INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN
The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans,
as established by College Procedure 2.03.01.18: Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2015; the Office of
Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as “Met” or “Not Met” based on DISTRICT (“D”), not site, performance. Data
by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met,
are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows:
STANDARD MET
STANDARD NOT MET
STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL
Overall Viability Indicator score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority
concerning program continuation is limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the
community. The final decision on program continuation rests with the President.
Program Type: Career & Technical Program
Mandatory Accreditation: Yes
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Yes
Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above
50%, Chair informs VP of Unmet Student Success
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited:
THE PROGRAM’S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the 2014-2015 academic year.)
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
VIABILITY
12-13
13-14
14-15
2015-2016
81.25%
88.89%
83.33%
83.33%
QUALITY
87.50%
75%
75%
62.50%
RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE
2012-2013
None
2013-2014
None
2014-2015
None
SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District
Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable
cycle—no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty
Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum
Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History.
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Z:RS/2015-2016 RPT/PROGREVRPT 1516-YR ELECTRICAL
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
4/15/2016
1
VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee)
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data as
of Aug. 31, 2015)
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STATE-MANDATED
1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer)
provided by the State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than
once) (For info. only, after the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC,
if not the State) Source: 1 Standard: 25/<15
2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military
w/in 1 yr of grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2
Standard: 90%/<50%
100. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 127
186. For inf.
Only, EPCC
Data: 202*
202. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 389*
207. For inf. only,
EPCC Data: 348*
83%
78%
79.7%
79.8%
1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in
the field forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero
counties during the 5 years following this report’s publication
meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during the 5 years preceding this
report’s publication. (See end of report for data) Source: 3 Standard: Yes
2. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours
for all discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT
faculty workload for last 3 years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses)
(Unduplicated) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the
same results) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No
3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (Including C.E. students),
based on optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years on
census date, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent Music
study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas,
NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC; if room capacity
is below optimum, score reflects room capacity. (For info. only, after score
the measure is also calculated w/o concurrent students.) (For info. only,
District average fill rate appears after foregoing data (No. of seats filled
divided by no. of seats available)) Source: 5 Standard: 80%/<50%
Yes, for 193
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 202
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 207
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 203
graduates in last
5 years.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
D: 92%
Dist. Seat
Count:
113.7%
D: 94% Dist.
Seat Count:
114.4% Class
Fill without
concurrent,
D: 93%,
VV:93% **
D: 80.6%
Dist. Seat
Count:
95.2% Class
Fill without
concurrent,
D: 77.7%,
VV: 77.7%
**
D: 72.9% Dist.
Seat Count:
89.3% Class Fill
without
concurrent, D:
68.%, VV: 68.8%
**
72.9%
4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (including C.E. students) is increasing,
level or decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr. of
last 3 yrs.), based on program-specific courses. (For info. only, after the
score measure calculated w/o C.E. students.) (For info. only, appears the
unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6 Standard: Yes/>10%
decrease
D: Yes, -3%,
Undupl. 2010:
176, 2012: 184
D: Yes, -4%,
Undupl. 2011:
185,
2013:188
Enrollment
without
concurrent, D:
No, -7%, VV:
No,
D: No, -20.9%,
Undupl.
2013: 190,
2015: 150
Enrollment without
concurrent,
D: No, -16.5%,
VV: No, -16.5%**
No,
-20.9%
-7%**
D: No, -12.3%,
Undupl.
2012: 184,
2014:152
Enrollment
without
concurrent,
D: No, -16.6%,
VV: No,
16.6%**
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with
primary teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year)
(Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results)
Source: 7 Standard: Yes/No
6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the
program documented & implemented the recommendations for its active
SLOs and completed its assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8
Standard: Yes
*2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15.
**2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; the
change may affect Advanced Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology.
