Instructional Program Review Update 2012/13 (fields will expand as you type) Section 1 ‐ Program Information 1.0 Name of Program: CT: Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology Date: January 17, 2013 1.1 Program Review Authors: Bill Hole 1.2 Dean’s Signature: Jeff
A. Cummings
Date: 1/24/13 1.3 Individual Program Information # of Degrees # of Certificates # of Courses # of GE Courses 1 1 13 0 The shaded cells below are to be populated by the Program Review Committee as needed. # of Full Time Faculty 2010‐2011 # of Part Time Faculty 2011‐12 2010‐2011 # of Staff FTE 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 Personnel Budget 2010‐2011 Discretionary Budget 2011‐12 2010‐2011 2011‐12 1.3.1 State briefly how the program functions support the college mission: CT:HPRT puts student success first by providing outstanding career technical education. The program partners with the community to develop meaningful hands‐on tradecraft education that contributes to the economic vitality and lifelong learning needs of its service area. Student learning is continually assessed and teaching practices are focused on life‐long job training and community service. Student feedback is used to improve upon the programs and services offered. 1.3.2 Program highlights/accomplishments: 
Green and Sustainable building theory and practice added into the curriculum over the last two years is improving program interest. CT:HPRT is offering the most complete construction and carpentry training for existing and historic buildings at CR and in the State. 
2010/11 specialty training for Pre‐Apprenticeship Green Jobs Training to California Conservation Corps members was successful to the point that now the CCC is looking for enrolling more students into CT:HPRT courses to train building maintenance and rehabilitation. The projects are community non‐profit sites, partnering with CR’s CT program and the CCC is accomplishing community service and career technical training needs. 
HPR Student club members have become involved with community service projects such as: Blue Ox Historic Millworks “Craftsman 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 1 Days” (two‐days after Thanksgiving, during break) to promote CT:HPRT, demonstrate stained glass craft, sell program tee‐shirts, publicize program. 
Invited as a member of the Association of Preservation Technology International (APTI) Education and Research subcommittee of the Technical Committee on Sustainable Preservation because of sustainable building curriculum practices within hands‐on HPRT. 
Two courses of CT13 (43 students) have completed community service work for the Ingomar Club’s “Carson Mansion”. Floor plans were developed by hand and on AutoCad, as there never were floor plans for the building. A complete building survey with follow‐up conditions assessment and physical building measurements were done to provide the club with documentation that has never been in existence. 
CT12 Research and Documentation student term reports have been gathering a collection of historic Humboldt County barn surveys and recording the buildings on State Park format primary survey forms. There are about 18 that are print ready, and we are working with a past CT12 student (working on her Master’s Degree at HSU) who is voluntarily working to organize and print into a collection. 
Co‐Author for Preservation Trades Network “Trades Education Certification” project with colleague in England, an effort to train and certify crafts trades people to better deliver workshops and hands‐on demonstrations by focusing on student learning outcomes. 
Participant with Preservation Trades Network initiative, “Window Preservation Standards Collaboration”, to develop working standards for restoring wood sash windows, based on science and current best practices in the window conservation industry. 
CT:HPRT continues to attract out‐of‐area and state, along with others who already possess BA/MA college degrees. 
Through CR’s Community Ed. Training, CT:HPRT faculty have been teaching customized courses in Basic Home Repair, Building Maintenance. 
2011/12 school year had 13 sections of courses with about 5,000 student hours (Carpentry for Existing Buildings, Material Science:Masonry/Plaster, Cabinetmaking, Architectural Millwork) training on projects on the Historic Annie B. Ryan house at 1000 F St., Eur. 
