Comprehensive Instructional Program Review Document
Construction Technology
November, 2007
A. Mission and Relationship to the College
The CT program contributes to the college’s mission in the areas of degree and
certificate programs, transfer education, and occupational education. In addition,
the programs serve the secondary institutional mission of economic
development.
To accomplish this mission, the Construction Technology Program seeks to
achieve the following objectives:
• Offer career-focused associate degrees and certificates in selected professional
and technical fields.
• Provide general education courses that encourage intellectual growth
development with social and communication skills in all programs.
• Create a student-learning environment which values individual differences,
emphasizes a collaborative approach, stimulates creativity, and promotes
individual potential by encouraging students to recognize their self-worth.
• Recruit and retain students to complete their programs.
• Support student growth and development through services, activities, and
programs.
• Foster lifelong learning by assisting students pursue advanced degrees
through articulation agreements with other institutions of higher education as well
as offering continuing education opportunities in their field.
• Expose students to the realities of industry by providing opportunities for
internships, part-time employment, industry-led projects, and related
experiences.
• Provide systematic evaluation of academic programs to ensure that they reflect
industry expectations.
1
B. Program Description, Curriculum, and Information
B.1.a. Official Program Description
Construction Technology
Programs in this field provide general and specific educational opportunities for
students seeking careers related to residential and light commercial building
construction, cabinetmaking and woodworking skills and techniques.
B.1.b. A two-column matrix which presents:
Program Student Learning Outcome Statements
Course (s)
SLO 1
SLO 1:
All GE Student Learning Outcomes
Area A: Natural Sciences
Area B: Social Sciences
Area C: Humanities
Area D1: Writing
Area D2: Oral Communications
Area D3: IT 62, Technical
Mathematics
SLO 2
Course(s) addressing SLO 2
Communicate Effectively and professionally in the
Construction Industry through the proper use of
verbal, written, and graphical techniques.
CT 80:Carpentry Theory I
CT 81: Carpentry Theory II
ENGR 23Engineering Graphics
DT 71: Architectural Drafting
Fundamentals
DT 73: Architectural Drafting Residential Design
CT57A: Cabinetmaking and
Millwork I
CT57A: Cabinetmaking and
Millwork II
2
SLO 3
SLO 3
Understand the concepts of Residential Construction CT 80:Carpentry Theory I
CT 81: Carpentry Theory II
CT70: Building Codes & Standards
CT 72: Electrical Codes and
Standards
DT 71: Architectural Drafting
Fundamentals
DT 73: Architectural Drafting Residential Design
SLO 4
SLO 4
Demonstrate the procedures, techniques, and
processes in residential construction
CT57A: Cabinetmaking and
Millwork I
CT57B: Cabinetmaking and
Millwork II
CT 90: Beginning Carpentry I
CT 91: Beginning Carpentry II
CT 95: Intermediate Carpentry I
CT 96: Intermediate Carpentry II
SLO 5
SLO 5
Identify tools, materials, and processes used in
residential carpentry
21A: Intro. to Woodworking
CT 78A: Residential Wiring I
CT 78B: Residential Wiring II
CT 78C: Residential Wiring III
CT 72: Electrical Codes And
Standards
CT 90: Beginning Carpentry I
CT 91: Beginning Carpentry II
CT 95: Intermediate Carpentry I
CT 96: Intermediate Carpentry II
3
SLO 6
SLO 6
Demonstrate the ability to plan, lay-out, form, frame, CT 50: Const. Estimating
and finish residential construction projects.
CT 56: Const. Layout
CT 90: Beginning Carpentry I
CT 91: Beginning Carpentry II
CT 95: Intermediate Carpentry I
CT 96: Intermediate Carpentry II
DT 71: Architectural Drafting
Fundamentals
DT 73: Architectural Drafting Residential Design
B.2 Program-Specific Criteria and/or Admissions Guidelines (as applicable to program)
None
B.3 Outline the curriculum as it is being implemented for a full-time student completing a
degree or certificate in this program. The outline should include course number, course
title, units, lecture hours, and lab hours for each semester for the complete curriculum.
Fall Year 1
Lecture
Lab
Hours
Hours
3.0
18
108
Cabinetmaking &
Millwork I
3.0
18
108
CT 80
Carpentry Theory
I
3.0
54
0
CT 90
Beginning
Carpentry I
3.0
0
162
3.0
36
54
Course Number
Course Title
Units
CT 21A
Intro to
Woodworking
CT 57 A
ENGR 23
Engineering
Graphics
4
Spring Year 1
Course
Number
Course Title
CT 56
Construction
Layout
CT 57B
Lecture
Lab
Hours
Hours
2.5
36
27
Cabinetmaking
& Millwork II
3.0
18
108
CT 81
Carpentry
Theory II
3.0
54
0
CT 91
Beginning
Carpentry II
3.0
0
162
3.0
36
54
Computers in
Industrial
Management
3.0
45
27
Course Title
Units
CT 70
Building Codes
& Standards
CT 95
DT 71
IT 46
Architectural
Drafting
Techniques
Units
Fall Year 2
Lecture
Lab
Hours
Hours
2.0
36
0
Intermediate
Carpentry I
3.0
0
162
DT 73
Residential
Design
3.0
36
54
ENGL 1A
Analytical
Reading &
Writing
4.0
72
0
Technical
Mathematics
3.0
54
0
3.0
54
0
Course
Number
IT 62 (Area
D3)
Area B
Social Science
5
Spring Year 2
Course Number Course Title
Units
Lecture
Lab
Hours
Hours
CT 50
Construction
Estimating
4.0
72
0
CT 96
Intermediate
Carpentry II
3.0
0
162
SPCH 1, 6 or 7
Public
Speaking
3.0
54
0
Natural
Science
3.0
36
54
Humanities
3.0
54
0
Area A
Area C
B.4 As part of your self-study, review and summarize the development of curriculum in
the program. Include recent additions, deletions, or revisions of courses (attach current
course outlines). Evaluate the timing, frequency and coordination of course offerings to
determine the adequacy of course offerings relative to a transfer degree (articulation),
vocational/occupational certificates, and other appropriate aspects of the
district's/campus’/college’s mission.
Curriculum rewrite activities have included collaborating with department faculty
to inventory courses and update course documents and outlines. Recent updates
to curriculum for courses in the Construction Technology degree and certificate
programs are as follows:
•
IT 46: Computers in Industrial Management
•
CT 50: Construction Estimating
•
CT 70: Building Codes & Standards
In addition to the above mentioned courses, two new courses have been added
to the department in an effort to initiate, improve, expand, and modernize quality
vocational and technical education programs.
