2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE HEALTH SERVICES

advertisement
INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
2015-2016 PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT BY DISCIPLINE
The Best Place to Start
HEALTH SERVICES
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
Viability Indicator scores 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompt 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: Health Career Program
Mandatory Accreditation: No
Report’s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review
Fully Accredited? (Y/N): N/A
Program Review Committee Action required this year: Viable Program - Meets or exceeds all
Viability Indicators
Reason Why Not Fully Accredited: N/A
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
60%
77.78%
77.78%
44.44%
QUALITY
100%
100%
100%
100%
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 HEALTHSERVICES
4/15/2016
EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.
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%
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
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 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
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
D: 90%
Dist. Seat
Count:
96.1%
D: 92% Dist.
Seat Count:
96.5%**
D: 90.1%
Dist. Seat
Count:
95.7%**
D: 88.2%
Dist. Seat
Count:
93.4%**
81.3%
87.1%
93.8%
100%
D: Yes,
45%,
Undupl.
2010: 1,338,
2012: 1,848
D: Yes, 20%,
Undupl.
2011: 1,635,
2013: 2,038**
D: Yes,
4.9%,
Undupl.
2012: 1,849,
2014: 1,986**
D: Yes,
-2.7%,
Undupl.
2013: 2,038,
2015: 2,027**
No,
-25.7%
Yes,
-.1%
No,
-24.8%
Yes,
9.1%
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
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT
**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.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of data” if the campus has hosted the
program fewer than three years.
HEALTH SERVICES 2
QUALITY
INDICATOR
1213
Rpt
1314 Rpt
1415
Rpt
1516 Rpt
(District Data
as of Aug. 31,
2015)
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%
D: 93%
D: 93%
D: 94.2%
D: 93.8%
97.7%
93.7%
87.5%
95%
D: 95%
D: 94%
D: 96.3%
D: 96.7%
96%
97.3%
96%
93%
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
Program
produces no
graduates
73%
80%
67%
81.8%
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%
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
HEALTH SERVICES 3
1213
INDICATOR
Rpt
1415
1314 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%
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
65%
78%
79%
65%
D: 44%
D: 36%***
D: 42.2%***
D: 45.6%***
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
N/A
N/A
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%
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
100%
100%
100%
100%
No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program
produces no
graduates
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%
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program
produces no
graduates
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program has
no advisory
committee
Program
produces no
graduates
ASC
FT.
BLISS
MdP
56.3%
NW
RG
40.8%
TM
50%
VV
41%
***2013-2014 revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%.
†If a program has moved, or expanded, to another campus, during the three-year period specified by the indicator, the District score is calculated, but the finding for an individual campus offering the program is “Lacks 3 years of
data” if the campus has hosted the program fewer than three years.
HEALTH SERVICES 4
Download
Related flashcards

Management

42 cards

Management

61 cards

Corporate governance

32 cards

Canadian Hockey League

15 cards

Civil defense

33 cards

Create Flashcards