April 27, 2010 Meeting Notes

Christina Espinosa-Pieb/Cynthia Lee-Klawender—Co-Chairs

Present: Anderson, Bradshaw, Bryant, Cadge-Moore, Cook, Espinosa-Pieb, Hearn, Irvin, Knittel, Kubo, Lee-Klawender, Mowrey, Schroeder, Singh, Tomaneng, Ghamrawi

Visitors: Bradley Creamer, Mary Kay Englen, Fran Frazer, Rich Hansen, Colleen Lee-Wheat, Cheryl Woodward, Ze Li

I. Approval of Agenda Notes: Notes of April 20, 2010 were approved as written, and the agenda for April 27, 2010 was approved.

II. Program Review Update Form: C. Espinosa-Pieb described the changes to this form, and stated that the Academic Senate approved the Section III- SLO Information portion. The phrase, Total courses offered 2010 to Spring 2011, was an addition to the draft form that was previously sent to the IPBT committee. On page two under Section IV- Resource Requests, all the budget sources identifiers were removed.

There were questions asked pertaining to, “Who will be filling in the numbers, and how meaningful and how clearly will the faculty participation percentage be noted”—being concerned about possible repercussions to faculty that could occur as a result of these determinations. There was a lengthy discussion on this question raised and most felt that percentage participation notations should cause no harm—but is needed to show the level of participation for accreditation purposes.

R. Schroeder described how the Physical Education/Athletics Division participated in the process of filling out this form and the ease in completing the task.

On the Department form, it was explained that the faculty will fill in the information and the division dean will do the summary—which would include prioritizing the top three for resource allocation. There was a discussion on this topic.

Members of the team asked as to how they would be able to use the provided information in a meaningful way. It was stated that the program/department requests for resources will be tied in with the SLO’s reports along with the program reviews, and the team members will assist in making those resource allocation decisions. In addition, being able to show evidence for these resource allocations will be an important piece for accreditation purposes.

III. Program Review Process: C. Lee-Klawender presented a draft document titled, DAC Program Review Process—2010. She stated that the purpose of the program review process is to provide a means to continuously improve each program and to help each program achieve its goals and the goals of the college mission and strategic initiatives.

The process and timeline of this activity was described—refer to document. Criteria for the comprehensive program reviews and the annual program review updates were defined. The Program Review Process DRAFT A, and criteria from previous years will be sent electronically to members of the IPBT Team, and will be placed on the agenda for 5/4/10.

IV. Tasks for IPBT for Spring Quarter, 2010:

 • Program Review Process

 • Program Review (conduct, read, review)

 • Released Time (bring back next week)

 • Planning & Budget Process (for increase and decrease in budget separately)

V. Good of the Order: none

Back to Top