•
CT 30: Solar Thermal Design and Installation
•
CT 32: Photo-voltaic System Design and Installation
6
B.4.a. Please ensure that there is a thorough review of the course outlines of record and
course content during this review period. Please indicate on the course outlines the date
on which they were last revised. If the last major curriculum revision occurred more than
five years ago, please indicate when the next major revision is planned. Please also
review course prerequisites, co-requisites, and advisories as well as obtaining necessary
approvals for distance education courses.
The following courses relating to degrees and certificates in Construction
Technology are currently updated:
CT-21A Survey of
Wood Technology
Dec. 2003
Dec. 2008
CT-21B Intermediate
Wood Technology
Dec. 2003
Dec. 2008
CT-50 Construction
Estimating
Sept., 2007
Sept., 2012
CT-55 Adv. Wood
Technology
Dec. 2003
Dec. 2008
CT-57A Cabinetmaking
and Millwork I
May, 2007
May, 2012
CT-57A Cabinetmaking
and Millwork II
May, 2007
May, 2012
CT-57A Cabinetmaking
and Millwork III
May, 2007
May, 2012
CT-70 Building Codes
& Standards
Sept., 2007
Sept., 2012
The following courses are currently under revision and are planned for
submission to Curriculum Committee for review during the ’07-08 academic year:
Course Name/ Number
Last Revision
Revision Due
CT 16: Architectural Millwork
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-56 Construction Layout
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-72 Electrical Codes &
Standards
Nov., 1988
A.S.A.P. (revision currently in
progress)
CT-78A Residential Wiring I
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-78A Residential Wiring II
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
7
CT-78A Residential Wiring III
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-80 Carpentry Theory I
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-81 Carpentry Theory II
Oct., 2002
Oct.., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-90 Beginning Carpentry I
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-90L Beginning Carpentry
Nov., 2001
Nov., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-91 Beginning Carpentry II
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-95 Intermediate Carpentry I
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-95L Intermediate Carpentry
Nov., 2001
Nov., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
CT-96 Intermediate Carpentry II
Jan., 2001
Jan., 2006 (revision currently in
progress)
B.4.b Send updated course outlines to the Curriculum Committee.
B.4.c Please file the appropriate form with the curriculum committee to delete classes that
have not been taught for three or more years unless you plan to teach them in the future.
At a recent department meeting, members of the Applied Technology
Department agreed that the following list of courses be removed from the College
catalog and the list of active courses. The following list of courses was approved
by the Division Chair and Curriculum Committee 10/26/07. That list and the
rational for their removal are as follows:
IT-120: Technical Writing and Documentation
•
The course has not been offered for several years and there are no plans to offer it.
•
This course is no longer part of an active degree or certificate program.
•
The course outline is out dated (1998) and department members have no immediate
plans to rewrite the Course Outline of Record.
IT-150: Technical Lab Assistance
•
The course has not been offered for several years and there are no plans to offer it.
•
This course is no longer part of an active degree or certificate program.
•
The course outline is out dated (1992) and department members have no immediate
plans to rewrite the Course Outline of Record.
IT-31: Industrial Business Management
8
•
The course has not been offered for several years and there are no plans to offer it.
•
Although this course is one of seven electives available to students seeking the MT.AS
Manufacturing Technology degree, it is the only one of the seven that is not currently
offered.
•
The course outline is out dated (1990) and department members have no immediate
plans rewrite the Course Outline of Record.
IT-161: Technical Mathematics
•
The course has not been offered for several semesters (the course outline dates back to
1997.)
•
This course is required for the Certificate of Achievement, Residential Construction II.
After discussions with department faculty, it was decided that revising the certificate
requirements and replacing IT-161 with Math 105 would be acceptable.
B.4.d With respect to updating course outlines of record, list any relevant trends in your
discipline with regard to:
1. Knowledge requirements:
As is pointed out in California 2025, California has a projected population growth
rate of 29% between 2005 and 2025. Along with this growth, accrediting bodies
and regulatory agencies in California are expecting an educated workforce that is
knowledgeable of the regulations and requirements for the Construction Trades.
With increasing regularity, content in construction technology courses revolves
around students becoming knowledgeable of the changes to regulations and
requirements. A trend in this discipline is to include regulation handbooks or
code manuals as required texts in C.T. courses. Changes to curriculum and
Course Outlines of Record frequently include the addition of these manuals.
Examples of just a few of the regulatory manuals used by C.T. students are as
follows:
•
International Residential Code, 2006
•
Woodwork Institute Manual of Millwork, 2006
•
National Electrical Code, 2008
•
California Energy Commission, 2005 Building Energy Efficiency Standards
Residential Compliance Manual
•
O.S.H.A. Part #1926 Construction Safety Manual
•
O.S.H.A. Part #1910 General Industry Safety Manual
2. Skills/student learning outcome requirements
At C.R., Construction Technology students learn the hands-on skills of the
carpenter, cabinetmaker, electrician, and architect. The basic skills of these
trades; measuring, cutting, combining, fitting, and finishing will continue to be the
basis of the C.T. program. Through the study of trade journals, advisory
committee recommendations and changes in the industry, new trends in
9
materials and methods are incorporated into the skills and S.L.O.s as they arise.
The use of sustainable materials and methods and changes to California energy
regulations are the most significant trends in recent years, and are reflected in
skills and S.L.O.s as curriculum is rewritten.
3. Instructional methods
Lectures with an accompanying lab are the standard method of instruction in C.T.
programs. Changes to instructional methods in the near future will depend upon
the ability of the C.T. program to have an active construction project to work on.
Without a live project for students to practice the lessons taught in lecture, the
instructional methods for most courses offered in this program will change
significantly.
B.4.e Describe the various educational delivery methods currently being utilized by the
program. Examples include but are not limited to traditional in-person classroom
delivery, in-person lab, field studies, online, interactive television, telecourses, clinical
instruction, etc.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Traditional Lecture/note taking
Visual presentations using audiovisual and computer projection
capabilities
Live demonstration of hand tool procedures
Live demonstration of machinery set up and usage
Live demonstration of construction lay-out
In-person laboratory of individual project work
Group laboratory work such as: carpentry framing, stair building, rafter
construction, concrete formwork, cabinet construction, architectural
models, and architectural millwork
Presentation of special topics:
Panelized/modular home construction
Solar energy systems, with a Solar Photo Voltaic Certification
Program
Electrician Certification Program (new state requirement)
Engineered materials, beams, posts, joists, studs
Recycled materials
Green" building - renewable, recyclable, & environmentally friendly
materials
Live demonstrations include: wood technology experiments, and
ceramic tile work
Proper use of surface coatings and applications that include: spray
finishes, rub-on, brush, etc.
