Minutes – PRC
19 October * 3:30 p.m.
Room 822
Members:
x / Craig Carmena / x / Susan Meachamx / Lenore Frigo / x / Frank Nigro
x / Rob McCandless / x / Michael Sloan
Guests:
x / Peggy Moore / x / Iva Weidenkellerx / Toni Duquette
1. Call to order: 3:33.
2. Review of Sept. 14, 2016 minutes (1attachment) : The PRC reviewed these and found them to be accurate.
3. News/reports (all):
A. Board reading of AP 4020: The Board approved AP 4020, so we are now officially the PRC! The revised AP is posted online at the Board of Trustees site.
B. PRC bylaws: Senate has reviewed these and College Council reviewed them as well. However, CC did not approve these yet. There was a question about whether CC should “approve” the PRC’s minutes. Another concern was this line from the bylaws, which appears to be out of date: “A pathway within a program is not within the PRC’s purview, nor are new or modified programs.” The part about new or modified programs no longer applies, and with our new process, pathways would be considered part of the entire program review. It was decided to re-submit the bylaws to CC with this sentence stricken out.
C. PRC website: Frank has made an appointment with Paul Burwick to finish up the website. It will link to the PRC chart, Toni’s TracDat resource page, AP 4020, and other important items needed to clarify our new process.
D. Other
4. Discussion/action items
A. US/GS degree program reviews: Toni Duquette will visit and the PRC will discuss what these special PRs will look like.
The PRC will have to review US/GS degrees given that they are difficult to do for faculty for a variety of reasons. We have 4 to do this year, and we’ll treat the year like a pilot. The question is, “What data/information would the PRC need to make one of the three recommendations it’s allowed to reach (continue, continue but improve, or discontinue)?” The committee reviewed what’s now up for regular program reviews. Much of what is before the double asterisks (**), where the PRC gives its review, will have to change.
There was some discussion of the value of these degrees. Our Student Services rep noted that they are valuable in giving students a sense of accomplishment when they graduate, and they also provide valuable guidance where AD-Ts lack. It was also pointed out that they can potentially help our overall number of completers. A few do have PLOs, but most do not.
After much discussion, the PRC felt it might be best to have a dataset with some agreed upon data points, and a way for counselors/program faculty to add additional commentary before the PRC makes its decision. The process might work something like this:
1. Research would prepare a dataset and post it in TracDat.
2. Counselors and program faculty would have a chance to make any comments on this; this would go in a repository.
3. The PRC would review the dataset and any commentary, make one of the three permitted decisions, and would do a short paragraph on the program.
4. The normal process (faculty response, College Council review, etc.) would then take place.
As far as the dataset, these items were felt to be important:
1. Number of completers by year.
2. Number of students with a declared major in the program
3. Information about any related degrees, or degrees that are similar, at Shasta College.
4. Course impact report
5. Consistency of offerings; how often courses are taught.
6. Time to completion for enrollees over 6 years.
Frank and Toni will do a mock-up of what the TracDat page will look like, and the PRC will consider this process at our next meeting.
B. Other.
5. Future meetings:
· 11/9 @ 3:30
· 11/30 @ 3:30
6. Parking lot:
· Possible style sheet for writers of program reviews.