CT:HPRT continues to use an off‐campus Field School site in Eureka (Ink People Center for the Arts non‐profit) for training hands‐on construction, building maintenance, sustainable building techniques, restoration and rehabilitation carpentry, along with materials conservation like plaster restoration and painting. Since Fall 2006, this has been at NO cost to CR District for building lease, power, water, sewer, portable toilet, building permits, or materials for the work. We calculate since Fall 2006 that total student training hours now exceed 19,400. 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/PR2012/ConstructionTechnologyHistoricPreservationandRestoration.asp http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 2 Select your program and click on: Enrollments & fill rates Enrollment X Comment if checked: Enrollment variation between 2010/11 and 2011/12 was based on CT:HPRT specialty training offered for Green Jobs pre‐apprenticeship training to the California Conservation Corps* (*because of the approx. 50 Green Jobs enrollments of CCC and success of training, CCC is planning to send 15 and more corps members to Spring 2013 CT:HPRT classes). Fill Rate X Comment if checked: The fill rate numbers for CT:HPRT are not an accurate representation of the efficiency of the program. The advanced lab CT 14 & 17 courses are for the very few who want to repeat the lab portion for advanced studies. Both of these courses were developed after the 2007 fiasco where the Chancellors’ Office recognized that we were incorrect to offer repeatable Lecture/Lab courses. Therefore CT 14/17 was created. CT 14 is improperly listed as a 20 student maximum. CT 17 is listed as an 8 student maximum. Both Course Outlines will be upgraded Spring 2013 semester, and in both cases these numbers should be lowered to 5 to reflect a more realistic number. That said, there are semesters where no advanced students sign up. In an attempt to help the CT 15 enrollment numbers, in Spring 2012 the AS:CT:HPRT Degree was upgraded to include CT 14 as a graduation requirement, which should demonstrate an increase of enrollment and fill over the future semesters. We can report on success of this strategy in the future. Fill rate remains an elusive number because by Board Policy when courses were developed, a minimum of 20 students was required as maximum students for most lab‐based courses. In reality, some of these courses (CT 15, CT 16) are best suited with 15 – 16 students as a maximum based on laboratory size constraints, tool and equipment availability, and student/instructor ratio for safety and the technical one‐on‐one instruction for the technically advanced skill training. The Material Science courses are also best suited for 16‐18 max. because of tools, facilities, and student/instructor ratio. That said, numbers tend to be lower for various reasons: size of rural area limits a broad stroke marketing (for instance Santa Rosa area, Sacramento area, S.F. Bay area have vast populations that would create a different pattern that we are able to achieve), as the only program in California (and 1 of two in western states), CT:HPRT attracts students with B.A. and M.A. degrees, along with job retraining adults. +Students move from out of the county and state specifically for this program (similar to our CT:Fine Woodworking program). The average student age is about 35yrs, and there seems to be a higher percentage of non‐traditional students. One solution that has been repeatedly suggested by lead faculty/program director and students is for an instructional aide, 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 3 which to date is still not an expense that the College affords. It is recognized that the enrollment trends are a moving target; one semester or year high, another low, and often appearing low when compared to campus programs totally different in perspective. It would be ideal to drop the maximum students to improve data, but again, it is well recognized that following Board Policy, 20 students remains the minimum. 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 X Comment if checked: Success and retention are at or above District percentages. Career Technical hands‐on education engages students and leads to good success and retention. Retention X Comment if checked: SAME 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: CT:HPRT experiences students enrolling new into the program (CA, or AS) both in the Fall and Spring semesters. X Over the last 5 years we’ve noticed changes is the reason students arrive into the program. Those who move to Humboldt from out of the Region or State usually arrive specifically with the goal to complete the program (1 or 2 year) and are consistent about following through. The 1‐year C.A. option often will excite some students to stay another year and complete the 2‐year A.S. degree, however there isn’t consistency. 