Drawing project plans
f) Identify curricular revisions, program innovations, and new initiatives planned for the
next five years.
10
•
Return to the 3 Lot residential construction model that was
successful for the past 30 years through the reinstatement of funds
from Special Revenue Fund #39.
•
W.A.S.C. accreditation for the College.
•
N.A.I.T. reaccredidation for the A.S.C.T. degree
•
Inclusion of sustainable materials and solar design in new
construction projects.
•
Move toward the implementation of 32mm method of cabinetry in
residential projects.
•
Increasing use of oral presentation and term paper reports in
lecture classes.
•
Update regulatory information lecture courses.
5. If applicable, indicate the program external accreditation/approval status. Include a
copy of the most recent notification of accreditation/approval status from the appropriate
agency. If external accreditation is available but the program has chosen not to seek
accreditation status, please explain.
National Association of Industrial Technology (www.nait.org)
Paul - letter
11
NOTE: PRC at this point down is switching modes so that we’re no longer doing pageby-page “polishing”; just hitting most pertinent problem spots
C. Program History
1. History (update) since last review:
● What have been the major developments, activities, changes, and/or projects in your
discipline over the past 2 or 4 years (longer if no recent review exists)?
The Construction Technology Program is almost 35 years old. The first couple years
the hands on projects were for campus facilities including the construction of the
greenhouse. In about 1974-75 the program built a house, House #1, on campus and
sold it. This on campus house construction and sale continued for about 10 – 12 years.
More and more classes, and students, became involved with the construction of the
house. The Architectural drafting class draws the plans, the carpentry class does most
of the construction, the cabinetmaking class builds the cabinets, and the electrical wiring
class does all the electrical work. A building lot was purchased and houses were then
built on a lot and sold with the proceeds being returned to the program and used to buy
additional lots and building materials. This has been the model, and an extremely
successful one, used to date. We are currently building House #34.
At one time in the late 1980’s or early 1990’s the administration transferred funds
out of the Construction fund. Through appeals to the Board of Trustees it was
determined that according to ‘the documents’ that were used to set up this program,
those funds were not ‘at will’ funds and belonged to the Construction Technology
Department. Those funds were returned to the CT Department. After the sale of two of
the last three homes the administration refused to purchase additional building lots. The
fund became quite large and under the direction of Dr. Crabil $350,000 was transferred
out of the CT fund and into the general fund. Attempts have been made to locate the
‘documents’ that we believe restricts the transfer of funds to the general fund. This
search has been somewhat like asking the fox to hand over the hens. There has been
absolutely no cooperation from administration.
We are currently building on the last building lot owned by CR. If the funds are not
restored to the CT Department, and building lots purchased, the Construction
Technology Department will cease to exist. This demise will pull down other programs
that are dependent on the house construction for their curriculum. The Architectural
Drafting Program, the Historic Preservation and Restoration Program, the
Cabinetmaking and Millwork classes, and the Electrical Wiring classes are all
dependent on the home construction.
2. What were the recommendations from your last program review (if any) and how has your
discipline responded to those recommendations?
We have no records of previous Program Reviews.
12
.
3. If you have goals from your previous program review, please list them along with the
objectives related to your goals, the strategies being used to achieve objectives,
and the documentation or evidence that demonstrates success. If no prior program
review exists, skip #3.
4. Discuss any collaborative efforts you have undertaken with other programs
(instructional or non-instructional) at College of the Redwoods District and offer
an assessment of success and challenges, and potential changes in collaborative
efforts.
The Construction Technology Program collaborates within its own classes, as
well as with the D.T. program. The collaboration is as follows:
DT 73: students in this class conduct a site analysis and draw up construction
plans and documents for the student built house.
CT 90 & 95: Students from these classes build the house.
CT 57A, B: Students in these classes construct the cabinets for the house.
CT 78A, B, C: Students in these classes provide the electrical wiring for the
house.
The student-built house is a collaborative package that involves C.T. and D.T.
faculty, over 50 students and is the focus of instruction for at lease 8
courses taught at C.R.
5. Discuss any activities or projects you have undertaken with other educational
institutions, the community, or business/industry.
The Construction Technology Department has a long history of collaborative
projects in the community and with business/industry. In the last five years
we have participated in the following projects.
A) The Evergreen Lodge at St. Joseph’s Hospital: The Evergreen Lodge is a
hotel type facility that is for cancer patients and their families to stay while
receiving treatment at the hospital. Rooms are between $5 and $10 per
night. The Construction Technology Department built a 4000 sq. ft.
addition to the facility. Approximately 80 CR students from the carpentry,
cabinetmaking, and electrical wiring classes participated in the project.
There were 9 carpentry students who came back for a third year of
classes to help with the construction. We worked closely with Southwest
Rotary of Eureka who runs the facility and raised the funds for the project.
We also worked with St. Joseph’s Hospital, who is the owner of the
building. CR’s Construction Technology Program built the original
Evergreen Lodge the late 1980’s. The project received widespread
attention through both television and the print media, and community
support and acclaim.
13
B) Habitat for Humanity Homes: The Construction Technology Department
built two homes for Habitat for Humanity at Habitat Village in Mckinleyville.
Habitat had not been able to complete a home they had started about 5
years ago and came to us for help. The partnership went well and they
asked us to build another home on their last lot in the village. The two
Habitat home partners had been waiting almost seven years for their
homes to be built. About 70 students from the carpentry, cabinetmaking,
and electrical wiring classes all participated in the construction. Habitat for
Humanity would like to partner with us I the future when they have building
lots. These projects received media attention in both television and the
print media.
C) Handicap Ramps: In partnership with Redwood Community Action
Agency’s ramp program CR’s Construction Technology carpentry classes
have built 5 or 6 handicap ramps for low-income people in the Eureka
area. The ramp program is being resurrected by another agency and we
have been contacted about again being a participant. These projects also
received both television and print media attention.
D) CT faculty maintains regular contact with local high school vocational
instructors. We serve on the H.R.O.P. Construction Advisory Committee,
and faculty from local high schools regularly request C.T. instructors to
make presentations to their students both at C.R. and on the individual
school campuses. See Appendix D for Advisory Committee Contacts.
