Friday, March 9, 2012
10:00 a.m., BOARD ROOM
Meeting Notes
Present: Rachel Anderson, Cheryl Tucker, Paul Hidy, Mike Cox, Angelina Hill, Phil Freneau, Aliss ….
Vinnie Peloso, Dana Maher, Hillary Reed; Mike Peterson and Roxanne - visiting
1) Call Meeting to Order at 10:03
2) Updates: Resend survey monkey links
3) Programs Prepared for 3/10/12 KPI Summaries:
Psychology - completed Admissions & Records
Admin Services
Payroll
Music/Drama - completed Advising & Counseling
Manufacturing Techcompleted Athletics completed
Water/Wastewater
Agriculture
Business Services
VP Admin Services
Technology Services (IT)
Safety/Security
Maintenance
4) Other/Next Meeting Agenda Items:
Items and recommendations the Program Review Committee will include in master summary and review during the committee evaluation process:

The committee has unofficially agreed the basic skills data should include the last basic skills class students completed, not the level tested into, for program review purposes.

Authors should include all resource requests on both their program review and needs addendum, whether grant funded or general fund requests, for documentation purposes.

The needs addendum format will need some tweaking to show how requests tie into SLOs, mission, strategic and/or educational master planning, and where in the program review justification for the need is shown. PRC will discuss adjustments needed for the template in this area.

The ACCJC wanted to see where requests got funded, how it was tied to program review and what was funded. We need a closing the loop in budget and a clear communication process showing what resources were received from this process in each previous year.

Suggested not only a closing the loop on budget, but more broadly, providing an update from QIPs from the last comprehensive. PRC may have to bring back an assessment tab; Student services and instruction will have a link to assessment documents embedded in the program review.

In discussion of curriculum updates, it is noted the college will not be able to offer out of date curriculum.

There was discussion on what criteria PRC should use to flag programs for the revitalization or discontinuance process: o The PRC is a flagging body, based on trends, and we move it to the next level o AP 4021: Program Revitalization or Discontinuation Process (PRDP) looks at a four year period, but the PRC can recommend a program has problems. We are not the PRDP

committee; they will look at the last four reviews. The PRC can use the AP 4021 criteria on an annual basis, but needs to develop criteria for programs outside the AP 4021 criteria. o AP 4021 addresses viability of programs and the PRC can use it as a model, but we need to be concerned with other issues, such as no assessment and no F/T faculty oversight. One area of concern trending for several programs has to do with the lack of full-time oversight, not declines in enrollments or student success. o It was questioned maybe some of these issues PRC sees annually, should go through/to the
Ed Master Plan committee or rewrite or append the AP.

It was discussed the PRC executive summary should include a list of programs for revitalization, even if they don’t meet the AP criteria. The concerns will be documented and may go to the EMP committee to evaluate and take to college council.

PRC will review the other programs of which there were concerns.
5) Meeting adjourned at 12pm