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: Data set seems low. I believe more students have completed this program. X In 2007, the Chancellors’ Office stepped in and made the District stop offering around 30 degree/certificates because the district had not processed them through the proper channels. CT:HPRT was directly impacted, as both the (then)C.C. and the A.S. degree were re‐written and re‐submitted. Until 2011 (I believe) the now original 1996 C.C. was replaced with a Certificate of Recognition, and the district did not keep any records of who completed the certificate (why is this data unavailable?). This has led to a three year disconnect in following student completers. Generally speaking many students find work in the various fields that surround this program, and few transfer to another university. I know 4 who of working on M.A. degrees after leaving here (came with B.A.) 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 4 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: CT:HPRT has about a 30% female population and is a popular series of construction courses. The average age looks to be between 30 and 35, which seems correct, slightly higher than General Construction. Equity and diversity always seems low based on the average demographics of Humboldt County. 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: Success data is consistent with District average, yet in studying final grades it appears higher in reality. Several issues I recognized were: pregnancy, single mother, physical restrictions, and working too many jobs and unable to attend all classes. Retention in women is 10% higher than District and men is the same. Age data seems par with the District, as well. 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: Persistence rates seem very low in comparison to looking at student rosters and seeing who is on track for completing a CA or AS. A common situation is the student coming here to take a one‐year CA, and then decide to stay and continue onto the two‐
year AS. Student debt and cost of living requires many to work while schooling. Unfortunately there are a few who end up leaving school for a “good job” (sometimes I see them return a few years later to continue the original track. 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: CT:HPRT functions with one FT and 1‐3 PT faculty per semester, depending on what courses are offered. Spring 2012 experience the greatest offerings of courses. A few things I notice that make data difficult to interpret. In 2010/11 was the Pre‐Apprenticeship Green Jobs training program that had an additional 50 CCC students in CT 15. I believe 2011/12 experienced a course cancelled (maybe 2?). 2011/12 didn’t have the same numbers to compare, yet looks more negative. In comparing with CT:ResCarp, there is a difference in course enrollment numbers, particularly with the CT78 series where for some reason associate faculty still teaches around 40 students. That’s a good thing for numbers, but as stated elsewhere in 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 5 this report, CT:HPRT is a very customized “niche” program that a. doesn’t attract the same population, and b. for the intensive one‐on‐one craft skill training that this program provides, the lower numbers are actually safer and more appropriate for the student/teacher ratio and pedagogically speaking better for student learning. Working in existing historic houses, hunting for records in archival libraries, physical building analysis where students are crawling from under the house up into the attic really isn’t feasible with 20 and more students. Material science courses lack not only the quantity of specialty tools, but also the technical subjects that are taught require mostly one‐on‐one instruction in the lab sections…difficulty with more than 16‐18 students. CT:ResCarp has more faculty and sections of various courses (carpentry, cabinetmaking, estimating, electrical wiring, solar thermal and solar photovoltaic) that appears to raise their numbers considerably. It’s not clear how to best compare. 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. Following the labor market data links is complicated, but that said, the following is a summary of findings for Humboldt County.  Construction is not considered a “fastest growing occupation”.  Tapers are in the Humboldt County high growth profession. CT:HPRT trains people in hand trowelling traditional plaster repair and restoration, a skill which transfers well into the drywall industry.  Building permits are equal between new construction and “all other types of construction projects”, which home repair and restoration fall into.  Projections of Employment estimate the changes in industry and occupational employment over time resulting from industry growth, technological change, and other factors. CT:HPRT trains skills that relate well to the selected trade skills listed on the state database. The following trades skills project a positive need over the next ten years: Construction Trades Workers
Carpenters
Construction Laborers
Drywall and Ceiling Tile Installers
Tapers
27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 6 Painters, Construction and Maintenance
Other Construction and Related Workers
Helpers, Construction Trades
These skills project no change Helpers--Carpenters