D. Measures of Effectiveness
D1. Quality of Education
D.1.a Certifying, licensing, or registry examinations are non-applicable:
D.1.b. Faculty Qualifications:
(1) Is there one full-time faculty member whose primary assignment is responsibility for
this program?
Yes: Ted Stodder
(2) Are minimum faculty qualifications according to standards set by
accrediting/approval bodies met?
All fulltime faculty in CT meet the minimum qualifications set forth by the Board of
Governors of the California Community Colleges.
(a) WASC Yes
(b) External Accrediting/approval organizations Yes
The College of the Redwoods Construction Technology A.S. degree is accredited
by the National Association of Industrial Technology through 2013.
c. Student Outcomes Assessment: See Appendix A
D.2. Vitality
14
a. Attrition and Retention of Fall 2004 Class
Number of students entering program
Fall 2004
Fall 2005
Fall 2006
365
402
334
Number Graduating in 2
years (Fall 2004 Entering
Class)
Explain any attrition indicated by these data.
This is the only data available from I.R. at the time of this report, and it’s believed
to be a duplicated head count reflecting all students in all sections. A more
realistic headcount of C.T. students would be the enrollments in CT 90 and CT
95.
Year & Course
Census Enrollment
Retention
05’-06’ CT 90, 95
20 +7
96.2
06-07’ CT 90, 95
22 +5
92.5
b. Enrollment and Graduate Projections
A) Enrollment:
While the data from I.R. is a duplicated head count, it can be derived that
enrollment has been increasing. CT 80 Carpentry Theory, which is the
‘gatekeeper’ to the program, has been closed by late July or early August the
last several years. The program is at maximum capacity. There is no room for
any increase in the number of students entering the program. There is room
for an increase in student retention after the first year.
B) Graduate Projections:
It takes 68.5 units to get an AS Degree in Construction Technology. That’s
an average of over 17 units per semester, a very difficult and demanding
requirement. Graduation numbers are low, although Construction Technology
graduates more students that all other Vo Tech Programs ,except Nursing
and Dental where a degree is required (at this time this is an antidotal
statement). The reason is a degree is not required and is generally of little
benefit to enter the industry. Our students are so highly sought after by the
local building community that many students who find jobs after the first year
do not return for their second year or they go to school part time their second
year and only take the construction classes, and do not take the classes
required to complete a degree. If our measure of success is college
graduates, then we are not very successful. If our measure of success is
having a fully enrolled program and successfully training our students to work
in this industry then we have unparalleled success. At the end of each year
15
we have more job placement requests than we have students to place. With
newly adopted policies by this institution, including raising the level of Math,
requiring English 1A, and then increasing 1A to 4 units makes it almost
impossible to complete an AS in Construction Technology in two years.
These standards far exceed any required in this industry and are barriers to
student success. Our graduation rate will fall to near zero.
NOTE: Explain method used in making these projections.
Through discussions with C.T. students it has become evident that they enroll in
our certificate and degree programs primarily for the vocational training. Some of
our students hold associate, baccalaureate and even doctorial degrees and
come to C.R.. Although our program is popular with students, measuring student
success by the completion of degrees and certificates does not accurately reflect
the success of students that are enrolled for job retraining, professional growth,
enrichment, and trade-specific training.
c. Total number of 2004-2005 graduates by ethnic group and gender.
This information is unavailable at this time
d. Number and percent of graduates from the most recent graduating class who are
employed in positions related to the program major or continuing in a higher degree
program.
Sources of information: alumni surveys: See appendix B
Year
Total Number Of
Graduates
2005
Employed in
Related Field
Continuing
Education
N %
N %
3
0
3
Program Awards
Award Count for Redwoods College in Year 2005-2006
Data Current As Of November 06, 2007 12:02:30
Program: Construction Crafts Technology (095200)
16
Award Type
Program Type
Associate of Science (A.S.) degree
Award Count
Construction Crafts Technology (095200)
4
Certificate requiring 18 to fewer than 30 units Construction Crafts Technology (095200)
1
Certificate requiring 6 to fewer than 18 units
1
Construction Crafts Technology (095200)
Grand Total
6
e. Indicate the beginning mean and median annual salary for graduates of the program
employed full-time, as collected from alumni survey and program advisory meetings.
This information is not available.
D.3. Efficiency
D.3.a. Describe current student population in terms of enrollment by ethnic group and
gender.
At this time, the Office of Institutional Research has not yet generated the
information necessary to complete a table of such information.
D.3.b. Composition of enrollment for selective admissions programs:
At this time, the Office of Institutional Research has not yet generated the
information necessary to complete a table of such information.
D.3.c. Faculty Staffing Pattern
1.
Complete the Faculty Employment Grid below (please list full- and part-time
faculty
numbers in separate rows):
Faculty Load Distribution in the Program
Discipline
Name
Total
Teaching
Load by
Term
Const.Tech. 70.5
F 05
Const.Tech 73.5
S 06
Const.Tech. 70.5
F 06
% of Total
Teaching
Load by
Full-Time
Faculty
% of Total
Teaching
Load Taught
by Part-Time
Faculty
Changes
over Prior
Year
71%
29%
Base line
71%
29%
0%
71%
29%
0%
17
Explanations and
Additional
Information
(retirement,
reassignment,
etc.)
Const.Tech. 73.5
S 07
2.
74%
(+3%)
26%
(-3%)
3%
F.T. Faculty
replaces P.T. in
C.T. 56
Do you need more faculty? If yes, explain why and be sure to include data sheets
justifying the need.
a.
Full-time?
No
b.
Part-time?
No
Source: www.redwoods.edu/district/accreditation/historic
D.3.d. Please rate the resources indicated in the table below with respect to how they
support this program. Feel free to supplement the resource categories in the extra space
provided. The four rating categories are defined as follows:
Resources Rating
Adequate
a) Faculty
Minimally
Adequate
Not
Applicable
X
b) Support Staff
X
Clerical
X
Technical
Inadequate
X
Other Personnel
X
c) Current Expense (supplies)
X
d) Equipment
e) Library/Learning Resource Center
X
X
f) Facilities
g) Professional Development
X
X
*If any component is rated Inadequate or Minimally Adequate, please explain. Include
recommendations for reducing or eliminating the limitations.
•
Support Staff: The support staff at C.R. are all hardworking capable
employees: there just aren’t enough of them to make the transition from a
18
reactive response to a proactive response. The college’s website and the
links to different programs and would need some (2-3) full-time
webmasters to make it on a par with other community colleges.
•
Clerical: The clerical support for C.T. is hardworking and cheerful.
