4/22/13
Program Review Committee Notes for Executive Summary:
Template changes for next time:
 Add more detailed instructions on the template, or add a separate
document explaining what to put for each question (like with taxes). For
example, more clearly indicate that # of degrees refers to the number
of degrees that the program offers, not the number of students who
were awarded a degree. Provide more guidance for the next program
review process.
 Remove the shaded boxes including budget info, unless the committee
can come up with a strategy as to how the authors can provide this
information.
 Reposition the Labor Market Data question earlier in the data section so
that it is more clearly relevant to all CTE areas.
 Change the two narrative questions at the end of the data section. They
were confusing to authors. Maybe we can add one question such as:
Overall, what does this data tell you about your program?
 The rational linkage section of the resource requests was answered
inconsistently, and at different levels of specificity. The template should
give detailed instructions.
 In the program plan section create hot link to institutional plans as a
reminder to link planning.
 The PRC would like detail relating to recurring costs; specifically, the
use. There seems to be confusion on the requests for operational
budget: the intent is that expenditures fall into two categories: planning
or an increase for operational needs,
 Clarify in the resource request instructions that ongoing resource
requests need be included only if it is for an increase due to increased
costs is being asked.
 For degrees and programs that are district-wide, future template to
include a box for site-specific variations, constraints, issues and the
inherent challenges.
 A place for the author to provide feedback about the template and the
data should be included directly in the next template.
 The budget section is difficult to import into a spreadsheet; some
revision in the future will be needed in this section for import and
collapse.
Samples of sections from excellent program reviews submitted this year
should be provided next year as examples. Good examples from this year
included:
 Assessment section – Behavioral &Social Sciences, Dental, Biology
(communication in assessment), Fine Arts (program improvements
based on assessment)
 Program Plans - ECE
 Data Analysis – Math
Program Review Committee Evaluative Improvements for Next Year:
 The PRC will note, for future reviews, to check service area reviews
against the annual, strategic and education master plans.
• All reviews should be sure to encompass district-wide data and
perspectives.
 Institutional question: debrief with BPC the program review process to
determine how to help authors submit resource requests that are less
amorphous. Suggestions: create a general institutional estimated price
list, (i.e. above $2500 or below; create a shopping check-list)
Changes to Data
 The structure of a few of the program groupings (e.g., Fine Arts,
Behavioral Sciences) needs to be reevaluated to make sure that
collaborative assessment efforts are reflected in the program review
structure, and to better fit faculty needs.
 All courses associated with a program need to be reevaluated with the
Dean and area coordinators. Several improvements were made this
year, but this should be looked at systematically.
 Indicators based on declared program (persistence, completions) was
problematic because many students don’t accurately declare a program.
These should be replaced with data based on cohorts who have
completed at least a given number of units in a particular TOPS code.
 The number of students who have declared the program, and the
number of students who complete the program annually should be
reported.
 We need to find a way of treating courses that we don’t consider
consistently active (e.g., 40s, 88s, etc.) and shouldn’t count against the
currency of the curriculum and assessment activity.
 Persistence for low-credit certificates needs to be adjusted because the
student may complete within a year.
 A dataset specific to online courses in programs should be reviewed by
the PRC.
Conclusions that impact the campus
 We need an integrated approach to addressing low success in low level
BSI courses. Maybe make GS 6 recommended for these students.
Include athletics in discussion. Humanities review mentioned offering
more cultural activities. (Basic skills will change now that courses below
high school level are no longer eligible toward financial aid and the
move is to non-credit. This will also lower FTES.)
 Issues were identified related to new repeatability rules in music, art,
and PE courses. Enrollments are going to drop significantly, and we
should be prepared for that.
 Programs without full-time faculty could be in jeopardy (e.g. LVN). Need
to determine how we will support all programs without full time faculty.
Do we make this the responsibility of associates?
 We need to be sensitive about loss of associate faculty in branch
campuses. See humanities review.
 How do we go about reducing the number of course offerings so that
only a manageable number of courses are on the books given the
number of full timers in the discipline? There seems to be a great need
for this.
 Determine/discuss what category would staff requests come under,
when positions are funded then cut, recurring or new.
 Online courses are mentioned as a concern in a number of CTE
programs.
 Discuss courses included in program reviews that have outliers that
don’t “fit”: e.g. music has many outliers that don’t fit; Drama 38 is a
credit course, but the instructor is paid by the number of students in
class and it doesn’t count toward TLUs or FTES.
 There is the opportunity for collaboration across campus to combine
resources rather than purchasing more high tech and specialty
equipment (e.g. a requested 3D printer exists in one of the CTE
programs). How to coordinate.
 African American students have difficulties in math and sciences.
Programs PRC recommends for revitalization:
 Addiction Studies: this program is successful with no full time faculty
support. Labor market data supports possible growth. Revitalization
should be addressed somehow, but program does not meet AP 4021
criteria.
 Fire Tech is struggling and move to the AP 4021, Program Revitalization
or Discontinuation process
 LVN program needs FT faculty support at all sites or it will lose state
funding; how to deal with a strong program, with growth potential, in
the faculty prioritization process. Move to revitalization process?
 Marine Science, as a program, is only offered in Mendocino with most
courses taught through Eureka. There are only two unique components
offered in Mendocino. PRC discussed the possibility of this program
being offered in Del Norte and Eureka, and agreed to consider this
program for revitalization based on this possibility