ACADEMIC AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE OF THE CPC

MINUTES

FOR THE MEETING OF

March 17, 2004

2:30 P.M.

President’s Conference Room

Attending:        

Administration – Nancy Carson, Luis Rosas (co-chair), Ann Tomlinson

Faculty – Nabeel Barakat (co-chair), Craig Sutherland, Joy Fisher, Sally Gogin, Trisha Wickers for Wendy Hollis, Bruce Lemon, Lauren McKenzie, Stanley Sandell, Jim Stanbery, Pamela Watkins, Mark Wood, Laurel Woodley, Bradley Young

Classified – Traci Liley

Students – Livier Jimenez, Arsenio Navarro-Rodriguez, Ana Velasco

Absent: Administration - Charlie Bossler, Faculty – Wendy Hollis, Pamela Watkins, Classified –Hovsep Kotelyan, Classified Manager - Carla Mussa-Muldoon

Nabeel Barakat chaired the meeting.

I.          MINUTES

The Minutes of the February 18, 2003 meeting were accepted as corrected.  Trisha Wickers sat in for Wendy Hollis.  As a follow-up to the minutes of the December 17, 2003 meeting, Traci Lilley recalled that she was in fact not absent from the meeting. (M/S/A, Lemon/Wood/Accepted.)

II.        PROGRAM REVIEW UPDATE

Another Grant Allocation Committee (GAC) status report is coming up along and with accreditation in the future, members must continue to focus on the need for program review.  We need to document all that has been done on program review since the last GAC report.

Minutes from the AASCCPC meetings will need to be pulled together.  A proposed schedule/rotational cycle needs to be established and turned in on the next GAC report.  Program Review committees will need to be formed in each area.  Colleagues from other schools or disciplines may be included to enhance committees where needed.  A realistic timeline should be established and a calendar created for the process.

For the peer review, someone needs to come in and compare notes.  This very well could be someone from another school with the same or similar type program.  Student evaluations will also need to be included.  The survey model created by Laurel Woodley can be adapted, or one of the division’s own choosing.  A handout from Los Rios Community College Office Administration Program was distributed for additional information on the student survey.  The same form could be provided to employers/alumni.

Appointment times need to be set up for chairs to come in and meet with Nancy Carson, Ann Tomlinson and Luis Rosas, to discuss what has been done to make improvements in an area and to document each action taken and the steps to get there.  Every program is required to undergo a review.  Each department needs to design a timeline for every component of the Program Review.  Members agreed to set a calendar by Friday, March 26.  It was unclear as to whether or not the Senate was going to get a Program Review Committee together.  At the time of this meeting it was not known if that had been accomplished. 

Members were reminded that the overall goal is program improvement.  This is not intended as a faculty evaluation exercise.  Every occupational program needs to be reviewed and the results reported to the Board by the end of the year.

Q-Could a common form be used for program evaluation with departments adding several specific questions of their own?

A-Yes, the Environmental Scan is a very generic document.  One could begin with that and add four or five specific program questions.

III.       ITEMS FROM THE FLOOR

No report.

IV.       ADJOURNMENT

The next meeting of the Academic Affairs Standing Committee of the College Planning Committee will take place on May 19, 2004, at 2:30 p.m., in the President’s Conference Room.