However, without hardly trying, Foucault also pretty much nailed the initial, and subsequent, 2010-2015 journey Glendale Community College has undertook in terms of updating its program review document, the program review and resource allocation process.  The college has been meticulous, the college has been patient, and when it’s been confused or needed more, it hasn’t been afraid to “scratch over” and revise as needed.   

The good news is that after a lot of hard work the process has been streamlined and improved.  It’s been  stable, transparent, and simplified in the last two years.   

Here are some facts—a genealogy of program review if you will—as it stands now presented to you, dear readers of Chaparral, in the least Foucaldian way possible:

When GCC had its last ACCJC site visit in 2010 some of the most prominent recommendations we received focused on the need to better integrate institutional planning with resource allocation.  These recommendations were coupled with growing institutional awareness that completed program reviews were “shelf documents” with few connections to planning and budgeting.   

One important reason program review has been required on a yearly basis has been based on ensuring we’ve shown external agencies that we are fully committed to the practice of regularly reviewing programs and linking planning to resource allocation. Program review has also become a place to write about learning outcomes assessment results and other data that have since become a part of our planning and assessment processes.   

However, starting in Fall 2015, the college moved to a three year “full program review” cycle with yearly opportunities for all programs to do an annual update. 

All programs completed a full program review last year.  The college has set a cycle for the next three years in which 1/3 of programs will do a full review each year.  If your program is only doing a program update this year, your program will receive its program review document prepopulated with updated data on fill rates and other fields.  It will also have all of the fields filled out from your program’s last full “program review cycle.”  Your program will need to review this and can make any needed changes.  You can also add additional resource requests and remove any resource requests that were funded in the previous year.  That is all that is required for the annual update. 

Specifically, the changes made are as follows: 

For all courses in your program which have a vocational TOP code designate by an asterisk (*), info about the existing course prerequisite will be prepopulated.  If your program believes any changes are needed, please mark those.  Your program will also be able to validate that the appropriate SAM and TOP codes have been assigned to your courses.  If everything looks good, just say “yes!”  Any changes you anticipate making will be forwarded to the Vice President, Instructional Services, the Curriculum and Scheduling Systems Manager, and the faculty Curriculum Coordinator so they can work with you to make necessary changes. 

CTE programs will also need to validate what they’ve set as minimum rates for job placement within their area.  The state’s core indicator program generally sets these for programs.  In some cases, where there’s no state identified minimum standard, reasonable rates for employment and licensure pass rates must be set.  This summer, ACCJC sent the college a letter saying that the college’s institutionally set standards for some CTE programs were unrealistic or too low.  In these cases, standards need to be revised.  The revised program review document also gives programs a chance to explain how they’ve set a standard.  If, for example a CTE program may be a strong feeder program for a baccalaureate institution, there may be few program completers which go on to get a job immediately making the job placement rate look artificially low.  But UC transfer rates, or transfers to Otis or other art or design programs may be high.  The revised program review form gives faculty a chance to talk about these sorts of mitigating factors.