b. There are no other training programs in Humboldt County, or California that train CT:HPRT, Sustainable Building practices through Building Reuse, Building Rehabilitation, Materials Conservation. CT:ResCarp doesn’t duplicate the craft‐trade skills that CT:HPRT. CT:HPRT trains roofing installation, painting, job‐site safety (scaffold, ladder, hazardous materials (guano, lead paints, molds, etc.), personal protective equipment – Tyvek, respirators, glove types), building renovation, wood window restoration, custom molding production and replication, wooden lathe and plaster repair and restoration, wood graining (faux painting), leaded and copper foil glass construction/repair, glass etching (sandblasting, traditional glue chip), decorative plaster and Moldmaking skills to replicate building components. CT:HPRT has become the go‐to source for Green Building Pre‐Apprenticeship training, and with better linkage between the CCC’s, State Parks, and other regional agencies who have historic buildings to maintain and stabilize/weatherize, it is likely that customized carpentry and construction training can provide a special niche “preservation specialist” job skill that is hired in agencies like State Parks and National Park Service. Meanwhile, building maintenance of public properties can continue. c. Effectiveness as measured by student employment and program completions is difficult to measure when you consider that there is no effective labor data that targets the variety of job skills CT:HPRT trains. There is no doubt that the new construction carpentry field is in decline compared to the building reuse and rehabilitation of the classic historic homes. With terms like Carbon Footprint, Embodied Energy, Energy Performance all important in today’s world, CT:HPRT is addressing the rapid changes by training on real buildings and teaching the valuable craft trade skills not taught anywhere else in the state. Employers are happy that we teach construction site safety, work ethic, critical thinking. Most polled are happy to take a completer under their wing and teach their own business practices on their own terms. 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: Program marketing and promotion are taken on mostly by the full‐time faculty (program director). The District invested in CTE program videos and new brochures (which CT:HPRT has been using since 2006, created in house and used as the current brochure model). HPR student club has been active over the last three years in promoting the program at community events (Blue Ox Historic Millworks events, Plan‐It‐Green 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 7 annual conference, maintaining a student blog site @ preserveandrestore.blogspot.com CT:HPRT is different from most programs at CR because it is an advanced construction technology program, teaching higher level craft trades and theory courses. A significant portion of the students come from outside of the region, and often state. Most enroll in the program specifically for the subjects offered. It’s not uncommon that workers in state, city, or county agencies enroll in certain courses to improve their job skills relative to historic preservation. More students are appearing with Bachelor’s degrees and since 2006, at least six are involved in earning master degrees. The field of construction and carpentry has taken a dramatic shift in the last decade resulting in a major decline in new construction. This has opened up a huge market to building reuse and renovation, which also includes building rehabilitation and weatherization to improve energy performance. New homes are still being constructed without energy performance practices at a forefront, while existing buildings are multiplying in the quantity that are being retro‐fitted and rehabilitated to meet modern use needs. This is what seems to be driving an increase in enrollment and enthusiasm over the last even two years. CT is dynamic industry that is changing every year. LEED and Green Build practices are already major factors included in building reuse, therefor students are learning more about energy conservation, energy performance, carbon footprint, and embodied energy while continuing to sustain one building at a time in their classroom training. The label of Historic Preservation and Restoration Technology continues to act as a “mystery” to some and the last couple of years have demonstrated that “Sustainable Building Technology” has embraced the existing and historic buildings. More female students are entering this training because of the skill success of historic research and documentation, building conditions assessment, the material science skills (glass, casting, lathe‐and‐plaster restoration, and the ability to repair existing buildings). The type of work isn’t so muscular as it is technical and patience‐based. 