Program Review Committee
Friday, September 14 2012, 10a – 12p
New Boardroom
Present: Utpal Goswami, Keith Snow-Flamer, Jon Pedicino, Cheryl Tucker, Dana Maher, Vinnie
Peloso, Mike Cox, Angelina Hill, Rachel Anderson, Hillary Reed, Marcy Foster, Steve Stratton,
Crislyn – notes, Roxanne Metz
1. Organizational Briefing – Roxanne Metz (see handout)
 The IEC report states all planning committees will have an organizational meeting to
discuss how meetings will run, to review and revise operating agreements, scope and/or
mission, to align with planning for this year. (PRC has revised its operating agreement
accordingly). The detailed timeline and process for Integrated Planning, (summarized
below), can be found in the Planning, Budget and Program Review Manual, located at
inside.redwoods.edu/IPM/resources.asp
 All Program Reviews are due in January. The Program Review Committee (PRC) will
collate and send resource requests to the IPFCs. At this point, the process follows
parallel tracks: IPFCs will begin ranking based on rubrics and/or criteria linking needs
requests to planning and assessment. The BPC will create a draft ranking of requests
and work with IPFCs, the PRC will begin review of all program reviews. In March, the
IPFCs will meet with the BPC for final validation from the PRC, and the final rankings
will be submitted to cabinet.
 After discussion, it was agreed the Instructional program reviews are due by January 18,
Student Development reviews to Keith by November, and Service Areas program
reviews due to Lee by November 15.
 A draft annual institutional plan for (13-14) next year should be available in November,
allowing program review authors to link program plans and resources with anticipated
plans for the next academic year.
2. Discuss Instructional Template
 Section 1: Requires the usual statistical information and provides an opportunity to
highlight accomplishments that informs the board of the overall program health.
 Section 2.1 Indicators: the format will change slightly with better presentation of data.
Data will be reviewed by comparing the per cent of change from previous to current
year and comparing to that to the overall district changes. Comment is required only if
there is a significant change, or anomaly. Authors will be coached to look at aggregate
information, not individual discipline indicators. Adverse trends, and/or whether action
is required in an area, are required to be commented upon.
 Equity Measures: this data will be more informative to the unit level and should not
require much comment. Some narrative should be provided if a significant change in
population occurs.
 It was agreed to revise language as needed for data, data prompts for the authors, and
other clarification; such as a note that CTE programs are required, by statute, to review
labor market data.
 The Curriculum/Assessment section is self-explanatory. The narrative (3.0 and 3.1)
needs to be brief and should note the top three improvements. 3.2 is optional based on a
need for more information or research. There will be prompts on the types of things
that might need comment.
 Section 4.1, Evaluation of Previous Plans: A better prompt for this section was
discussed.
 Section 5.1 and 5.2 is the development of the annual unit plan.




Sect 6 Resource Requests relate to planning. Operational requests will go to deans
and/or VPs, planning and personnel requests to the IPFCs and faculty prioritization
committee. No separate form will be required. The rational supports the goals (above)
and should relate to assessment and/or institutional plans. The appropriate administrator
will prioritize operational resource requests after the review is submitted to the PRC.
Section 7.0 will be the Program Review Committee response, which will go to the
author(s), deans/directors and/or VPs. The approach to evaluating the program reviews
by the committee is different. The PRC has moved from benchmark comparisons, to
seeing if the program is viable; or, are there problem areas or potential problems, based
on the data and author comments.
After discussion, it was agreed to include a breakdown of each section in 7.0, for the
comments, when reviewing. This simplifies executing the final Executive Summary in
the PRC response section
Angelina reviewed how the data will be presented. Coaching on reading and evaluating
the data will be available, prompts and possibly examples. Prompts will be discussed at
a future meeting. There will be a discussion of prompts at a future meeting.
3. Discussion on Areas which may Require Comprehensive Program Reviews – moved to a future
meeting.
4. Set Program Review Committee Meeting Schedule
 Meet twice monthly 2nd/4th Friday at 9a-11am
5. Program Review Assessment Committee Liaison (Erik Kramer unable to meet at
10am on Fridays)
 The Assessment Committee will designate a PRC liaison.
6. Other:
 A correction to the September 7 meeting notes will be made: After meeting with the
faculty at the MSE, ALSS, HMCC Division meeting on 9/11, the faculty requested to
have the basic skills area reassigned to either Math or English. For math, that only
required the moving 300 level math classes, but for English they requested that all
English areas (including those under Humanities) be put in one program review.
English program review will then cover all ENGL sections, as well as ESL, READ, and
LIBR 99A.
7. Future agenda items:
 Review the instructional template with data included
 Template prompts
 Comprehensive program reviews
Next meeting will be on 9/28 at 9am.