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN 2
QUALITY
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of students
satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0
based on combined on averaged of responses: “Excellent”: 1, “Good”: 1,
“Acceptable”: 1, “Weak”: 0, “Unacceptable” = 0. Average of 1=Satisfaction)
Source: 9 Standard: 80%
2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring averaged
for last 3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend instructor?" Source: 9
Standard 80%
3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative graduates
satisfied with “usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my job,” “availability
of courses in my major,” & “level of technology in my major.” (Combined average
of all 3 responses) for previous 3 years. Source: 10 Standard: 80%
4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with graduates
for last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the Dean/District-wide
Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the 8
responses: “Excellent” = 1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0,
“Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard:
80%
5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed members
satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3 years. (Surveys
scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven responses: “Excellent” =
1, “Good” = 1, “Acceptable” = 1, “Weak” = 0, “Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1
indicates satisfaction.) Source: 12 Standard: 80%
D: 89%
D: 87%
D: 90.5%
D: 92.2%
92.2%
D: 96%
D: 96%
D: 97.7%
D: 97.3%
97.3%
92%
91%
90.6%
100%
99%
100%
100%
100%
98%
98.3%
99.5%
100%
6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of
graduates/completers receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass rate for
the most recent year. Source: 13 Standard: 90%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
100%
71%
83.3%
INDICATOR
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT teaching
Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester (1st day of fall
Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of
FT teaching Faculty at 2 such activities during spring semester (1st day of spring
FDW through last day of final exams). If FT faculty teach in 2 or more programs,
their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100%
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN 3
INDICATOR
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT
teaching Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st day of
fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and
percent of PT teaching Faculty at 1 such activity during spring semester (1st day
of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If PT faculty teach in 2 or more
programs, their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard:
75%
6%
8%
44%
10%
3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty Percent of sections taught by FT
Faculty for last 3 years, excluding MILS (UTEP ROTC), MUAP (independent
Music study), MUSR (recitals), Independent Study, Virtual College of Texas,
NCBO, classes whose instructors are not paid by EPCC. Source: 7 Standard:
50%
4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no. of
course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus. Source: 16
Standard: Yes
5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on the
meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years. Source:
17 Standard: Yes
6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of each
program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based on
most recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard: Yes
8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD
requests for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course objectives for
last 3 years. Source: 19 Standard: 100%
9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written evidence
of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard:
Yes
10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking
voluntary accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or application
for accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes
11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee
members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the last 3
years. Source: 12 Standard: 85%
12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging program is
needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed employers identical to
those used by Employer Satisfaction indicator. Source: 11 Standard: 85%
13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents
acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each of
the last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory Committee
Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85%
D: 5%
D: 9%***
D: 30.4%***
D: 46.7%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
N/A
Yes
Yes
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
97%
100%
100%
100%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
46.7%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN 4
VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND
Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero
during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure
that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates.
The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand and
wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is the
unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies may be
due to rounding.
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC
Code
11-3131
11-9021
13-1041
13-1051
15-1131
17-2071
17-3012
17-3023
25-2023
25-2032
25-3021
25-3099
25-9041
43-5041
47-2061
47-2111
47-2231
47-3013
47-3019
47-4021
47-4051
47-4099
49-2092
Occupation
Training and
Development Managers
Construction Managers
Compliance Officers
Cost Estimators
Computer Programmers
Electrical Engineers
Electrical and Electronics
Drafters
Electrical and Electronics
Engineering Technicians
Career/Technical
Education Teachers,
Middle School
Career/Technical
Education Teachers,
Secondary School
Self-Enrichment
Education Teachers
Teachers and Instructors,
All Other
Teacher Assistants
Meter Readers, Utilities
Construction Laborers
Electricians
Solar Photovoltaic
Installers
Helpers--Electricians
Helpers, Construction
Trades, All Other
Elevator Installers and
Repairers
Highway Maintenance
Workers
Construction and Related
Workers, All Other
Electric Motor, Power
Tool, and Related
Repairers
27
28
29
30
31
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
<10
686
2036
464
334
296
64
698
2061
474
342
303
65
710
2083
483
351
309
67
723
2103
492
357
314
68
736
2119
501
361
318
69
392
396
400
403
60
61
62
417
426
246
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
$46.16
Bachelor's degree
95
238
100
64
49
<10
$49.40
$31.33
$21.35
$36.96
$43.13
$33.43
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Associate's degree
405
48
$27.37
Associate's degree
64
65
11
$23.83
Bachelor's degree
434
442
449
80
$25.55
Bachelor's degree
262
276
288
296
69
$16.56
High school diploma or equivalent
920
945
967
987
1002
149
$20.45
Bachelor's degree
2865
131
2960
1311
26
2963
130
3013
1339
27
3054
129
3065
1366
27
3141
128
3117
1393
27
3214
126
3171
1420
27
630
13
475
215
<10
$11.23
$13.86
$12.45
$20.50
$16.62
Some college, no degree
High school diploma or equivalent
Less than high school
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
294
58
304
59
313
59
321
60
328
61
56
<10
$12.82
$11.74
High school diploma or equivalent
Less than high school
16
16
16
16
16
<10
$27.35
High school diploma or equivalent
292
297
302
307
311
37
$14.16
High school diploma or equivalent
61
63
64
65
65
<10
$14.24
High school diploma or equivalent
43
43
43
43
43
<10
$14.93
Postsecondary non-degree award
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN 5
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC
Code
49-2093
49-2094
49-2095
49-9051
49-9097
49-9098
Occupation
Electrical and Electronics
Installers and Repairers,
Transportation
Equipment
Electrical and Electronics
Repairers, Commercial
and Industrial Equipment
Electrical and Electronics
Repairers, Powerhouse,
Substation, and Relay
Electrical Power-Line
Installers and Repairers
Signal and Track Switch
Repairers
Helpers--Installation,
Maintenance, and Repair
Workers
13
14
14
14
14
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
<10
132
136
138
141
143
50
52
54
55
227
235
243
<10
<10
664
671
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
$23.61
Postsecondary non-degree award
22
$21.68
Postsecondary non-degree award
56
11
$29.64
Postsecondary non-degree award
249
254
61
$26.29
High school diploma or equivalent
<10
<10
<10
<10
No Data
High school diploma or equivalent
677
684
689
107
$11.33
High school diploma or equivalent
ELECTRICAL JOURNEYMAN 6