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. NO CT 2 needs course outline update to lower SLO’s from eight to four. I believe all four. The original dozen was lowered to four. 93% CT 17 to be updated S13 CT 2 to be updated to reduce SLO count S13 # of PLOs Assessed and Reported during the 2011‐2012 academic year. % of Course Outlines of Record updated If there is no plan for updating outdated curriculum, when will you inactivate? View curriculum status: click here or go to: http://www.redwoods.edu/District/IR/Program_Select.asp Select your program and click on: Curriculum Status 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 8 Assessment Reporting completed? Y/N Program Advisory Committee Met? Y/N N – Fall 12 still underway Y ‐ S/13 scheduled next meeting 3.0 How has assessment of course level SLO’s led to improvement in student learning (top three): 1. Exam questions are now being attached to SLO’s and selected questions are scored and weighed for success so that in subsequent courses alterations can be made to lecture series to emphasize necessary problematic areas, per needs. 2. SLO assessment has made us update Course Outlines to lower the earlier quantity of SLO’s in order to assess them all on two‐year cycles. 3. Assessment of SLO’s has led to a greater awareness of teaching content, both in lecture and lab deliveries. 3.1 How has assessment of program level outcomes led to degree/certificate improvement (top three): 1. PLO assessment has developed a greater sense of how all the individual courses dovetail together into the program. 2. Looking at PLO assessment forced changes in PLO quantities to minimize them into a better planned program assessment. 3. Assessment of the CT:HPRT program courses have led to an effective mapping system that focuses assessment onto a specific calendar rotation to allow for changes of SLO’s when courses are updated. 3.2 (Optional) Describe unusual assessment findings/observations that may require further research or institutional support: I’m very pleased that the assessment process is finally campus‐wide. I’ve been gathering student assessment data for course and program improvement since the early 1990’s, making shifts and upgrades to CT:HPRT from the beginning in 1995. I’m happy that we all are critically analyzing our programs. 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 Current Status Outcomes Greening up curriculum Continuing as course outlines are updated Successful language shift that is taking building reuse and sustainable building practices to the forefront, where since the beginning of the program in 1996, historic preservation was the main focus of language. This is proving valuable and positively recognized amongst national programs, as well as current students. The need to teach sustainability and all forms of building 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 9 maintenance and reuse are a strength of CT:HPRT, not practiced in the CT:NewResCarpenty 4.2 (If applicable) Describe how funds provided in support of the plan(s) contributed to program improvement: I searched all over the 2010/11 program review and couldn’t locate any action plans. CTEA funds provide support of any plans for program improvement. Grant application requires action plans and I work toward those goals on an annual basis. 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 Relationship to Institutional Plans Update Program learning Strategic Plan Goal 1.2, 1.3 outcomes Action to be taken: Update Course outlines Strategic Plan Goals 1.2, 1.3 Continue developing community links to specialty training in green jobs training and building maintenance using community builidngs. Strategic Plan Goals 2.1, 2.2 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc Relationship to Assessment This will make outcome assessment more meaningful. Increase efficiency of assessment Applies to various course and program assessment goals 4/23/2013 Expected Impact on Resources Needed Program/Student Learning None Improved tracking of student achievement Improved clarity of expectations for students and linkage to the program outcomes. Job training is best achieved in the community on real buildings. As CT:HPRT has no funding for a house project as CT:ResCarp, continual search for projects in the community increases student learning and job Page 10 None There are no resources available, so the work is completed by program faculty/director. Continue to seek in construction lab for machinery exhaust system that continues without completion (since 2003) Mission Statement…”providing outstanding career technical education”, Educational Master Plan 2.4 Practicing safe practices, using machinery correctly, and providing proper engineering controls vs. relying on personal safety by using Personal Protective Equipment. skills. Greater efficiency and safety for program faculty and students using woodworking machinery by eliminating the dust hazards and nuisance. The budget has been allocated through Measure Q, is in the Board packet every month, but still in “Working Drawing” stages. 