InstitutionalProgram Review Committee

Cindy DeLain & Thea Trimble, Co-Chairs

Approved Meeting Summary

Tuesday, February 26, 2013

LRC 210

4 – 5:15 p.m.

Attendance

Members present: Cindy DeLain, Thea Trimble,Nancy Morgan,Ryan Barry-Souza, Joni Jordon,John Boragno, Christian Anderson,James McDonnell, and David Robinson

Members absent: Pamela Flores

  1. Call to Order

Cindy DeLain called the meeting to order.

  1. Approval of the February 12, 2013 draft meeting summary

Ryan Barry-Souza motioned to approve the meeting summary as submitted. Joni Jordan seconded the motion. No discussion. Motion carried.

  1. Fire Technology 2nd Level Review Team

Thea Trimble brought up and issue with the Fire Technology’s 2nd level review team. Currently the team is composed of Kristin Hollabaugh, Kevin Mizner, Sean Doyle, and Larry Dutto. The team should be composed as follows:

  • Faculty member from outside the Division

–preferably from a program related to or supported by the Program undergoing review

  • Representative from a “Student Services” area

–preferably from an area that has a relationship to/with the program undergoing review

  • Two members representing any of the following:

–Instructors at a four-year institution (from the same or a related field)

–Instructors at another community college (from the same or a related field)

–High school instructors or counselors (from the same or a related field)

–Community or advisory committee members

–Students

Thea will draft a letter to the team and attach a copy of the 2nd Level Review Team Duties & Responsibilities.

  1. Progress on 2012 follow up survey

Ryan advised that a formal request would need to be submitted prior to beginning any work on the follow up survey. Cindy will send the request.

  1. Review and finalize IPRC purpose, membership, and responsibilities

Cindy added the membership component to the previously submitted IPRC purpose and responsibilities for the members to review. The committee modified “classified council” to state, “solicited from administrator’s under classified.”

The statement, “The program review process and documents inform follow up planning and budgeting processes” will be added to the purpose and deleted from the responsibilities.

The final draft will be sent out to the committee members via email for approval.

  1. Progress on definition of a Program

Discussion ensued regarding defining a program. The committee examined other institutions’ definitions of a program; however, the committee found that the definitions were too specific. Christian advised to keep the definition general or create a process to determine what a program is. Consequently, that committee agreed that for the purpose of program review, the following would be considered to identify or define programs:

  • Title 5 defines educational program as “an organized sequence of courses leading to a defined objective, a degree, a certificate, a diploma, a license, or transfer to another institution of higher education;
  • Disciplines – natural sciences, or more broadly, science;
  • Departments – Counseling, early childhood education, etc.;
  • Planning and goal setting process (planning units) possibly relating to divisions such as CTE;
  • Academic majors;
  • Student pathways – CTE, EOPS, DRC;
  • College budget process (cost centers);
  • Student service pathways that end in a specific outcome;
  • Administrative services defined by administrative reporting structures; and/or
  • Governance structures, such as board of trustee processes or divisions underneath a particular dean or administrator.

If any disagreements arise, the program will be able to discuss the issues with the committee or appeal to the President.

The committee reviewed the issue of Academic Senate completing a Program Review. Christian Anderson motioned to suspend the Academic Senate’s requirement to perform a program review for a period of one year pending their development of an evaluation process. David Robinson seconded the motion. Motion carried.

  1. Comprehensive Outlines

This item will be discussed at the next meeting.

  1. Revision on Administrative/Interdisciplinary formats

The next meeting will be dedicated to revising these formats.

  1. Integrated Planning Summits

Everyone on the committee attended the integrated planning summit; therefore, there were no updates.

The meeting wasadjourned at 5:17 p.m.

Meeting summary submitted by Bridgette Hernandez

Approved Meeting Summary – February 26, 20131