(fields   will   expand   as   you   type )
Section   1  ‐  Program   Information
1.0
Name   of   Program :      Forestry   and   Natural   Resources                                                                                             Date :   1/10/13
1.1
Program   Review   Authors :       T.
R.
Baker
1.2
Dean’s   Signature
Date :    2/8/13
1.3
Individual   Program   Information
#   of   Degrees   #   of   Certificates   #   of   Courses   #   of   GE   Courses
1   2   15
The   shaded   cells   below   are   to   be   populated   by   the   Program   Review   Committee   as   needed.
#   of   Full   Time   Faculty   #   of   Part   Time   Faculty   #   of   Staff   FTE
1
Personnel   Budget
FNR   80
Discretionary   Budget
2010 ‐ 2011   2011 ‐ 12   2010 ‐ 2011   2011 ‐ 12   2010 ‐ 2011   2011 ‐ 12   2010 ‐
2011
2011 ‐ 12   2010 ‐ 2011   2011 ‐ 12
1.3.1
State   briefly   how   the   program   functions   support   the   college   mission :    The   Forestry   and   Natural   Resource   program   supports   the   college
mission   by   providing   both   transfer   and   career/technical   educational   opportunities.
The   FNR   program   educates   technicians   and   future   professionals   in   the   economically   vital   forestry   and   natural   resource   sectors   of   the   Humboldt   regional   economy.
1.3.2
Program   highlights/accomplishments :    The   FNR   program   has   engaged   with   its   Advisory   Committee   in   an   effort   to   streamline   the   program   outcomes   and   ensure   that   the   program   meets   both   transfer   and   career   needs   within   the   region.
The   FNR   program   has   also   engaged   in   a   full ‐ scale   assessment   program   to   assess   all   course   outcomes   every   year   and   should   be   able   to   assess   all   programmatic   outcomes   once   the   streamlined   revisions   are   approved.
We   are   also   actively   working   on   recruiting   and   articulation   with   both   high   schools   and   Humboldt   State.
Last   year,   the   FNR   program   was   able   to   use   Perkins   funds   to   update   the   GPS   technology   and   update   the   field   tools   inventory   for   the   program.
This   greatly   increases   the   hands ‐ on   experiences   for   students   and   should   improve   student   learning   outcomes.
The   FNR   club   also   received   a   substantial
donation   ($1000)   from   the   Humboldt   Redwoods   Company   and   Mendocino   Redwoods   Company   for   trail   building   supplies   on   campus.
The   club   intends   to   use   the   funds   to   replace   some   of   the   deteriorating   bridges   on   the   campus   trail   system.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   1

Section   2  ‐  Data   Analysis
2.1
Enrollment   &   Fill   Rate          Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Select   your   program   and   click   on:   Enrollments   &   fill   rates
Enrollment       Comment   if   checked:    Enrollment   declined   somewhat   more   precipitously   for   the   FNR   program   at   12%   compared   to   the
District   as   a   whole   at   10%   but   this   was   in   part   due   to   a   single   section   offered   at   Hoopa   in   10 ‐ 11   that   was   not   offered   the   following   year.
This   will   change   again   this   year   as   a   single   section   if   offered   at   MC   which   won’t   be   offered   again   for   2   years.
The   scheduling   combined   with   relatively   low   numbers   results   in   percentage   changes   more   severe   than   the   District   as   a   whole.
If   the   Hoopa   site   is   ignored,   the   program   only   experienced   a   6%   decline   in   enrollment,   a   somewhat   smaller   decrease   than   the   District   as   a   whole.
Fill   Rate      Comment   if   checked:     The   FNR   program   was   just   slightly   below   district   fill   rates   at   76%   which   was   a   sharp   decline   from   10 ‐ 11   when   we   were   above   district   rates   at   84%.
This   is   in   part   due   to   the   2 ‐ year   cycle   of   courses   offered   in   the   program   with
some   of   the   more   advanced   courses   offered   in   11 ‐ 12   which   typically   have   lower   fill   rates   because   of   the   number   of   students   who   have   both   completed   the   lower   course   requirements   and   persisted   in   the   program.
2.2
Success   &   Retention           Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Select   your   program   and   click   on:   Success   &   Retention
Success     ☐   Comment   if   checked:   The   success   rates   for   the   FNR   program   as   a   whole   are   a   bit   higher   than   the   District   as   a   whole   (70%   vs.
