Program Review Committee
Friday, September 7 2012, 10a – 12p
New Boardroom
Present: Utpal Goswami, Angelina Hill, Marci Foster, Jon Pedicino, Jeff Cummings, Rachel Anderson,
Vinnie Peloso, Mike Cox, Hillary Reed, Steve Stratton, Dana, Keith Snow-Flamer, Crislyn Parker-notes
1. Review and Revise Program Review Committee Operating Agreement

The Committee reviewed and made changes directly to the operating agreement (see
attachment)
2. Discussion on grouping and program review areas

The committee discussed grouping disciplines for program review and resource allocation. It
was noted that due to outside accreditation requirements, grouping within CTE, other than the existing
three areas, would be difficult.

Clarification of “program” for program review purposes: If a collection of courses directly lead
to a degree or certificate it is a program. There are numerous disciplines that lead to a certificate or
degree. An example would be grouping anthropology, history, poly science, psychology and sociology
as one program review. If it is agree upon, we will determine process. Data will be presented by
discipline. By grouping, areas without full time faculty support will be covered. Another example, if a
class is not offered, why do a program review? Grouping also ties into the liberal arts degrees. No
restructuring would be required for a comprehensive review; the only difference would be time.

The committee discussed whether program review is necessary for the sites. There has been
increasing requests for more representation of site issues. These reviews would be done as service area
reviews only, not instructional.
3. Fall 2012 and Spring 2013 Program Review Timeline
a. Committee Meetings

Future agenda: will be determined when the committee has been fully formed
b. Due dates for addendums, program reviews, etc.:

Student Services Annual Reviews are due November 1

Other service areas are due November 15. It is noted that service areas need to submit the
metrics by which they will gauge their reviews by October 15. Utpal will send an email.

Instructional Program Reviews are all due February 1

The committee discussed the need for Comprehensive program reviews. Because accreditation
standards require so much information on retention, etc. annual reviews have become
comprehensive in nature but are not comprehensive reviews. A comprehensive may be required
based on performance issues. PRC will determine if a comprehensive review should be requested
for instruction

A more comprehensive review may be required in a Service areas; it will be an administrative
decision. PRC will identify performance issues and forward to the VP. The VP may then initiate a
request for comprehensive program review.

Discussion whether a comprehensive should be required of all programs no matter
c. 2013-14 Committee Membership updates

Waiting on confirmation from the Academic Senate
4. Future discussion:

Finalize Templates

Discuss areas where comprehensive program review may be needed

How to proceed if it is decided to group areas in instruction for program review
Next meeting, Friday, September 14, 10am in the New Boardroom