Connie Simpson does a good job. The inadequacy of this position is that
the administrative assistant is located across campus from the Applied
Technology Building, and is a shared position with C.I.S and B.T.
•
Supplies: The C.T. program has relied almost exclusively on VTEA. grant
funds and funds generated by the sales of the student-built house for
funds to run the construction, cabinetmaking, and electrical labs. The
college provides a very small amount of money (approx. $1000/year) for
small tool repairs and sharpening, and some instructional supplies. If
VTEA or the funds from the sale of the house are not available, the
program will be severely handicapped
•
Equipment and Facilities: An extensive equipment and facilities report
was written in March ’05 in response to the passage of Measure Q. The
Construction Technology Lab (A.T. 109) has received a few equipment
upgrades, but no changes to the inadequacies outlined in the Measure Q.
report, which include major repairs and renovations to light, ventilation and
safety.
e. Budgetary Categories--Please provide funding amount budgeted for each category
during the most recent academic year and for each of the previous four years. (Please
replicate this table for each year)
As detailed previously, the Construction Technology Program is basically a self
funded program. CR only budgets for the standard instructional supply allocation
of $1000 per year, which is wholly inadequate. In collaboration with multiple
classes and the Architectural Drafting Department the program designs and
builds a new home each year. The proceeds from that sale are put back in the
CT fund. The money is used to buy an additional lot and materials for future
homes. For two years the administration refused to purchase an additional lot.
The fund grew quite large and by order of Dr. Crabill $350,000 was transferred
out of the CT fund and into the general fund. We historically have the lot we are
building on, a lot the Architectural Drafting class is designing a new home for,
and a lot in reserve. We are currently building on our last lot. Without the return
of these funds and the purchase of additional lots the program cannot continue in
its present form.
In the course of completing this report we came across Special Revenue Fund
#39. It is not known to us when this fund was created, if it was used to hold our
funds before the transfers, or after the transfers. The District Board established
Special Revenue Fund #39 as a special revenue fund to account for the rental
19
income from District owned or leased buildings and the sale of student built
homes from construction technology classes.
See appendix C
Explain any changes in funding.
Summary and Recommendations
1. Summary
Construction Technology Program Strengths
A.
Students in Construction Technology receive high quality instruction,
based upon real-world applications. Our students are in high demand in the local
building industry.
B.
CT faculty posses the technical skills and knowledge to provide high
quality instruction.
C.
As a program, Construction Technology is able to provide students with
hands-on technical instruction in the areas of carpentry, cabinetmaking,
residential design, residential wiring, solar installation and woodworking.
Program Weaknesses
A) The Construction Technology Program has a long-standing history of
student enrollment, retention, and student success. As previously
detailed, the return of the $350,000 of program generated funds from the
general fund to Construction Technology, is the greatest obstacle to the
continuance of the program. These funds would be used to purchase
building lots and materials for laboratory use by the students in
architecture, carpentry, electrical wiring, cabinetmaking, construction
estimating, and building codes classes. Without the reinstatement of these
funds and the purchase of additional lots the program cannot continue in
its present form.
B) Data reflecting the current status of graduating or leaving students.
2. Recommendations for program improvement generated by self-study. (List by
number and use these numbers in the Quality Improvement Plan.)
#1) Reinstatement of proceeds from the sale of student built houses to
Construction Technology Department.
#2) Develop and implement an improved student follow-up system.
#3) Maintain NAIT Accreditation for Construction Technology AS
Degree.
#4) Update curriculum for outdated CT courses.
20
3. List program members who participated in completion of the self-study report.
Paul Kinsey
Ted Stodder
21
Vision and Goals
• Based upon data from California 2025 and/or data from Institutional Research, briefly
describe how you would like your discipline to evolve in the next five years.
1. Maintain NAIT Accreditation for Construction Technology AS Degree
Plan: Develop a response to the visiting team recommendations. Create a
timeline to develop a report if requested by the NAIT Board of Accreditation.
Responsible person: CT Full time faculty
Fiscal Impact: travel to NAIT conference
Status: TBD
2. Develop and implement an improved student follow-up system
Plan: Work with college IR office to develop and implement the follow-up system
for graduates and program leavers. Define the responsibility of faculty and
administration in the process. Use the data from follow-up studies to make
curricular and programmatic changes as necessary.
Responsible person: CT faculty
Fiscal Impact: postage
Status: In progress – graduate survey completed, leaver survey pending
3. Reinstatement of proceeds from the sale of student built houses to
Construction Technology Department.
Plan: Without the return of these funds to the Construction Technology
Department, not only will the CT department cease to exist but Historic
Preservation & Restoration will cease to exist, the Architectural Drafting Program
will cease to exist, and the electrical wiring classes will also cease to exist.
4. Update Course Outlines of Record to reflect S.L.O.’s, new topics, texts,
and assessments.
• What specific goals and objectives would you like to achieve to move you toward your
vision?
See above.
• What support from the college or district is needed to help you achieve your goals and
objectives?
Reinstatement of the funds to Construction Technology.
• What documentation/evidence will demonstrate that you are making progress toward
achieving your goals, objectives, and vision?
When the funds are back in our account and we are permitted to proceed
as we historically have.
• What changes will make the self-study process more helpful to you?
Clerical Assistance
Completing the Quality Improvement Plan (QIP)
22
The Construction Technology Program has been in existence for almost 35
years. The Construction industry is a fluid industry that is constantly changing.
We are continuously reviewing our program, our courses, and our curriculum to
meet these changes in the industry. Some examples are the installation of 32mm
cabinetmaking equipment, the introduction of 2 solar energy courses, the
addition of Alternative Construction Methods and Materials into the carpentry
theory curriculum. . There will be a new building code adopted as of January 1,
2008 and our Building Codes class is already teaching the new code in the Fall
of 2007. The impetus for quality improvement has been the Construction
Industry, our NAIT accreditation process, and the desire to give our students the
best education possible. Our program is constantly evolving.
23
Quality Improvement Plan
Program:Construction Technology
Year:2007-2008
Field
What to include
Recommendation #
#1
Recommendation
Reinstatement of proceeds ($350,000)
from the sale of student built houses
to the Construction Technology
Department.
Planned Implementation Date
Spring Semester ‘08
Estimated Completion Date:
Spring Semester ‘08
Action/Tasks
•
Work with senior staff to reinstate
all or part of the $350,000 from
the sale of student built houses
back to the C.T. Department. We
believe these funds are currently
parked in Special Revenue Fund
#39.
