how they compiled their rubric
• Sub-committee evaluations need to be completed and posted in
MyCR, in the corresponding program review folders, by end of
day
• Sub-committees are evaluating program reviews to be sure all
requests are tied to strategic planning, outcomes, mission, goals,
etc. Without these connections, resource requests will be ranked
lower
• Committees will debrief at year-end on how the templates
worked for this cycle
Assessment:
This sub-committee did not use action plans as an indicator – put
N/A in that box since it has been two years since we have used
action plans.
Trends:
The sub-committee didn’t see that score was relevant. They put in
comments for areas that stood out, not rank. They noted they were
confused on exactly what was meant by some of the terms, (i.e.
criteria, especially for student services reviews)
Budget:
The sub-committee filled out individual rubrics, then met and came
to consensus and planned to rank at the end. They determined the
budget sub-committee’s job was to assess the request process. A lot
of information was either “non-available” and within student
services, “not-applicable”. A common theme through all program
reviews is that everyone needs staff, but there was not always a
clear tie of needs to outcomes, mission, or goals. All groups said
yes they require additional budget and additional staff; five out of
seven said not enough professional development opportunities
REQUEST FOR PRC
FORWARD TREND AND
ASSESSMENT/PLANNNG
INFORMATION TO EMC
In summary:
• It would be appropriate to have discussions on default rate for
financial aid- invite Lynn Thiesen to comment
• An update from counseling on their ambitious goals and comp
time staffing- invite Melissa Green
• Academic course program reviews were ok overall; no
explanations needed
• A discussion on sustainability of the AG program beyond the
Cal Grant – invite
• There were two major themes in budget:
o 1) Issue of staff throughout. Clearly staff is need and known
not in the budget, so we need to start thinking about how
and/or what we prioritize. Do we do more less well, or
choose few things and do well
o 2) Need for professional development noted throughout.
PRC should have a discussion because we are an institution
of people and if people are obsolete, we lose assets. We
must look at the long term impact of the lack of professional
development, which can be severe. Utpal recommends the
PRC put this on an agenda for later part this year
• More data is needed in student services forms – (quantitative
date) longitudinal data to help determine what departments are
the most stressed and where
• Can the fire tech people address the fire tech program, address
long term sustainability, and flesh out labor market data as well
as police academy did – invite Ed Trigeiro
• Utpal talked to Peter about the English annual; whether this
needs negotiation or is there another way to sort it out. Peter
will talk to CRFO today
• It was suggested to look at the program review process or next
year in April, to better resolve this issue of AA degree
workload. Utpal suggests we give English a pass until issues
are resolved (all AA degree departments.)
• Agreed Library will move into Group 2 on the calendar and
English and Business Technology courses will be given a pass
• Authors noted above will be invited for the 2nd half of the
2/11/11 meeting, from 11am – 12p
• Tabled for this meeting
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting is Friday, February 11th, at 10am, in the Boardroom
ADJOURNED
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30am
SUBMITTED
cp