5.2 Provide any additional information, brief definitions, descriptions, comments, or explanations, if necessary. CT program funding has been drastically cut for so many years that the construction lab stools and many hand tools are outdated. Requests for power equipment exhaust system have been ignored, which requires that faculty, staff, and students work with what we have, independent of what faculty have requested for “best practices” in a career technical training facility. Construction lab AT109 is used by woodworking, cabinetmaking and CT:HPRT architectural millwork, material science course lab. There still is not a full‐time instructional lab assistant (as I science labs) to assist with tools/material management and repair. Bert Hafar, Instructional aide had his hours cut this semester for budgetary reasons, and hopefully in the future this can be readjusted. The CT:HPRT Field School has never had an instructional aide and all necessary work is compensated by full‐time faculty/program director. The budgetary reality of Career Technical Education is clearly understood, yet at a time like program review, it is significant enough of a hurdle to teaching success that it’s worth noting. CT:HPRT was not included in the 2007 NAIT (now ATMAE) accreditation process. In 1995, HPRT began its program meeting the academic standards (@ www.uvm.edu/histpres/ncpe/ncpestds.html ) for the National Council for Preservation Education @ www.ncpe.us (listed in Guide to Academic Programs in Historic Preservation and Allied Fields). Funding had been denied over the last four years to NCPE, which has resulted in dismissal from the organization of national colleges and universities who offer Historic Preservation. CT:HPRT has been a stimulus for and has helped develop curriculum for Clatsop Community College HP program in Astoria, OR; now only the second HP program in western states community colleges. It seems awkward that Drafting and CT: Cabinetmaking faculty are active members of ATMAE and have over $2500/yr (actual amnt. not avail. at this writing), but the point made is that NCPE web site and directory of allied programs has been the reason for numerous out of state students moving to Eureka to attend CR. My continued requests for annual funding for organizational dues are denied, and the integrity of the program is minimized because of it. In November, I attended the annual NCPE meeting in Spokane and was embarrassed to be pointed out by the executive committee as no longer an active member. I have a letter of support from May, 2008, and another from November 2012 supporting my statements. It is difficult to maintain the only program in CA and one of the best recognized in the U.S. without local institutional support for program overhead, considering that since Fall 2006, the Field School house in Eureka has not cost the District any classroom/facility overhead, construction materials, and has trained well over 19,400 students hours, plus provided facilities for Community Ed. CT training, Green Jobs Training, et al. 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 11 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. Check One Amount Recurring Rationale Request $ Cost Y/N Linkage Planning Operational Personnel NCPE annual dues funding X 500 Y Enhance transfer education and academic advisory from member organizations 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: The narrative evaluation of the data references a shift to “green” and was more a discussion what might be and what the author’s preference is, rather than an evaluative response to the changes in the data. Author cited repeated requests to drop enrollment numbers for ideal learning. The comments focus on fewer students to improve data (not learning). Success and retention are noted at or above district levels, but the persistence narrative is unclear. Equity seems low based on Humboldt County demographics. More detail on persistence rates for equity would be helpful. In summary: it is not clear to the PRC how students complete and move into the work field; pg. 7 refers to labor market data and notes that the labor market is not fast growing, but notes there are areas of expertise that may be strong‐how does affect/apply to the program? If there is local employment, details on where students are getting hired; discuss local needs on green side. Author mention total student hours which no one else measures and is not helpful. The author’s arguments are not supported in many cases by college processes, nor backed up by data nor is the data available addressed. PRC would like to note the college cannot run a program with only 8 students. S.3. Critical Reflection of Assessment Activities: two year assessments are not on track. Once course needs SLOs reduced. The author did not 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 12 seem to know how many PLOs were assessed and reported. Most of the course outlines are updated. Assessment reporting is not completed. Advisory committee is meeting. SLO and PLO assessment led to improving the course outlines of record and updating to more ecological practices. S.4. Evaluation of Previous Plans: Previous action plans stated and outcomes notes as successful. S.5. Planning: Good job connecting planning to the strategic plan and mission. PRC suggest that, given the low number of students, marketing could be a focus in planning for next year; “green” practices should be marketed as well. S.6. Resource Requests: The resource request was not directly mentioned in the planning section, although referenced transfer education. PRC suggests moving this to AP 4021 27. CT.HPRT. Program Review.doc 4/23/2013 Page 13