•
Work with Drafting Technology
students and faculty to develop
plans for student built house for
Fall ’08.
Measure of Success/Desired Outcome
•
Purchase of building lot for next
year’s project and reinstatement
of the 3 lot rotation.
Estimated Cost(s)
•
None from CR’s general fund. All
funding would come from the
proceeds of previously sold
houses.
Who is responsible?
•
Paul Kinsey, Ted Stodder in
conjunction w/ Senior Staff
Consequence if not funded
•
Construction Technology, Historic
Restoration & Preservation,
24
Architectural Drafting,
Cabinetmaking and Millwork, and
Electrical Wiring, will all cease to
exist.
25
#2
Recommendation #
Recommendation
Develop and implement an
improved student follow-up
system.
Planned Implementation Date
•
12/07 Acquire contact information
from current students.
6/10
Estimated Completion Date:
Action/Tasks
•
Develop a database of students.
•
Develop a follow-up
instrument/survey
•
Administer the survey
•
Collect and analyze the data
•
Feedback from past
students/survey participants
•
Sharing the feedback and
information with students and
N.A.I.T. accreditation personnel.
Estimated Cost(s)
•
Cost of mailings, survey
development, etc.
Who is responsible?
•
CT Faculty: Ted Stodder and Paul
Kinsey
Consequence if not funded
•
Jeopardize N.A.I.T. accreditation
Measure of Success/Desired Outcome
26
Recommendation #
#3
Recommendation
Maintain NAIT Accreditation for
Construction Technology AS
Degree.
Planned Implementation Date
12/07
Estimated Completion Date:
6/10
Action/Tasks
•
Pursue resolutions to deficiencies
noted in self-study and team
response.
Measure of Success/Desired Outcome
•
Feedback from graduates,
certificate learners, and leavers
as to current job placements and
earnings.
Estimated Cost(s)
•
Yearly travel to N.A.I.T.
Conference
Who is responsible?
•
Paul Kinsey/Ted Stodder
Consequence if not funded
•
Loss of N.A.I.T. Accreditation,
reduction in program quality,
possible reduction of enrollment
27
#4
Recommendation #
Recommendation
Update curriculum for outdated CT
courses.
Planned Implementation Date
•
This recommendation is ongoing
and currently in process.
Estimated Completion Date:
•
This recommendation is ongoing,
with all CT courses estimated to
be updated by 5/07.
Action/Tasks
•
Work w/ CT faculty and
Curriculum Committee members
to update Course Outlines of
Record to include S.L.O’s, new
texts, new topics and
assessments.
Measure of Success/Desired Outcome
•
Having all C.O.R. ‘s for
Construction Technology updated
and approved by Curriculum
Committee.
Estimated Cost(s)
•
None
Who is responsible?
•
Paul Kinsey
Consequence if not funded
•
Funding not required
28
APPENDIX A
Student Outcomes Assessment
Option 2
CT 21A: Survey of Woodworking Technology, is a required course for all students
pursuing a C.T. degree or certificate. A significant S.L.O. for this course is the following:
· Layout and cut accurately, using hand tools, the following joints: Rabbet, dado, halflap, miter with ¼” groove in each, spline to fit miter grooves, mortise and tenon, doweled
end-to-face, and edge –to-edge. Joints must hold themselves together using only
closeness to fit.
The major graded assignment that measures this S.L.O. is the following:
College of the Redwoods Construction Technology
CT 21A
Introduction To Woodworking
Manipulative Assignment #5
Making the Six Basic Wood Joints By Hand
Tools Required: Scale or tape measure, Chisel, Pencil, Marking gauge, Dowel
centers, Combination square, Try square, Doweling jig, Router plane, Back
saw, Coping saw, Electric drill, Band saw/scroll saw, Chop saw, Bench hook,
Work bench, Vise, Safety glasses, Mallet
Materials: From assignment #3: 4pcs @ 3/4"x 1 1/4" x 14"
Procedure:
1. Dado Joint: read from textbook pp.175-178
Working from one piece of stock from assignment #3, measure 2 1/2" from one
end and square a line with pencil and try square.
Layout and cut the dado to receive the dog’s back leg. Dado should be 3/4"
wide, and 1/4" deep. Study figures: 10-1, 10-4, 10-5, 10-6.
Check the fit. It should be a snug fit, that stays together on its own without
adhesive or fasteners. If the joint is too loose start over; too tight, see figure 108. No sandpaper!
2. Miter Joint: read pp.193-194, 199-200. Review lecture notes on using the
power miter box.
You will need two pieces with a 45 degree angle on each end.
29
First, layout and cut the miters, then, cut pieces to length. You may use the
power miter box to cut your miters. After cutting the miters layout and then cut
the dog’s back leg (3 3/4")and body (6") to length.
3. Grooves to receive the splines: Review lecture notes for this procedure.
The grooves will be 1/4" wide and 1/4" deep on both miters.
Layout with pencil, combination square and marking gauge.
Remove the necessary wood with a 1/4" chisel. Check your fit with a test piece.
Layout and cut a piece of wood 5 7/8" long for front of dog.
Layout and cut 3 pieces of wood 2 ½" long for feet and nose of dog.
4. Dowel joint, end to face (mid-rail butt): read pp. 161-165.
Use dowel centers to layout this type of joint: see figure 8-17.
The dog’s front leg that is 5 7/8" long will be connected to one of the 2 ½" pieces
using the end-to-face method described in figure 8-17. You may use an electric
drill with a 1/4" brad point bit to drill the holes.
5. Cross Lap Joint: read pp. 184-186
Connect the 5 7/8" piece to the 6" piece using a cross lap joint. See figures 11-1
and 11-4.
On the 6" piece (dog’s body) measure 1" from the square end and begin the
layout for a 1 1/4" cross lap joint.
On the 5 7/8" piece, measure down 2 3/8" from the dog’s head (the end without
the dowel holes) and begin the layout from there.
Both cross laps will be 3/8" deep.
Lay-out the joint and make the necessary saw kerfs. Remove the waste from the
joint with a chisel (figure 7-20) and use a router plane to even and flatten the
bottom of the joint at 3/8" deep.
6. Dowel Joint edge to edge: read pp.162-164. Study figure 8-21.
Connect one of the 2 ½" pieces to the 6" piece using the doweling jig (figures 818 & 8-20). This will create your dog’s belly.
7. Mortise and Tenon Joint: read pp.202-206
Lay-out the tenon that will be the nose on one of the 2 ½" pieces: 1/4" x 3/4" x
3/4".
