Committee April 19 Web site: 2:30 p.m. ACA 2506 (usually
22
Program Effectiveness and Planning Committee Web site: http://www.lavc.edu/pepc Committee Members Administration Violet Amrikhas, Admin Services Michelle Fowles, Research & Planning (by position) Matthew Jordan, Academic Affairs Annie Goldman, Student Services Faculty Members Christina Peter*, General Reginald Hubbard, OAC representative Alison Jeffries, VCCC representative Eugenia Sumnik-Levins, Chairs & Directors (2016- 2018) Kevin Sanford, General (2015-2017) Mike Fitzgerald, General (2015-2017) Staff Members Carlos Flores, General (2012-2014) Duane Martin, General (2011-2013) Student Member Alexandria Smith, ASU Rep (2016-2017) Resource Members Sally Raskoff Rebecca Stein *Chair LAVC Mission Statement: Los Angeles Valley College serves as a leader in student success, with pathways for certificates, degrees, transfer, and continuing education. We enable students to advance their education, personal development, and quality of life, empowering them to be productive and engaged members of the global community. PEPC Mission Statement: The mission of the PEPC is to aid and support the individual and collective activities undertaken for the improvement of all college programs through the processes of program review and viability assessment in accordance with the Educational Master Plan and college mission. PEPC Goals 2016-2017 1. Increase ISS to meet ACCJC concern 2. Revise the program review handbook by Spring 3. Update the viability process and initiate a viability cycle April 19, 2017 2:30 p.m. ACA 2506 (usually ACA 2507) Agenda 1. Items on which PEPC will vote: a. Approve agenda b. Approve previous meeting minutes c. OAC motion d. Petition to merge CAOT and CSIT e. Program initiated Program/Major Discontinuance for Solar Energy Design & Management f. Hiring prioritization process updates g. Viability triggers and handbook updates 2. Discussion/informational items: a. Program Review process b. PR handbook update c. Module review feedback from committees d. Updates to viability handbook from previous and current motions Future Meeting Dates 5-4-17
Committee April 19 Web site: 2:30 p.m. ACA 2506 (usually
Matthew Jordan, Academic Affairs
Annie Goldman, Student Services
2018)
Resource Members
Sally Raskoff
Rebecca Stein
LAVC Mission Statement: Los Angeles Valley College
serves as a leader in student success, with pathways for
certificates, degrees, transfer, and continuing education. We
enable students to
advance their education, personal development, and quality of
life,
empowering them to be productive and engaged members of the global
community.
PEPC Mission Statement: The mission of the PEPC is to aid and
support the individual and collective activities undertaken for the
improvement of all college programs through the processes of
program review and viability assessment in accordance with
the
Educational Master Plan and college mission.
PEPC Goals 2016-2017 1. Increase ISS to meet ACCJC concern
2. Revise the program review handbook by Spring
3. Update the viability process and initiate a viability
cycle
April 19, 2017
Agenda
a. Approve agenda
c. OAC motion
e. Program initiated Program/Major
Management
g. Viability triggers and handbook updates
2. Discussion/informational items:
previous and current motions
Updated 11/12/14
Motion # : Val l Date Presented to IEC: (assigned by Council)Los
Angele Revision of a previous motion? I. Motion Date of Initiating
Committee
Action: Recommendation
Initiator: Budget EPC HPC PEPC SSC TC WEC IEC Other
(specify):
Statement of Motion: (Use separate form for each issue.)
Rationale for Motion: (Specify how the motion supports the
Educational Master Plan goals and objectives and other
institutional plans.) Attach documentation if necessary.
Goal 1: Foster student completion by supporting a learner-centered
environment Goal 2: Increase equity by identifying gaps in
achieving outcomes (transfer, associate degree, certificate, etc.)
and implement effective models
and programming to minimize gaps. Goal 3: Through the College’s
shared governance structures, maximize institutional effectiveness
through evaluation of environmental, human,
physical, technological and financial resources.
Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered
(e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary
report where applicable.]
