Program Review – New “Ratings” System

The new “ratings” system for HCC program reviews will start with the Fall 2009 Program Reviews. The appropriate Deans Council (Academic or Career and Technology) will agree upon one of the following ratings with results reported to the Chancellor’s Strategic Team. If the “rating” is “needs improvement/ administrative action,” the resultant action will be discussed and agreed upon at the Chancellor’s Strategic Team.

If the program does not like or agree with the rating, it may additional information in the subsequent semester to appeal/upgrade its rating. Programs that receive a “needs improvement/administrative action” rating MUST respond in the subsequent semester on improvements/actions recommended.

The following definitions of program ratings apply:

EXEMPLARY: To obtain an “exemplary” rating, the program review will present and analyze data clearly, concisely, and accurately to demonstrate that the program is performing in an “exemplary manner.” Student learning outcomes (SLO) at the program level (for CTE) and for the course level (for academic) are clearly written, assessed, and results of assessment used for improvement plans. The program documents how it is seeking and using student feedback (CCSSE, other surveys, focus groups, SEOI, etc.)

High expectations will be communicated and achieved across the district: growing enrollment; strong class sizes/make rates; strong completion rates by students (courses, core curriculum, certificates, degrees); current and effective articulation agreements; state of the art equipment/labs as appropriate; effective advisory committees; opportunities for students’ academic and social engagement; up to date learning materials; evidence of effective professional development for faculty; specific examples of student success documented (e.g., student awards, scholarships, transfers to universities, etc.); job placement and licensure pass rates over 90 percent (for CTE programs).

An “exemplary” program must demonstrate that it is performing at high levels in every category. The definition of “high level” should be offered and defended by the program. Programs should seek and use benchmark data (e.g., other programs, other colleges, professional organizations, etc.) and external recognitions (awards, accreditations, etc.) to validate claims for exemplary status.

If a national accreditation exists, the program must obtain such accreditation to receive exemplary status. If there are relevant workplace certifications that might be included, these must be included to obtain exemplary status.

RECOGNIZED: To obtain a “recognized” rating, the program will also present and analyze data in a clear, concise and accurate manner. Student learning outcomes (SLO) at the program level (for CTE) and for the course level (for academic) will be included, assessed, and results of assessment used for improvement plans. The program documents how it is seeking and using student feedback (CCSSE, other surveys, focus groups, SEOI, etc.)

The results are “good” overall in the categories noted above, but there may be a few areas of weakness that require attention and are provided for in the improvement plan. The benchmark data and/or external recognitions may not be fully supportive of an “exemplary” rating.

SATISFACTORY: To obtain a “satisfactory” rating, the program will also present and analyze data in a clear, concise, and accurate manner. Student learning outcomes (SLO) at the program level (for CTE) and for the course level (for academic) will be included, assessed, and results of assessment used for improvement plans. The program documents how it is seeking and using student feedback (CCSSE, other surveys, focus groups, SEOI, etc.)

The results, however, are only “average” in terms of performance in most categories noted above. To get a “satisfactory” as opposed to a “needs improvement” rating, the program must have a convincing improvement plan that addresses weaknesses in a realistic and pro-active manner.

NEEDS IMPROVEMENT/ADMINSTRATIVE ACTION: If a program receives a “needs improvement” rating, then the program has failed in one or more ways: lack of performance in categories noted above, lack of appropriate use of data, lack of significant improvements since the last program review, lack of an improvement plan moving forward, etc. The program has might avoid a recommendation for deactivation/closure by demonstrating that there is need for the program, but it is clear that some administrative action is needed to improve the program (infusion of resources, change of leadership, etc.).

Note: It will be important to remember that the program rating is not necessarily a reflection on the program Chair. In many cases, the Chair may have faced problems with uncooperative colleagues, budget deficits, facility limitations, administrative obstacles, or other factors beyond his/her control. The program rating is a reflection on the total program/discipline across the district. For example, we had a program review presented to the Academic Deans’ Council in which the Chair did an “outstanding” job in the review in terms of its candor and clarity in presenting program weaknesses. As a result, however, the program would have probably been labeled “needs improvement.”