Layout the mortise on the 5 7/8" piece : 1/4" x 3/4" x 13/16".
Cut the mortise first using the drilling/chiseling method. See figures 13-8, 13-9,
13-10.
Cut the tenon next. See figures 13-7 and 13-11.
Use a rabbet plane to clean up the mortise and check for fit as described on
page 206.
30
8. Layout the ears, mouth, double chin, and stomach. Cut out the features
using the following tools:
coping saw for the double chin, band saw for the stomach, and scroll saw for the
ears and mouth.
Please feel free to be artistic and add your own features. We would welcome
your new designs.
Read page 117 for coping saw use.
Read pages 319-324 for band saw use.
Read pages 340-347 for cutting with the scroll saw.
Turn it into your instructor with evaluation sheet for a grade.
GOOD LUCK AND HAVE FUN!!
Current Evaluation Instrument
CT21A Who’s Pooch?_______
Assignment #5
“The Dog”
Dado ___/10___
Miter groove ___/10___
Cross lap joint ___/10___
Edge to edge dowel ___/10__
Edge to face dowel ___/10___
Spline ___/10___
Mortise ___/10___
Tenon ___/10___
Scroll saw ___/10___
Coping Saw ___/10___
Total ___/100___
Analysis:
The assignment Making the Six Basic Wood Joints By Hand, is foundational to the entire
Construction Technology program at College of the Redwoods. Our College is
nationally recognized for its’ instruction in the use of woodworking hand tools. The
students that leave any Construction Technology degree or certificate program at C.R.
31
have a deep appreciation for the selection, use, sharpening and maintenance of these
tools. It is one of the aspects that is unique to this College.
This assignment has been refined over many years of instruction. A relatively recent
addition to the assignment is the grade sheet. As a result of P.R. and discussions with
students, an improvement to the grade sheet is recommended as follows:
•
Provide students with a Likert-scale rubric that provides additional feedback
on the specific qualities of each skill assessed.
3. Provide a time line for implementing a plan that would systematically assess learning
in other courses in the discipline.
NOTE: Assessing student learning at the course level is a daunting process. It will not
happen overnight, and no one expects it to. PRC believes it has developed guidelines
that are not overly burdensome, while still enabling disciplines to generate the kind of
information that will be of maximum benefit, to your discipline and to the college as a
whole. Please bear in mind that this must be an ongoing process. For that reason, it’s
vital not to conceive of assessment as something we do only when our discipline is up for
program review. PRC is available to help you with all parts of the assessment process.
32
APPENDIX B
Alumni Surveys
CT Survey Executive Summary
The majority of respondents indicated the primary purpose
of the CT program was to get a full time job.
All respondents were employed in a job (equally full time
and part time).
All respondents indicated that the CT program had helped
advance their careers.
All respondents that disclosed their financial
information were in the 20-30 thousand dollar range.
Comparable wages to the median income in Humboldt County
($26,224 in 2004).
Improvements:
• Respondents mentioned more hands on experience
• Closer ties to local employers
• More class offerings (day, evening, and weekend).
• “More commercial & ADA standards and materials”
Instructors:
• Respondents indicated that instructors were satisfactory, however, in the qualitative
section, a respondent indicated that “some instructors were better than others,” and
another respondent mentioned that some instructors “were not into it.”
All CT subject areas were considered satisfactory by
respondents except for “Construction Layout” which was
considered dissatisfactory by one respondent.
Respondents mostly indicated that they had the skills to
succeed in the CT field.
Skills not learned in the CT program:
• More time for hands on experience
• One respondent indicated the CT program did a good job
but that a person has to learn in the field.
• More emphasis outside of residential construction
• Include more finishing skills (i.e. roofing, landscaping
ect…)
Purpose for achieving a CT degree from College of the Redwoods?
Frequency
Valid
Work a full-time job
Percent
3
33
75.0
Valid Percent
75.0
Cumulative
Percent
75.0
Work a part-time job
1
25.0
25.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
100.0
Other purpose for achieving a CT degree from College of the Redwoods.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Get contractors license
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Obtain Contractors license
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Current employment status:
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Full-time employment
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Part-time employment
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Working in a CT related job?
Frequency
Valid
Yes
Percent
4
Valid Percent
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
100.0
Has a CT degree given you satisfactory employment opportunities?
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
No
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Current job title:
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Carpenter/builder
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Carpenter/elecrician
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Field Technician
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Owner
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
34
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Employer:
Frequency
Valid
Self employed
Percent
4
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
Company name:
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
Plumb Construction
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Do you feel that you have been able to advance in your career (more money, higher status) due to
your CT degree from CR?
Frequency
Valid
Yes
Percent
4
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
100.0
100.0
100.0
Annual salary earned:
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
21-$30K
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
31-$40K
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Prefer not to disclose
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: More hands on
experience.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Respondent mentioned this
improvement
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Respondent did not
mention this improvement
3
75.0
75.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: Closer ties to
35
local employers.
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Respondent mentioned this
improvement
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Respondent did not
mention this improvement
3
75.0
75.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: More
Closer ties to industry
Frequency
Valid
Respondent did not
mention this
improvement
Percent
4
Valid Percent
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: Newer/better
technology
Frequency
Valid
Respondent did not
mention this
improvement
Percent
4
Valid Percent
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: More day classes
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Respondent mentioned this
improvement
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Respondent did not
mention this improvement
3
75.0
75.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: More night classes
Frequency
Valid
Respondent mentioned this
category
Percent
1
36
25.0
Valid Percent
25.0
Cumulative
Percent
25.0
Respondent did not
mention this category
3
75.0
75.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: More weekend classes
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Respondent mentioned this
improvement
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Respondent did not
mention this improvement
3
75.0
75.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What types of improvements would you like to see in the CT program at CR: Other
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Its hard to add because a lot
of students also work.
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
More commercial & ADA
standards and materials
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
How would you rate CT instructors?
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Very satisfactory
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Satisfactory
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Comments: How would you rate CT instructors?
Frequency
Valid
Gives a good start but
students need to learn to
teach themselves and
divise a way that works
for them.
37
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Some are better than
others, need to rephrase
question!
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Some were great and
some weren't into it. Plus
to much a job.