II. IEC Action
Accepted by IEC Rejected by IEC Modified by IEC (Specify):
Returned to Committee/Workgroup for Revisions (Specify):
Reason/Rationale for Action: Accept presented rationale
Other:
Date of Action: ________ IEC Chair
Signature:____________________________________________
III. President’s response to IEC:
Accepted Rejected Modified (Specify):
Implementation Date (if applicable):
Date of Action:_______________________ President’s Signature:
__________________________________________
Distribution: Original to Official File Copy to President Posted to
Web Notifications to IEC Chair & Originator
Updated 11/12/14
COST ANALYSIS REQUEST Submit to Budget Office and IEC Chair
REQUESTING COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL: DATE:
Budget EPC HPC PEPC SSC TC WEC IEC Other (specify): MOTION UNDER
CONSIDERATION: REQUESTED ANALYSIS: DATE NEEDED:
NEW REQUEST ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR PREVIOUS REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL
DATA OR INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION: COUNCIL CHAIR COMMENTS/
ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR BUDGET OFFICE: COUNCIL CHAIR SIGN-OFF:
DATE:
Updated 11/12/14
Date:
Purpose of Analysis The intent of this financial examination is
to:
• Provide realistic financial projections before a decision is
made. • Show the potential impact of proposal.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL DATA: Costs (-) Benefits (+) Budget/Expense
Impact Proposal Number
ADDITIONAL AREAS OF IMPACT: BUDGET OFFICE SIGN-OFF: DATE:
Updated 11/12/14
Development Costs: Any costs associated with proposal prior to
implementation. Operational Costs: Direct costs if proposal
adopted, i.e. Salary. Other Costs: Other than direct or
developmental, i.e. Benefits associated with salary expense.
Recurring Costs: Yes or No. Y if costs will continue into
subsequent fiscal years. N if not recurring. Cost Reduction: Any
cost savings projected if proposal adopted. Other (Specify Below):
Any other anticipated savings. Budget/Expense Impact: How much, in
dollars will the budget or projected expenses be impacted?
LOS ANGELES VALLEY COLLEGE
Introduction:
It is a rare circumstance when a college seeks to discontinue one
of its programs or
majors. Each program/major represents a structured array of courses
designed to prepare
the student to attain a body of knowledge that leads to attainment
of a job, paves the way
for career advancement, or prepares him or her for further study at
the baccalaureate
level. Since the program/major’s existence is of primary importance
to the students who
are seeking to complete the course of study, careful consideration
needs to be given to
every aspect of the impact on these students should the
program/major be discontinued.
A program/major’s discontinuance may impact faculty, staff,
facilities, equipment, the
college’s ability to meet local job market demand, and the
community at large. Every
dimension of the decision to discontinue a program or major needs
to be addressed so the
college is fully informed about the significance of such a
decision.
The Program/Major Discontinuance Process is in keeping with Title
5, CCR, 51022(a)
and LACCD Board Rules Chapter 6, Article VIII, section 6803
Viability Review, which
states: “…each college shall, in consultation with the Academic
Senate, develop
procedures for initiating and conducting a viability review of
‘educational programs’…”
Use of this process is only for requests originating from the
discipline where the program
in question resides. For all other requests, see the Program
Viability process.
Before a request to discontinue a program can be considered, a
response to each of the
following questions must be forwarded to the chair of the Program
Effectiveness and
Planning Committee and the chair of the Valley College Curriculum
Committee.
Adopted: January, 2003
Modified: November, 2012
Department: Technology Chair: Ron Reis; Laurie Nalepa
Date: 03/16/2017
Justification:
1. When and why was the program created (if known)? 2010
2. Why are you recommending that the program/major be considered
for
discontinuance? Cite specific examples, such as changes in the
labor market, in
subject matter relevance, in transfer requirements, lack of student
demand, etc.
(1) Lack of student demand. We never had more than a dozen or so
students taking any
given course in the program.
(2) No student has completed the Certificate of Achievement for
this program in the
entire time it has been offered.
(3) The job market for solar installer, and the like, has gone
soft, where supply exceeds
demand.
3. How does the discontinuance of this program relate to the
department’s overall
plans as discussed in the last comprehensive program review and
previous annual
plans? How does it relate to overall campus planning (e.g., the
Educational Master
Plan)?
Of the three courses in this program, two will be archived (EL-211,
4 units and EL-212, 4
units) but one (EL-210, 3 units) will remain, to be incorporated
into the 18-19-unit
Electronics Technology Certificate.
4. What is the impact on the college’s curricular offerings if this
program/major is
discontinued?
Negligible
EL-210, EL-211, and EL-212.
b. Will all of the courses in the program be eliminated? No
List each course that is part of the program and its status after
program
discontinuance.
