Program Review Committee
Friday, February 22, 2013, 9am – 11am
Boardroom
Present: Brie Day, Anita Janis, Tanya Smart, Jeff Cummings, Angelina Hill, Barbara Jaffari, Cheryl
Tucker, Marcie Foster, Utpal Goswami, Keith Snow-Flamer, Rachel Anderson, Jon Pedicino, Dana
Maher, Vinnie Peloso, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Approve February 8, 2013 Meeting Notes
2. Instructional Program Reviews
2.1 Continued Discussion of Member Pre-Review Process:
 Continued agreement this process is working. No longer a standing agenda item.
2.2 Discussion of PR Resource Requests:
 Utpal organized the resource requests, which total approximately $13 million, from the
program reviews, into 4 categories: planning $6.3 million; operational (including
technology) $6.6 million and personnel $3 million.
 Planning and operations broken down: Technology $324,000; equipment $600,000;
facilities $8.9 million, operations $320,000. Probably only $2 million will need
prioritization. Facilities requests included many large ticket items.
 There is possible overlap on these requests and some did not include a dollar amount.
Utpal will refine the requests a little more and submit to the functional committees.
2.3 Discussion of Instructional Reviews
2.3.a English: Good review, requires dean signature. S5 could be a model for reviews.
 Discussion regarding section 5.1.1: low ESL success rates can have many outside (i.e.
child care) as well cultural challenges that are more difficult to address. This problem occurs
across disciplines and basic skills courses. The PRC may recommend existing committees to
tackle this issue from an institutional level, by taking an integrated and holistic approach.
2.3.b Fine Arts: Satisfactory review, requires dean signature.
 PRC needs to discuss courses included in program reviews; 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.
 Also noted, there is an 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).
2.3.c Fire Tech: Difficult to articulate continuity throughout this program.
 There is no full-time faculty oversight. PRC discussed how to address programs with no
full time faculty.
 PRC recommendation is to note this program is struggling and move to the AP 4021,
Program Revitalization or Discontinuation process.
2.3.d Forestry/Natural Resources: Persistence needs further investigation and the resource
requests need to be specifically linked to institutional plans or assessments.
 Resource allocations must be related to the planning process and are identified in program
review; justifications need to be more specific than just “health and safety” concerns, but
why it is a health and safety concern.
2.3.e Health, PE, Athletics: Resource requests are a model example of rational linkage.
Satisfactory.
 There was discussion to review success and retention of athletes as a cohort compared to
others. Commending Athletics for providing academic tracking. It should be included in
the review.
2.3.f Humanities:
 PRC discussed concern for loss of associate faculty and the difficulty in hiring appropriate
associate faculty in smaller areas where a discipline has been supported by long-term
associate faculty. This should be a Planning item.
3. Other:
 Start discussions on the impact of non-repeatability in California: for example, Pell Grant
eligibility is for six semesters; the state pays apportionment for only three attempts.
 Review and address that data shows the largest number of students in basic skills are African
Americans who are also athletics.
 Templates: specific linkage requirements and include links to institutional plans.
 Discuss/determine a process for consistent, sustainable support of Associate faculty assessing nonfull-time supported programs.
4. Future Agenda Items
Meeting adjourned. Next meeting, March 8, 2013.