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program:
Woodworking/Cabinetmaking
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Very satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Did not take classes in
this area
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Building
codes and standards
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Very satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Neither satisfactory nor
dissatisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Carpentry
theory
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Very satisfactory
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Construction
layout
Frequency
38
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid
Very satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Dissatisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Carpentry
skills and practice
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Very satisfactory
3
75.0
75.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Architectural
Drafting
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Very satisfactory
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Computers
in Industrial Management
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Very satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Neither satisfactory nor
dissatisfactory
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Historic
preservation courses
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Dissatisfactory
1
25.0
33.3
33.3
Did not take classes in
this area
2
50.0
66.7
100.0
39
Missing
Total
3
75.0
99
1
25.0
4
100.0
Total
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: CR general
education course
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Percent
Very satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
Satisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
Neither satisfactory nor
dissatisfactory
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Don't know
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Please share your satisfaction level with the following course areas of the CT program: Overall level
of satisfaction with CT's course areas
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Very satisfactory
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
Don't know
2
50.0
50.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Have there been any job related skills expected of you in a construction job or interview that you did
not learn in the CT program?
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
2
50.0
50.0
50.0
No
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
99
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
What specific skill sets did/do you lack in a construction related job or interview?
Frequency
Valid
Computer skills
40
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
I was given a great
foundation to build a career
out of. With this field of work
is experience, years of
expereience. CR did great.
One teacher in particular is a
great person to learn from.
He has done it. Time just
doesn't allow a lot for enough
hands on. I don't think more
could be added. Just go and
do it. CR was an enourmous
stepping stone for my career.
Thank you.
It was things that can't really
be taught. The people who
succeed are able to see them
and acquire necessary skills
on own.
Total
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
4
100.0
100.0
Your gender:
Frequency
Valid
Male
Percent
4
Valid Percent
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
100.0
Age group:
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
19-25
1
25.0
25.0
25.0
31-35
2
50.0
50.0
75.0
51-60
1
25.0
25.0
100.0
Total
4
100.0
100.0
Would you like to add any additional comments about your experience with the Construction
Technology Program at College of the Redwoods?
Frequency
Valid
Percent
1
41
25.0
Valid Percent
25.0
Cumulative
Percent
25.0
Generally a very good
program. Should include
more finishing skills. Installing
roof materials, landscaping,
ect...
I truly enjoyed my time at CR.
The trade I learned at CR has
helped me succeed so far. I
knew a little bit of carpentry
very basic. Never built a wall
before I took the program.
Now I am building my 1st
house in a few weeks. I
graduated last year so I am
pleased with my progress.
The codes section of the
program is a little dry. Instead
of rereading the book like we
did it would have been nice to
have demo of the application
in the code. But we did learn
how to find codes in the back
which I have used many
times since. The estimating
section is just a taste, I'd like
to take a more advanced
estimating/business. But
overall I loved my experience
and feel that I made a wise
choice to come to CR. Thank
you and would promote the
program to others.
42
1
25.0
25.0
50.0
1
25.0
25.0
75.0
Overall it is a good program.
It was sheltered from the
politics of the rest of the
school during the time in
which I was enrolled. The CT
program is a great stepping
stone for individuals
considering a career or
anyone wanting a fairly in
depth overview of the
industry. It would be nice to
include a small amount of
other than residential
construction eg steel
buildings or touch on the
requirements for other
occupancies other than just in
the building code class.
Total
43
1
25.0
25.0
4
100.0
100.0
100.0
APPENDIX C
Financial Reports 2003-2007
http://www.redwoods.edu/_pagepublisher/uploads/businessoffice/200304_RedwoodsCCD_FinalBudget.pdf
http://www.redwoods.edu/_pagepublisher/uploads/businessoffice/200405_RedwoodsCCD_FinalBudget.pdf
http://www.redwoods.edu/_pagepublisher/uploads/businessoffice/200506_RedwoodsCCD_FinalBudget.pdf
http://www.redwoods.edu/district/accreditation/200607_RedwoodsCCD_FinalBudget.pdf
http://www.redwoods.edu/district/accreditation/2007-08_RedwoodsCCD_FinalBgt.pdf
44
Appendix D:
Advisory Committee Members
C.R. Woodworking and Cabinetmaking Advisory Committee Members SP07
1300 Murry Rd.
McKinleyville, CA 95519
707-839-6400
Don Ehnebuske
Almquist Lumber Company
5301 Boyd Road
Arcata, CA 95521
707 825-8800
Student representatives:
Patrick Silva
2009 Lupine Dr.
Willits, CA 95490
707.456-0840
jsilva3@wm.com
Tom Tellez: Owner
Wallace and Hinz
PO Box 708
Blue Lake, CA 95525
Tel: 707-668-1825
Roger Kelly: General Manager
J.R. Stevens Co.
P.O. Box 2009
McKinleyville, CA 95519
707.825.0100
Sean Herlihy
1315 9th St.
Eureka, CA 95501
707.476.8391
shawn@herlihy.com
David Stevens:
Woodworking Instructor/ Department
Chairman
Eureka High School
1915, J. St.
Eureka, Calif. 95501
707.441.2519
Chris Meyers
Eureka, Ca.
Division Chair:
Helen Edwards x4367
Faculty:
Bill Hole x4353
Ted Stodder x4344
Paul Kinsey x4349
Dave Enos
Construction Dept.
McKinleyville High School
45
Humboldt Regional Occupational Program Construction Advisory Committee
EMPLOYER ADVISORY BOARD
HUMBOLDT REGIONAL OCCUPATIONAL PROGRAM - HROP
TITLE:
Computer Aided Drafting/Building Trades Employer Advisory
Board (EAB)
PURPOSE:
The role of an EAB member includes: Reviewing current ROP
Certificates of Qualification for relevancy and appropriateness;
Assisting our ROP in developing certificates that identify the skills
and knowledge that students are expected to acquire upon
completing the sequence of courses within the industry pathway;
Reviewing the sequences of courses offered by our ROP to train
students for high demand and high wage jobs; and, Assisting us in
developing internships, paid summer employment and post
graduation employment assistance for students participating in
course sequences.
TYPE:
Advisory
DURATION: 2007-2009 School Years
MEMBERSHIP:
Mariann Hassler, Carpenter’s Local #751
442-4286
Michael Regan, College of the Redwoods
Brendan McKenny, McKenny & Sons Const.
443-2244
Craig Berry, Forbusco Lumber
725-5111
Steve Brown, College of the Redwoods
476-4347
Kevin Jenkins, McKinleyville Ace Hardware
839-1587
Paul Kinsey, College of the Redwoods
476-4349
Gene Callahan, Black Oak Construction
Dennis Del Biaggio, DCI Construction
ASSIGNED STAFF MEMBER: Art Cardoza, Principal - HROP
46
47