INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
FASHION TECHNOLOGY
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%
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%
94.12%
82.35%
88.89%
QUALITY
75%
75%
100%
75%
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 FASHIONTECHNOLOGY
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
15. For
inf. Only,
EPCC
Data: 23
31. For
inf. Only,
EPCC
Data: 36*
36. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 48*
47. For inf.
only, EPCC
Data: 51*
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%
71.4%
76%
100%
100%
Yes, for 30
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for 32
graduates
in last 5
years.
Yes, for 36
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes, for 35
graduates in
last 5 years.
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 85%
Dist. Seat
Count:
91.6%
D: 83%
Dist. Seat
Count:
91.1% **
D: 85.8%
Dist. Seat
Count:
93% **
D: 72.4%
Dist. Seat
Count:
86.5% **
72.4%
D: No,
-20%,
Undupl.
2010: 102,
2012: 55
D: No, 6%,
Undupl.
2011: 79,
2013: 50**
D: Yes,
-1.2%,
Undupl.
2012: 55,
2014: 47**
D: No,
-37.4%,
Undupl.
2013: 50,
2015: 40**
No,
-37.4%
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
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%
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
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.
FASHION TECHNOLOGY 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
D: 82%
D: 86%
D: 85.7%
D: 88.5%
88.5%
D: 97%
D: 95%
D: 94.3%
D: 94.3%
94.3%
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3
yrs of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
94.4%
100%
100%
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
96%
93.5%
93%
94.7%
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
50%
100%
100%
100%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS
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%
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%
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%
FASHION TECHNOLOGY 3
INDICATOR
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%
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%
1213
1314
1415
Rpt
Rpt
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
100%
100%
100%
100%
D: 56%
D: 60%***
D: 63.3%***
D: 57.5%***
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
N/A
N/A
Yes
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Lacks 3 yrs of
data
Lacks 3 yrs
of data
100%
100%
100%
95%
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
NW
RG
TM
VV
57.5%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
FASHION TECHNOLOGY 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
11-1021
11-2021
11-2022
11-3051
27-1012
27-1022
27-1026
27-1027
39-3092
41-2031
41-4012
51-6021
51-6031
51-6051
51-6052
51-6061
51-6062
51-6063
51-6064
Occupation
General and Operations
Managers
Marketing Managers
Sales Managers
Industrial Production
Managers
Craft Artists
Fashion Designers
Merchandise Displayers
and Window Trimmers
Set and Exhibit
Designers
Costume Attendants
Retail Salespersons
Sales Representatives,
Wholesale and
Manufacturing, Except
Technical and Scientific
Products
Pressers, Textile,
Garment, and Related
Materials
Sewing Machine
Operators
Sewers, Hand
Tailors, Dressmakers,
and Custom Sewers
Textile Bleaching and
Dyeing Machine
Operators and Tenders
Textile Cutting Machine
Setters, Operators, and
Tenders
Textile Knitting and
Weaving Machine
Setters, Operators, and
Tenders
Textile Winding,
Twisting, and Drawing
5019
5107
5185
5259
5318
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
690
113
373
291
117
383
291
121
392
291
125
401
292
128
408
294
20
29
128
20
29
131
20
30
134
20
30
137
10
10
10
<10
15009
2620
<10
15329
2634
156
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
$48.48
Bachelor's degree
26
69
26
$55.25
$54.47
$56.80
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
Bachelor's degree
21
31
139
<10
<10
25
$13.53
$28.10
$11.07
High school diploma or equivalent
Bachelor's degree
High school diploma or equivalent
10
10
<10
$17.68
Bachelor's degree
<10
15620
2650
<10
15889
2667
<10
16104
2686
<10
3248
273
No Data
$11.38
$21.52
151
147
145
145
<10
$8.54
Less than high school
659
604
574
560
568
20
$8.89
Less than high school
44
38
43
39
42
39
42
39
43
40
<10
<10
$10.19
$9.32
Less than high school
Less than high school
54
54
54
55
56
<10
$10.96
High school diploma or equivalent
54
51
50
49
49
<10
$10.03
High school diploma or equivalent
267
279
290
300
311
63
$11.57
High school diploma or equivalent
60
62
65
67
70
15
$11.95
High school diploma or equivalent
High school diploma or equivalent
Less than high school
High school diploma or equivalent
FASHION TECHNOLOGY 5
TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR
SOC
Code
51-6092
51-6099
Occupation
Out Machine Setters,
Operators, and Tenders
Fabric and Apparel
Patternmakers
Textile, Apparel, and
Furnishings Workers, All
Other
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Total
New/Replacement
Jobs
Average
Hourly
Wage
(2014)
Education Required
18
16
16
15
16
<10
$16.83
High school diploma or equivalent
45
46
46
47
48
<10
$12.53
High school diploma or equivalent
FASHION TECHNOLOGY 6