EL-210, retained as described in # 3 above; EL-211, archived;
EL-212 archived.
c. Are there other programs and/or majors offered by the college
that require
any of the courses proposed for elimination? No
List each course.
N/A
d. Are there other courses that this program and/or major requires
that will be
impacted if this program/major no longer exists? No
List each course.
N/A
5. What is the program/major’s enrollment pattern over the last
five years? List the
number of students enrolled in each of the last five years for each
course unique to
the program. [Use research information obtained from The Office of
Research and
Planning.]
Twelve or less students in each course, each semester, over the
last five years.
6. How many students are actively seeking completion of the program
or major? None
A general definition of active student is one who has completed 12
or more units in
the courses that are unique to the program or major within the last
four semesters.
Provide a list of these students.
N/A
7. How will each of the students listed above be redirected or
assisted in completing his
or her studies?
N/A
8. Provide a timetable for phasing out the courses that are unique
to the program or
major. List each course and semester and indicate final offering
date.
EL-211 and EL-212 will be archived now and will not be offered in
the future. EL-210 is
currently being offered in the Spring of 2017 and will be offered
again in the Spring of
2018. Thus, it will be offered every other semester.
9. Describe the impact of phasing out the program or major in each
of the following:
a. Faculty: changes in assignment, reassigned or transferred
The Adjunct faculty member (all faculty in the electronics program
are adjunct)
who taught all solar classes will be assigned to other electronics
classes based on
seniority.
N/A
N/A
d. Equipment: no longer needed, transferred to other department,
used for
other purpose
Equipment will be used in the remaining solar course
(EL-210).
10. Is there any other known impact that may occur should this
program or major be
discontinued?
a. Is the college’s mission and goals impacted by this
change?
No
b. Is the local community impacted in any way if this program no
longer exists?
No
c. What other colleges in the region offer this program?
LATTC
None
ORIGINATING FROM THE DISCIPLINE WHERE THE PROGRAM RESIDES
1. The discipline where the program resides shall prepare a written
response to all
questions included in the Program Discontinuance Process—see
above.
2. The department chair shall forward a copy of the written
response to the chair of the
Program Effectiveness and Planning Committee (PEPC).
3. The chair of PEPC will send notice to the Vice-President of
Academic Affairs and all
instructional department chairs of the proposed action.
4. The chair of PEPC will forward the motion to the Valley College
Curriculum Committee
(VCCC) for input. The VCCC and PEPC shall place this request on
their respective
agendas as soon as practicable. The VCCC will report its
recommendation back to PEPC.
5. PEPC shall seek direct input from the discipline and the Vice
President of Academic
Affairs or his or her designee regarding the request to discontinue
the program.
6. After applying the criteria to the discipline’s request, PEPC
shall make a formal
recommendation to the Academic Senate. It shall forward all
documentation provided by
the discipline.
7. The Academic Senate shall review the recommendation of PEPC and
make a
recommendation to the college president regarding the department’s
request to
discontinue a program. All documentation shall be provided to the
president along with
the recommendation.
8. The College President shall make known to the college community
through a formal
announcement at an Institutional Effectiveness Council meeting and
via written
communication to the requesting discipline, PEPC, the Academic
Senate President and
the Vice President of Academic Affairs the acceptance or denial of
the program
discontinuance request. Should the president’s decision depart from
the recommendation
of the Academic Senate, a written response for the basis of the
decision will also be
provided.
Discipline:
This proposal has been approved by a two–thirds vote of the
Discipline. If a faculty
member teaches in more than one discipline, he/she can sign only
for a discipline for
which they teach the majority of their load at the time of the
vote.
Date:
Los Angeles Valley College Revision of a previous motion? Yes
I. Motion uncil Recommendation
Initiator: EPC HPC X PEPC SSC TC WEC IEC Other (specify):
Date of Action:
Statement of Motion: (Use separate form for each issue.)
CSIT and CAOT will be merged into one department to be known as
CSIS.
Rationale for Motion: (Specify how the motion supports the
Educational Master Plan goals and strategies.)
The natural synergy between CAOT and CSIT would make the merger
beneficial to both disciplines. There is an overlap in curriculum
and several courses in each discipline have the same student base.
The combined department could develop certificates or majors that
would naturally draw upon courses from both disciplines. Moreover,
in many other colleges these two disciplines are combined into one
department.
