Program Review Committee
Friday, September 24, 2010
9:30 am – 11:30pm
Boardroom
Present: Hillary Reed, Brady Reed, Melody Pope, Paul Hidy, Keith Snow-Flamer, Mike
Peterson, Todd Olsen, Karen Nelson, Utpal Goswami, Cindy Hooper, Rachel Anderson,
Zach DeLoach, Vinnie Peloso, Cheryl Tucker; Crislyn Parker-recording
Absent: Toby Green, Bill Honsal
1. IPM process - Review model from last year and suggest revisions or changes
 A review of 9/10/10 meeting notes resulted in a clarification regarding the Budget
Planning Committee’s recent prioritization: Every functional planning committee will
have first, second, third rankings, and so on. The BPC will not change the ranking
order when considering all committee priorities and projects are funded in order of
ranking until the funding runs out. As per discussion, the September 10, 2010 meeting
notes will be revised to reflect these clarifications.
 Clarification was made that the budget funding request form process this fall was an
ad hoc process, because some items either were not funded in the budget process, were
unknown at the time, or funding requirements changed, and a vehicle was needed to
make request(s) for additional funding. The form will be developed over the next year
and will accommodate all the functional planning committee’s needs. The point is,
once the college agrees to the process, have to live with results; not everyone will
agree with the final rankings
 Several other items were discussed, such as where hiring consultants figures in the
budget process; a suggestion that CR should spend more on faculty development;
maybe conducting budget training sessions so those making requests can best support
their case and also budget hearings before going into the ranking process
2) Demonstration of revised program review templates (Zack will include standard
deviation for retention in the template)
 Previously the program review templates were in word format, which did not
“expand” to allow for detailed information. Last spring, it was proposed to convert the
templates into an expandable excel worksheet. Substantively, it is the same template.
Expanded data sets are now included: each template includes pre-populated IR data,
which is not inserted, but is an embedded PDF – authors can double click for ease in
reading data. These embedded PDF’s will include district data and definitions of data
sets, among other data. PDF’s allow a more expansive area in which to work with data
by subject area. District data will be included.
 A suggestion was made to add texture to color fields for those who don’t have color
printers. Zach will attempt to add a spell-check component to the fill-in boxes.
 It was requested that certain programs be separated in the data fields, for more
accurate evaluation of programs. There is some question where courses for EMT and
CAN’s might fall. They are not programs, but stand a-long courses.
 As the data sets are pre-populated, Zach will contact departments to review the
templates and answer questions.
 The Committee agreed that the college has come a long way with the use of data in
program review and appreciation was given to Zach for making it happen, working
directly with departments and authors.
3) Incorporating Administrative Services Program Review Process
 Discussion is how to do this for budget planning purposes. (Note: Administrative
Services (AS) currently includes: Business Office, Maintenance, Bookstore, Dining
Services; Facilities and Planning; Payroll)
 Perception is that for the budget process to work, everyone has to submit program
review (for consistency). How to relate AS to student learning/success and how to
determine budgetary needs.
 The committee discussed whether to modify the current program review forms for AS
use, hold off, or choose several areas to benchmark. It was decided Zach DeLoach
and Cheryl Tucker would meet with AS to draft a form, for current use, which can be
updated or revised when a new VP is hired. AS needs to establish a benchmark, from
which populating data (in the future) will not be difficult. A suggestion was made to
find and incorporate top indicators from other colleges, or, for example, from
NACUBO.
4) Develop clear agreed upon rubric for assessing programs
 The committee agreed to norm the rubric; make sure everyone is using rubric in the
same way.
 The sub-committees will meet this term to do so. This will be done prior to January.
5) Discuss re-phrasing 5-Year Calendar footnote: Currently reads: “The State of California,
per Title V, requires comprehensive reviews of CTE programs every two years. CR will use
annual reviews as long as all comprehensive components, as required by the State of
California, including but not limited to, labor market data.”
 Clarification was made that the State of CA specifies only certain requirements, not
comprehensive, which are covered by annual programs; it was agreed to change the
paragraph to: “Although the State of California, per Title V, requires rigorous program
reviews of CTE programs every two years, CR will continue to use annual reviews as
long as all components required by the State of CA, including but not limited to, labor
market data, are part of the annual review. Programs are not exempted from annual
program reviews.”
6) Addendum process:
 The committee approved the addendum with changes as noted:
 A column titled, “Importance” was inserted, with drop-down menu choices of high,
medium, low.
 The “Request Status” column drop-down choices were amended to “new request” or
“still needed”.
 The “Approval” column was amended to read, “PRC Approval”. The “Unit” name (at
the top) was changed to read “Program/Department”
 The committee agreed everything must be tied to student learning outcomes and the
strategic/mission plan. The Addendum will include unfunded requests and new
requests.
 The PRC Co-chairs will send the updated addendum and calendars to ALL, with a
brief explanation and remind people that program review was shifted to spring. The
completed addendum can be submitted a “Program Review Documents” mail box in
public folders (prc@redwoods.edu).
7) What is definition of program?
 (added to the agenda-the committee decided to make this the first agenda item for the
10/8/10 meeting.) Discussion to include: where individual courses fit into the


definition of program. The committee is tasked to think in terms of budget (for
program review committee internal use only)
Other considerations include, should a category be added for stand-a-lone courses;
most, but not all instructional programs center around area coordinators; annual
program review is not really program but an annual “department” analysis;
comprehensive programs include GE courses as well as degree or transfer courses.
Maybe best solution is a matrix of programs so authors know where they fit
The State of CA definition of a program is an area a student can get a degree
Next meeting/next steps:
 Utpal will show how the BPC ranking was completed A point to always remember,
there are other budget considerations outside program review
 Definition of program
 Develop the program review sub-committees and finalize membership in fall 2010