68%)   and   show   significant   increase   over   10 ‐ 11   (62%   vs.
70%).
The   increased   success   rate   is   in   part   due   to   the   single   Hoopa   course   which   had   a   50%   success   in   10 ‐ 11   and   was   not   offered   in   11 ‐ 12,   however   the   Eureka   site   also   improved   from   63%   to
70%.
Some   of   this   may   be   due   to   the   results   of   course   level   assessments   which   have   improved   instruction   and   student   assessment.
Retention    ☐   Comment   if   checked:   Retention   rates   for   the   FNR   program   are   slightly   higher   than   the   district   as   a   whole   at   91%   but   this   is   an   improvement   from   10 ‐ 11   when   the   retention   rate   was   84%.
The   increased   retention   may   be   due   in   part   to   increased   student   success   but   may   also   be   due   to   increased   faculty   advising   in   the   introductory   classes.
Over   the   past   several   years   the   FNR   faculty   has   made   a   concerted   effort   to   advise   students   directly   in   the   classroom   about   course   offerings   and   suggested   sequences   as   well   as   career   opportunities.
This   may   have   increased   student   interest   and   enthusiasm   enough   to   increase
retention   rates.
2.3
Persistence                          Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Select   your   program   and   click   on:   Persistence
   Comment:   The   data   set   indicates   that   overall   persistence   in   the   FNR   program   is   lower   than   the   district   (33%   vs.
37%)   although   this   is   on   only   12   students   so   probably   not   a   statistically   valid   comparison.
The   FNR   program   has   a   number   of
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   2

students   who   are   declared   in   other   majors   (e.g.
AALA   Science   and   Science   Exploration)   because   of   transfer   interests   and   these   do   not   show   up   in   the   data   set.
We   also   have   a   number   of   students   who   only   take   classes   one   semester   a   year   because   of   work   requirements   (e.g.
seasonal   wildland   fire   technicians   when   the   fire   season   extends   into   Sept.
and   Oct.
2.4
Completions                        Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Select   your   program   and   click   on:   Completions   &   Transfers
   Comment:   The   completion   rate   for   the   FNR   program   is   abysmally   low   as   is   that   for   the   District   as   a   whole.
However,   in   2012   a   number   of   students   did   complete   the   FNR   degrees   that   do   not   show   up   in   the   current   data   for.
Additionally,   a   significant   number   of   FNR   students   do   not   intend   to   complete   but   rather   transfer   to   Humboldt   State   without   receiving   the   A.S.
degree.
The   data   set   seems   to   miss   most   of   those   students   as   well   but   that   may   well   be   the   result   of   transfer   students   declaring   AALA
Science   instead   of   FNR   as   their   major.
Hopefully   recent   changes   in   advising   and   registration   will   improve   tracking   of   these   students   and   they’ll   be   reflected   in   future   data   sets.
Additionally,   we   are   working   with   other   faculty   (Karen   Reiss   and   Peter
Blakemore)   to   develop   additional   degree   paths   that   should   more   effectively   increase   completions   by   targeting   students   who   wish   to   both   transfer   and   receive   a   2 ‐ year   degree.
This   new   pathway   would   be   an   AALA   Natural   Resources   that   would   be   aligned   with   AALA’s   in   Environmental   Studies   and   Environmental   Science.
The   current   degree   structure   (either   FNR   or   AALA
Science)   does   not   adequately   address   the   needs   of   students   who   wish   to   transfer   specifically   into   HSU’s   forestry   or   environmental   management   programs   because   they   either   include   too   many   technical   courses   which   are   not   required   for   transfer   or   they   include   too   few   lower   division   majors   requirements.
Student   Equity   Group   Data
2.5
Enrollments                        Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
by   group                          Select   your   program   and   click   on   ~   by   Student   Equity   Group   next   to   Enrollments   &   fill   rates
   Comment:   FNR   program   enrollments   are   somewhat   skewed   relative   to   the   District   as   a   whole   with   significantly   fewer   females   than   males   compared   to   district   percentages   and   significantly   higher   Caucasian   percentages   (78%   vs.
65%   for
District).
This   is   in   part   a   reflection   of   the   profession   as   a   whole   which   has   been   dominated   proportionally   by   white   males   historically   (prior   to   1980,   98%   of   the   members   of   the   Society   of   American   Foresters   were   white   males).