Goal 1: Increase student retention, persistence and success Goal 2:
Increase student access X Goal 3: Enhance academic programs and
services to meet student needs X Goal 4: Enhance institutional
effectiveness
Data Considered & Source(s): [Specify specific data considered
(e.g. efficiency, success, service trends) and attach a summary
report where applicable.]
FTEP for both departments was considered to analyze the impact of
reassign time for the chair. Current reassign time for CAOT is .2.
The current reassign time for technology is .5. The adjusted
reassign time for the new department known as CSIS will be .5. The
technology department per the contract will drop to 0. Student
enrollment regarding average class size for each discipline was
considered. Additional factors considered includef number of full
time faculty, #FTE taught as hourly rate assignments and number of
classified staff within the two departments.
Forwarded to IEC Chair Forwarded to Budget Office with Cost
Analysis Request form No fiscal impact
II. IEC ACTION: Accepted by IEC Modified by IEC Rejected by IEC
Returned to Committee/Workgroup for Revisions
Statement of Modification (if applicable):
Reason/Rationale for Action:
Accept presented rationale.
Accepted Modified Rejected
Reason/Rationale for Action:
Date of Action: President’s Signature:
___________________________________________
Distribution: Original to Official File Copy to President Posted to
Web Copy to IEC Chair Copy to Originator
Updated 10/27/11
COST ANALYSIS REQUEST Submit to Budget Office and IEC Chair
REQUESTING COMMITTEE OR COUNCIL: DATE:
IEC EPC HPC PEPC SSC TC WEC
MOTION UNDER CONSIDERATION:
NEW REQUEST ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS FOR PREVIOUS REQUEST
ANY ADDITIONAL DATA OR INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION:
COUNCIL CHAIR COMMENTS/ ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR BUDGET OFFICE:
COUNCIL CHAIR SIGN-OFF: DATE:
Date:
Provide realistic financial projections before a decision is
made.
Show the potential impact of proposal.
SUMMARY OF FISCAL DATA:
Development Costs: Any costs associated with proposal prior to
implementation.
Operational Costs: Direct costs if proposal adopted, i.e.
Salary.
Other Costs: Other than direct or developmental, i.e. Benefits
associated with salary expense.
Recurring Costs: Y or N. Y if costs will continue into subsequent
fiscal years. N if not recurring.
Cost Reduction: Any cost savings projected if proposal
adopted.
Other (Specify Below): Any other anticipated savings.
Budget/Expense Impact: How much, in dollars will the budget or
projected expenses be impacted?
2017-4-19-PEPC-Agenda_draft_withmotions
2017-4-19-PEPC-Agenda_draft
Merging Disciplines -CSIT - CAOT
Budget: Off
Other specify: Off
Statement of Motion Use separate form for each issue: All courses
must be assessed at least once every three years according to the
department’s DAP. A course is considered assessed when at least
two-thirds of the sections have entered data and reflections.
Courses that haven’t been assessed within two years will be flagged
and department chairs notified so that steps can be taken to offer
and assess these classes in the following year in order to stay
current with the assessment cycle. When difficulties are noted at
the two-year mark, steps to understand the issue and support a
timely resolution will be discussed. If courses flagged at the
two-year mark are still not assessed by the three-year mark, they
will be subject to administrative archival. For the current cycle
(Cycle 2), if a course has not been assessed by June 30, 2017, the
department must assess the course in the next term it is offered.
If it is not assessed in the next term it is offered, it will be
subject to administrative archival.
Rationale for Motion Specify how the motion supports the
Educational Master Plan goals and objectives and other
institutional plans Attach documentation if necessary: This is a
reinstatement of a previous policy. The college cannot meet it's
100% goal of Cycle 2 SLO assessment without imposing the deadline
for submissions and final reporting. The college is currently at
75% of courses assessed.
Goal 1 Foster student completion by supporting a learnercentered
environment: Off
Goal 2 Increase equity by identifying gaps in achieving outcomes
transfer associate degree certificate etc and implement effective
models: Off
Goal 3 Through the Colleges shared governance structures maximize
institutional effectiveness through evaluation of environmental
human: Off
Data Considered Sources Specify specific data considered eg
efficiency success service trends and attach a summary report where
applicable:
Accepted by IEC: Off
Rejected by IEC: Off
Accept presented rationale: Off
Copy to President: Off
Posted to Web: Off
ANY ADDITIONAL DATA OR INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION:
COUNCIL CHAIR COMMENTS ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR BUDGET OFFICE:
COUNCIL CHAIR SIGNOFF: