REDWOODS COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT
Program Review
Boardroom
9/16/11 10am – 12pm
Meeting Notes:
1. Call to Order
2. Update of Committee membership (new vs not):
Introductions:
New members: Phil Freneau, Del Norte; Dana Maher, ALSS; Angelina Hill, IR; Steve
Stratton, Director, IT; Jeff Cummings, Dean CTE;
Continuing members: Mike Cox, HPE; Paul Hidy, Technology; Cheryl Tucker, Special
Programs and Co-Chair; Rachel Anderson, Dean Academic Affairs and Co-Chair; Vinnie
Peloso, HCOM; Justine Shaw, Assessment Coordinator; Hillary Reed, HOPS; Crislyn
Parker – notes
3. Review Needs Addendum
 A small subcommittee worked over the summer to draft a major overhaul of the
program review process. Returning members can compare and new members will see
the new process will be easier
 The Program Review Committee inside.redwoods.edu site is being constantly updated
and improved, and includes members, scope, upcoming meeting information, program
review author and other calendars, meeting agendas and notes, mechanics of
committee, and links to all completed program reviews and executive summaries and
more. To simplify the flow, “QuickLinks” are/will be available on inside.redwoods PR
site, to link directly to addendums and program review templates, as they become
available. After the Self Study visit, the site will be reorganized by academic year with
an archive. There is a link to both the IR and Assessment sites from the program
review page. (Suggestions for site improvement are welcome).
o Addendums: From the Program Review inside.redwoods homepage, choose the IR
link. This takes you directly to the Program Review approved documents pages on
the IR site. From the CR homepage, Faculty and Staff links choose IR and
Program Review from the grid.
o Choose program review committee approved documents, then needs addendums.
The Needs Addendum and Faculty Request update is due October 3rd .
o Two items to note: the addendums did not change from last year except to add the
faculty request and staff request. We will continue to post prior needs addendum
and the author(s) will update. Those who did not submit a needs addendum will
have to use the template (link at top of page).
 It is suggested that along with the due dates, a note should be added that needs requests
will not be considered unless the 5-year course level and degree/certificate assessment
plans are completed, Note that assessments have been going to Justine, also with a
10/3 due date, allowing Justine to correlate prior to the 10/7 PRC meeting. It was also
suggested to provide a bit more instruction on the IR Addendum page.
o Closing the loop: Last year, after the functional committees completed their
process, the prioritizations were grouped and the groupings published. In the
process, individual requests were lost to the larger groupings. This year ALL steps
will be public; when the final prioritization is published, each steps will have an
explanation or be visible. Note: items that fall into general funding categories were
not forwarded by the PRC last year; such as light bulbs, paper, etc.
 Some suggestions to slightly improve the addendums: Create a checklist: for example,
do requests have to point to student learning outcomes, mission, goals, etc? Also,
authors should not delete any detail on the addendum, but identify as done or
completed. The academic year box should be changed to 2010/2011.
o Faculty Requests: the approved form is now embedded in the addendum and
includes current data, to allow for easier justification. A brief job description is
required, to inform of special needs requested or required, such as for a counselor
position. There was some discussion on revising the form slightly to include a drop
down menu for job description, but authorization would have to come from the
faculty prioritization committee, academic senate and/or cabinet. Rachel will check
to see exactly what the description is meant to convey.
o Staff Requests: In the past staff requests did not exist in program review, just an
area to say one is needed. This request shows need, but does not identify a funding
source. Depending on the request, the form goes to cabinet.
 It was discussed that authors include in their justification when an original request was
submitted and why the needs still exists. The faculty component is different: the
request will go to the faculty prioritization committee, but that committee will not
necessarily rank it higher because it has been submitted multiple times. It is suggested
that full time tenure faculty positions need to be re-assessed periodically; the need
might not exist any longer.
o Addendum cost estimates: Costs of needs can be estimated, as authors are not
always able to determination cost. If known, include, if not, estimate or leave
blank.
4. Review of Streamlined Process:
 Previously, following submission of program reviews, the committee divided into three
subcommittees who brought their reviews for discussion at the main meeting.
Following this the executive summary was prepared. This resulted in duplicate work.
NO MORE!
 The purpose of Program Review is to determine the health of a program, as is defined
by Key Indicators that have been identified and approved (via the program
revitalization and discontinuation process). When completed program reviews are
submitted, the committee has only to check against these key indicators, complete the
executive summary and forward to the integrated planning committees. (Reminder:
assessment is now separate; the PRC only checks to see is has been done). Authors
will receive the executive summary as part of closing the loop.
5. Review of Templates: (moved to 9/23/22 meeting, when Zach is available, but there
was a brief review and discussion of the instructional annual template)
 The Instructional annual is reduced to seven tabs. The “Intro tab” requires sign-off
from all site authors within the discipline. The point is to confirm participation from
sites (particularly relates to student services). If a site is not involved put none (i.e.
dorms are specific to EKA only). It is suggested to include in instructions: “be sure
to include relevant sign-off, if applicable, from each campus/site.
 Several detail suggestions: change the sign-off to say: Program Review Team.





Change from “Dept. Dean” signature to “Dean/Dept Manager” signature; add “brief”
to narrative requests.
“Data Sets, Tab 1:” Data Sets have been simplified. There will be red “bars” to show
if a program falls within the key indicator parameters. If not, narrative is required. It
was suggested to limit character when allowing narrative. It was requested that the
templates Zach sent via email be forwarded to all committee members to review and
be prepared to discuss in more detail at the 9/23/11 meeting.
Rachel noted that basic skills data was removed because it is somewhat misleading,
but she would like Basic Skills success rates included under “District data,” by Class.
Basic Skills will be submitting a program review under student services, and will
include more detailed and comprehensive data.
“Labor Market, tab 2:” It is noted that labor market data doesn’t change except every
10 years, but is required by the state, so must be included. Labor market links were
included to make it easy and instant to access, then cut and paste to include.
It is suggested, especially for programs such as nursing/dental, to download
information and include the link as the source in the program review. Also, item “c”
could be better-worded…”effectiveness as measured by student employment and
program completion.”
Budget, Tab 3:” There was discussion on the inclusion of budget. Last year, budget
was included to identify general fund needs, which do not go to the integrated
planning committees; but it was discussed, at least for instructional program reviews,
this is information is for internal use by deans or account managers. It doesn’t really
have a place in overall program review, but is a catch-all for items that don’t go to the
needs addendum. There was further discussion on how to include this information
and sort out grant funded vs. general discretionary funds. This discussion will
continue next week. This area cannot be pre-populated.
6. Review of Integrated Planning Calendar (attachment)
 The main purpose is to see connections between committees.
7. Review Key Indicator drafts: (attachments) (moved to 9/23/22 meeting)
a. Instructional
b. Student Services
8. Review Program Review Author calendar (attachments) (moved to 9/23/22
meeting)
9. Review 5-year calendar (attachment) (moved to 9/23/22 meeting)
10. Other: Homework is to review templates (Rachel will send via email), and other
documents and have questions prepared for discussion.
An unrelated item was a request by Institutional Effectiveness Committee (IEC) for a
PRC member to sit on the committee. Hillary agreed to be a possibility.
Meeting adjourned at 12noon. Next meeting is September 23, 2011 at 10am in the
Boardroom
PRC/cp