College of the Redwoods Instructional Council Boardroom

College of the Redwoods
Instructional Council
3/8/2011 3:30p – 5p
Rachel Anderson, Anita Janis, Cindy Hooper, Shannon Sullivan, Judy Hinman, Geoff Cain,
Justine Shaw, Pat Girczyc, Joe Hash, Mike Peterson, Tami Matsumoto, Utpal Goswami, Maggie
Lynch, Barbara Jaffari, Roxanne Metz, Ron Waters, Ahn fielding, Bruce Wagner
1. Program Review Debrief: Utpal estimates there are 40 or more collective hours spent weekly
(between program review authors and the program review committee) for a period of about four
months. With this in mind, he asked for feedback on the following:
What is program review doing for faculty and is the process working?
• Responses regarding process included that the forms were not felt to be user friendly and
within the template, there is confusion on exactly what is being asked. It was suggested
fewer, more directed questions and attaching forms rather than cutting and pasting would
simplify the process.
• Concern was expressed that there was inaccurate data which made accurate analysis difficult
and that some of the data errors are not obvious or caught. There seemed to be more
busywork this y ear.
Why do program review?
• Motivation to get resources and district needs. To show off fill rates. What we want
program review to be and what it is, should tell us something valuable about the health of our
programs and students success
• Utpal summarized we are in agreement that program review should: 1) be an early warning
for programs/areas heading for trouble; and, 2) assess the health of programs for students.
The by-product is we get resources
• ACCJC considers program review a tool to make improvements for students and programs.
So far this year we have learned there is an issue with student loan default rates in financial
aide; issues with student success if placed in the lowest English or math; and issues with
what happens to grant funded positions when the grant ends. This is a lot of time spent
learning about issues that need to be addressed on an institutional level. If a program is
doing well, why spend valuable faculty time going through this process.
• It is agreed that because we are doing something well doesn’t mean we can’t improve it, and
because everything is interrelated, they should be brought together and connections made
• As VP, Utpal would like to create an ad hoc group to look at streamlining program review for
next year. For example, by agreeing upon a group of indicators, and providing authors a
report showing where their program falls within a benchmark, can allow an author to move
quickly through the program review process. If the program is meeting the benchmark, they
are done, if not, next steps will be needed. Improvement can still be achieved within each
Plan for IR:
• The director position is closed and the screening committee is meeting this week; the college
is committed to filling this position. Responsibility will shift to IR to provide some analytics,
such as accuracy and clarification as to normal variations and clarifying data parameters
The other part of program review is assessment and Justine Shaw is working with faculty to
revise program outcomes and establishing 5 year plans. Programs will now be defined as
degrees or certificates (including required skill sets). As such, faculty will establish
certificate and degree outcomes vs. “program” outcomes. This makes more sense in regards
to students
Similarly, service area assessments should be along the lines of benchmarks; services provide
benchmarks to faculty to provide services to students, allowing service areas to establish
better goals
Institutional goals/outcomes are 1) communications 2) critical thinking and 3) global
This conversation will continue
2. Other/Discussion
• Integrated planning: BPC is ranking budget requests and Utpal will report back to all
what happened. He feels we will complete the loop by April
• Bruce Wagner, EMC co-chair, feels the planning process and committees in general are
functioning better. There are tighter processes in terms of agendas, detailed minutes, and
a matrix of actions and results. We are still on a learning curve, and making incremental
learning improvements
• It was asked if College Hour might be on the table to be reinstated, but the EMC has not
discussed and no proposal to do so has been put forth at this time
• The governance document currently in college council describes processes very well, but
Utpal believes CR needs an overarching document that describes what governance is, and
then describes the process of how we do it. Processes are subject to change by any
president. Governance needs to be a set of principals and/or values. Utpal submitted a
draft for reaction and discussion, which will be attached as part of the minutes. Utpal
would like all major groups to come together and input their thoughts (CRFO, CSEA,
etc.), at the IEC summit on April 8
• He clarified that how we govern ourselves as a college, as a whole, won’t be board policy
because board doesn’t tell the president how to govern. Utpal would like to ultimately
clarify the limits of authority of who can do what
• It is critical to get all groups to sign-off on the concept of governance. It then makes it
difficult for any president to fundamentally change it
3. Due to a scheduling conflict, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30pm. No date has yet been set
for the next meeting