Significant   inroads   have   been   made   in   recent   years   but   the   proportions   of   various   ethnic   groups   and   females   in   the   field   are   still   lower   than   the   average   for   other   programs   of   study.
The   program   also   has   somewhat   lower   numbers   of   BSI   students   but   that   is   probably   related   to   the   rigor   of   both   the   field   in   general   and   the   program   in   particular.
Technicians   and   professionals   in   the   field   of   forestry   need   fairly   high   level   math   and   language   skills   in   order   to   be   successful.
The   FNR   program   will   research   techniques
for   increasing   recruitment   and   success   of   females   and   minorities   in   the   program.
The   program   faculty   hope   to   develop   a   working   program   that   can   be   extended   to   the   Hoopa   site   to   provide   FNR   courses   to   Hupa   tribal   members.
In   the   past   the   FNR   program   has   endeavored   to   recruit   and   hire   female   associate   faculty   to   provide   more   role   models   for   female   students   but   this   has   not   always   been   possible   because   of   limited   numbers   of   qualified   applicants   for   some   of   the   positions.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   3

2.6
Success   &   Retention         Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
by   group                          Select   your   program   and   click   on   ~   by   Student   Equity   Group   next   to   success   &   retention
   Comment:    By   category,   the   FNR   program   has   somewhat   lower   success   and   retention   than   the   District   as   a   whole   for   those   categories   with   enough   students   in   them   to   be   comparable.
This   is   interesting   because   comparing   the   program   as   a   whole,   the   success   and   retention   are   comparable   or   higher   than   District   values.
However,   most   of   the   categories   are   at   or   below   the
15   student   threshold   and   the   smaller   program   numbers   may   be   skewing   the   results.
I   suspect   there   is   some   discrepancy   in   the   data   sets   though   because   both   percentage   value   for   both   the   males   and   females   are   lower   than   the   program   as   a   whole.
As   a   result,   interpretations   of   the   data   are   suspect.
Females   in   general   do   have   lower   success   and   retention   in   the   FNR   program   than   males   which   is   the   opposite   of   the   District   as   a   whole.
The   program   faculty   are   engaged   in   discussions   about
these   numbers   and   will   develop   a   plan   to   address   discrepancies.
2.7
Persistence                        Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
by   group                        Select   your   program   and   click   on   ~   by   Student   Equity   Group   next   to   persistence
   Comment:   The   persistence   data   set   shows   significantly   lower   persistence   for   various   groups   in   the   FNR   program   compared   to
District   values   with   most   groups   with   enough   students   to   report   showing   a   persistence   rate   of   around   20%.
This   is   difficult   to   tell   whether   the   lower   rates   are   due   to   small   numbers   in   the   data   set   for   a   particular   year   (e.g.
just   1   additional   male   persisting   would’ve   increased   the   rate   by   5%)   or   if   the   rates   are   due   to   students   transferring   following   a   single   year   in   the   program   (which   does   occur).
Additional   Indicators
2.8
Faculty   Information        Review   and   interpret   data   by   clicking   here   or   going   to:   http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Select   your   program   and   click   on:   Faculty   (FT/PT)   &   FTES/FTEF
   Comment:    The   faculty   indicators   suggest   the   FNR   program   has   somewhat   lower   FTES/FTEF   values   than   the   District   as   a   whole.
These   are   due   in   part   to   the   limits   on   class   sizes   for   FNR   courses   because   of   accreditation   standards   by   the   Society   of
American   Foresters   and   by   the   logistics   of   outdoor   field   labs.
The   data   also   do   not   account   for   the   number   of   out ‐ of ‐ state   students   who   come   to   CR   for   the   FNR   program   and   pay   non ‐ resident   fees.
Additionally,   the   FNR   program   has   received   substantial   industry   donations   to   the   program   which   when   combined   with   Perkins   funds   have   covered   virtually   all   of   the   program   equipment   costs.
There   is   one   long ‐ standing   issue   with   regards   to   faculty   staffing   –   Society   of   American   Foresters   accreditation   standards   dictate   a   minimum   of   2   full ‐ time   faculty   for   a   program   to   be   accredited.
The   FNR   program   has   long   sought   an   additional   faculty   member   which   would   not   only   allow   the   program   to   become   accredited   by   the   SAF   but   would   also   allow   us   to   increase   course   offerings   and   increase   retention,   engagement   with   students,   and   completions   by   instituting   a   cohort   model,   something   we   currently   cannot   do   at   present.
However,   because   of   the   realities   of   the   current   budget,   the
FNR   program   will   not   seek   an   additional   full ‐ time   faculty   member   this   year.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   4

2.9
Labor   Market   Data   (CTE/Occupational   programs   only)
Refer   to   the   California   Employment   Development   Division:    http://www.edd.ca.gov/   www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov
Provide   a   narrative   that   addresses   the   following:   a.
Documentation   of   labor   market   demand   b.
Non ‐ duplication   of   other   training   programs   in   the   region   c.
Effectiveness   as   measured   by   student   employment   and   program   completions.
Narrative:
A)   Current   EDD   data   show   steady   employment   numbers   for   Forest   and   Conservation   workers   overall   with   approximately   120   annual   replacement   positions.
Over   the   10   years   span,   this   suggests   1200   new   hires   just   for   replacements.
B)   There   are   no   other   2 ‐ year   FNR   programs   in   the   region   and   few   in   the   state   overall.
C)   We   currently   lack   good   data   on   student   employment   and   many   of   the   FNR   students   pursue   transfer   prior   to   completion   because   of   the   limits   on   the   number   of   credits   they   can   transfer.
Overall,   what   has   been   the   impact   of   the   change   in   indicators   on   student   achievement   and   learning:      The   indicators   suggest   fairly   small   changes   in   achievement   and   learning   relative   to   the   larger   economic   and   demographic   factors   affecting   the   College.
The   numbers   do   suggest   there   is   considerable   room   for   improvement   in   recruitment   and   retention   of   ethnic   groups   and   females   which   the   program   will   pursue   discussions   on.
Provide   narrative   on   the   factors   that   may   have   contributed   to   the   improvement   or   decline   in   the   identified   population :     The   FNR   program   may   be   different   from   most   programs   at   CR   in   that   a   significant   portion   of   the   students   come   from   outside   the   local   area.
Some   come   here   specifically   for   the   program   while   many   come   here   to   prepare   to   transfer   to   HSU.
Hence   there   are   often   larger   economic   and   demographic   factors   affecting   the   FNR   program   than   in   traditional   transfer   or   CTE   programs.
Forestry   in   general   has   been   in   a   transitional   stage   nationwide   over   the   last   decade   or   so   as   we   move   from   an   era   of   industrial   forestry   to   a   more   comprehensive   approach   of   ecosystem   management.
This   has   meant   a   shift   in   education   and   job   opportunities   from   a   single   forester   with   a   traditional   background   to   in   inter ‐ disciplinary   approach   involving   many   specialists.
The   label   of   Forestry   on   the   program   may   serve   as   a   deterrent   for   some   populations   (e.g.
females   or   ethnic   groups)   just   as   it   serves   as   an   attractant   for   others   (e.g.
white   males).
It   is   one   of   the   reasons   why   we   moved   2   years   ago   to   the   combined   Forestry   and
Natural   Resource   approach   to   be   attractive   to   various   groups.
However   it   is   likely   that   this   will   take   time   to   percolate   through   the   constituent   awareness   to   the   point   that   it   begins   to   have   an   effect   on   numbers   of   success   and   retention.
The   overall   forecast   for   the   profession   is   solid
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   5

despite   the   decline   in   the   local   forest   industry   with   the   recession.
Retirement   of   natural   resource   professionals   and   a   pick   up   in   the   housing   market   should   drive   steady   employment   opportunities   in   industry   and   government   agencies   in   forestry   in   the   next   several   decades   as   will   increasing   concern   about   wildland   fire   and   forest   restoration   and   the   increasing   carbon ‐ banking   that   forestry   plays   a   large   role   in.
Perkins   funds   have   substantially   aided   the   program   in   updating   field   technology   which   should   increase   student   success   both   in   the   classroom   and   on   the   job.
Section   3   –   Critical   Reflection   of   Assessment   Activities
Curriculum   &   Assessment   Data
Are   all   courses   on   track   for   complete   assessment   of   all   outcomes   in   two   years?
Y/N
What   courses,   if   any,   are   not   on   track   with   regard   to   assessment?
Explain.
#   of   PLOs   Assessed   and    Reported   during   the   2011 ‐ 2012   academic   year.
%
If
of
Course there
Program is
View
Select
no
Assessment
Outlines plan your
Advisory
for curriculum
of program
Reporting
Record updating status:   and
Committee
updated outdated click   click here
completed?
on:
Met?
or
Y/N
Y/N
curriculum, go
to:
Curriculum
when
Status
will   you   inactivate?
http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp
Yes
N/A
4   program   outcomes   were   assessed   (2   –   A.S.
Forest
Technology,   1   –C.A.
Natural
Resources,   1   –   C.C.
–   Geomatics.
100%   of   the   FNR   courses   were   current   in   2011 ‐ 12.
However,   8
are   due   for   updates   in   Fall   2012   and   all   have   since   been   updated   and   approved   by   the   Curriculum
Committee.
Yes
Yes
3.0
How   has   assessment   of   course   level   SLO’s   led   to   improvement   in   student   learning   (top   three) :       The   course   level   assessment   has   led   to   increasing   the   amount   of   economics   and   policy   discussed   in   FNR   1,   the   number   of   problem   sets   in   FNR   52   and   FNR   54.
The   assessment   showed   significant   uncertainty   in   FNR   1   students   about   socio ‐ economic   impacts   on   natural   resources   that   has   led   to   increasing   the   number   of   lectures   and   discussions   devoted   to   this   and   more   explicit   testing   on   the   material.
The   increased   in   the   number   of   problem   sets   in   both   FNR   52   and   FNR
54   resulted   from   low   student   confidence   in   their   ability   to   solve   basic   problems   in   these   courses   so   increased   practice   was   instituted   in   both   courses   which   has   improved   overall   outcome   achievement.
3.1
How   has   assessment   of   program   level   outcomes   led   to   degree/certificate   improvement   (top   three) :     The   program   faculty   in   consultation   with   the   Advisory   Committee   have   moved   forward   with   a   plan   to   significantly   revise   the   program   level   outcomes   moving   from   a   large   group   of   technically   specific   outcomes   to   broader,   more   comprehensive,   and   fewer,   ones.
These   outcomes   include   specific   examples   which   should   aid   students   in   documenting   their   experience   when   applying   for   technical   jobs.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   6

3.2
(Optional)   Describe   unusual   assessment   findings/observations   that   may   require   further   research   or   institutional   support :
Section   –   4   Evaluation   of   Previous   Plans
4.1
Describe   plans/actions   identified   in   the   last   program   review   and   their   current   status.
What   measurable   outcomes   were   achieved   due   to   actions   completed.
Actions
Increase   field   equipment   availability
Current   Status
Completed
Update   GPS
Additional
technology
Full ‐ time
faculty
Completed
Not
complete
Outcomes
Perkins   grant   purchase   of   field   tools
(compasses,   clinometers,   loggers   tapes,
Biltmore   sticks,   surveying   supplies)
Perkins   grant   purchase   of   20   Trimble   Juno   units
Funds   not   allocated
Establish license
Replace requirements
general   classroom fund
for   reoccurring furniture
GIS   Complete
Pending
Secure   the   funding   in   order   to   continue   course   support   for   FNR   program
Replacement   with   furniture   from   closed   sites   has   been   approved   but   the   furniture   has   not   yet   been   installed
Repair   Nikon
Specialized
Total
FNR
Stations tutor
Not
Not
complete complete
Funds   not   allocated
Funds   not   allocated
4.2
(If   applicable)   Describe   how   funds   provided   in   support   of   the   plan(s)   contributed   to   program   improvement:      The   Perkins   funds   have   enabled   the   program   to   update   field   technology   which   substantially   increase   student   engagement   and   learning.
Additionally,   the   allocation   of   a   general   fund   line   item   for   the   GIS   site   license   enables   the   College   to   maintain   the   software   at   the   state ‐ of ‐ the ‐ art   level   and   expand   course   offerings   to   other   sites   with   no   additional   license   cost.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   7

Section   –   5   Planning
5.0
Program   Plans   (2012/2013)
Based   on   data   analysis,   student   learning   outcomes   and   program   indicators,   assessment   and   review,   and   your   critical   reflections,   describe   the   program’s   Action   Plan   for   the   2012/13   academic   year.
If   more   than   one   plan,   add   rows.
Include   necessary   resources.
(Only   a   list   of   resources   is   needed   here.
Provide   detailed   line   item   budgets,   supporting   data   or   other   justifications   in   the   Resource   Request).
5.1
Program   Plans
Action
to
Update
be   taken:   classroom computer/projection
in   AT   127
Relationship
Institutional
to
Plans
Relationship
Improve in   the
content classroom
Assessment to
delivery
Expected   Impact   on
Program/Student   Learning
Better   clarity   and   speed   would   reduce   student   frustration   and   improve   learning.
Improved   tracking   of   student   achievement
Resources
New
Needed computer, monitor/projection system.
new
Update
Update
Program outcomes
Course
learning outlines
This   will   make   outcome   assessment   more   meaningful.
Increase   efficiency assessment
of
Improved   clarity   of   expectations   for   students   and   linkage   to   the   program   outcomes.
None
None
Replace   and equipment
update   safety   Maintaining   a   safe   student   learning
environment
safety   glasses,   hard   hats,   hearing
protection.
5.2
Provide   any   additional   information,   brief   definitions,   descriptions,   comments,   or   explanations,   if   necessary.
The   classroom   computer   projector   upgrade   is   essential   for   AT   127.
The   current   system   is   so   slow   that   it   is   largely   unusable   during   a   restricted   class   time   setting.
Additionally,   the   projector   does   not   allow   for   high   definition   images   and   the   sound   system   makes   listening   to   DVD   presentations   unpleasant.
Student   safety   equipment   is   needed   to   meet   current   standards   for   safety   in   various   lab   exercises.
The   safety   glasses   we   currently   have   are   more   than   15   years   old   and   many   are   broken   or   scratched.
The   hard   hats   we   currently   have   are   about   10   years   old   and   beginning   to   wear   out   or   break.
Hearing   protection   is   not   often   needed   but   during   chainsaw   demonstrations   (or   during   some   labs   near   the   firing   range)   it   is   essential.
Most   of   these   supplies   are   relatively   modest   in   price   but   can   have   substantial   impact   on   student   learning   and   modeling
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   8

professional   safety   behavior.
If   the   College   is   unable   to   fund   the   request,   the   FNR   program   will   use   donations   to   purchase   the   equipment   this   year.
Section   6  ‐  Resource   Requests
6.0
Planning   Related,   Operational,   and   Personnel   Resource   Requests.
Requests   must   be   submitted   with   rationale,   plan   linkage   and   estimated   costs.
If   requesting   full ‐ time   staff,   or   tenure ‐ track   faculty,   submit   the   appropriate   form   available   at   inside.redwoods.edu/ProgramReview
Requests   will   follow   the   appropriate   processes.
Request
Planning
Check   One
Operational
Personnel
Amount
$
Recurring
Cost   Y/N
Rationale
Linkage
Classroom   computer
High   Definition   monitor
Safety   equipment   (glasses,   hard   hats,   etc..)
X
X
X
2000
2500
500
N
N
N
Improves
Improves
Improves student student
student learning learning
safety
Section   7 ‐  Program   Review   Committee   Response
Do   not   type   in   this   section.
To   be   completed   by   the   Program   Review   Committee   following   evaluation.
7.0
The   response   will   be   forwarded   to   the   author   and   the   supervising   Director   and   Vice   President:
S.1.
Program   Information:     Satisfactory.
S.2.
Data   Analysis:        Overall,   good   evaluation   of   the   data,   narrative   is   consistent   and   includes   anecdotal   information.
Persistence   by   group   is   substantially   lower   than   district   average.
The   PRC   would   like   this   disparity   investigated   in   more   detail.
S.3.
Critical   Reflection   of   Assessment   Activities:      Good   job   on   documentation.
All   courses   are   in   the   two ‐ year   assessment   plan   and   are   being   assessed   per   the   planning   timeline.
Four   program   outcomes   were   assessed   and   findings   used   to   change   course   content   and   revise   overall   outcomes   for   each   course.
Satisfactory.
S.4.
Evaluation   of   Previous   Plans:   Previous   plans   were   evaluated   and   outcomes   noted.
PRC   suggests   following   up   via   work   ticket   on   the   replacement   of   classroom   furniture   which   is   “pending.”    Satisfactory.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   9

S.5.
Planning:   Planning   is   fine,   but   the   relationship   to   institutional   plans   or   assessment   evaluation   is   not   satisfactory;   it   should   be   more   specific.
S.6.
Resource   Requests:    The   rational   linking   should   be   specifically   linked   to   planning   and   either   your   assessment   evaluation   or   institutional   plans.
Good   opportunity   to   include   previous   non ‐ funding   planning   resource   items.
No   satisfactory.
10.
cFNR   Program   Review   2011 ‐ 2012.DOCX
4/5/2013   Page   10