Within the California Community College environment, the most efficient way to see blood run from a face is to simply utter the phrase, “You are up for program review next year”. You see, most community college professionals would rather chew on broken glass than complete a program review. This adverse reaction to the program review process stems partly from a perception that there is an enormous amount of work involved in a program review and/or the fear that someone is going to find some “dirty laundry” in the department closet.
The fact of the matter is, however, that a program review, whether it is associated with the instructional or student services wing, doesn’t have to entail inordinate amounts of time, nor is its purpose to uncover “dirty laundry.” Besides being mandated by California state law, program reviews are essential to the accreditation process, provide insight for program improvement, can be a platform for the advocacy of a program and can form the basis for the allocation of fiscal resources.
Orange Coast College’s student services wing historically has consisted of 25 service areas. As such, this wing represented a very large and diverse group of programs. The college began doing program reviews in the student services wing in 1992. Since then, 76 program reviews have been completed. So, for better or worse, we have had a great deal of experience with the program review process. We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly side of program review.
Initially, the 25 programs were set up on a three-year cycle. That is, any particular service area (e.g., Financial Aid) would expect to be involved in the program review process every three years. However, in 1999, the decision was made to move to a six-year cycle. The reason for this change was to align student services with the instructional wing that had been using a six-year cycle. Also, the three-year cycle was perceived by some as “cruel and inhumane.”
As you may know, the structure of the program review for the student services wing is substantially different than the one for the instructional wing. As a general rule, the instructional wing tends to rely more on statistical data. For example, it requires statistics on classroom retention, success and various enrollment figures. These types of data do not lend themselves to the types of programs within student services.
As with the instructional wing, the program review process for student services requires that a particular area conduct a self study. This self study is usually based on what has occurred in the previous academic year. That is, the program view may occur during the 2002 – 2003 school year, but the self study is developed from information gathered during the 2001 –2002 academic year.
The body that oversees the program review process is referred to as the Student Services Program Review Validation Committee. This committee is comprised of the following members:
- One Student Services Administrator (Chair)
- One Student Services Faculty Representative
- One Supervisory/Management Representative (At Large)
- One Student Services Classified Representative
- One Academic Senate Representative
- One Classified Representative (At Large)
- One Associated Students Representative
The composition of this committee was established to try to have a diverse and representative group that could make informed and impartial evaluations. In the ten years that Orange Coast College has been doing program reviews, the composition of this committee has never come into question.
It should be mentioned that a key person on the Validation Committee is the chair. He/she needs to keep in continuous contact with the service area, be available to give advice on how to complete the self study and make sure that the self study progresses in a timely fashion. Additionally, he/she must provide leadership to the Validation Committee as they honestly evaluate each service area. The chair also assumes the major responsibility for writing the program review validation report. The ideal personality for this position is an anal retentive, obsessive-compulsive individual who has relatively good ego-strength. This type of personality will keep everyone on task, can tell people that their programs have problems and are in need to improvement, and not lose any sleep over it.
The program review self study is made up of 13 components. The specific guidelines for the program review self study, along with a brief description of each component, can be found at the end of this article. Although all of the components are important, there are three that are critical and deserve special attention. The “internal evaluation,” “external evaluation” and the “major problems or challenges” components are at the heart of the self study. The “internal evaluation” is simply an examination of the goals and objectives of the service area and the extent to which these goals and objectives have been met. The “external evaluation” relates to the student satisfaction survey. The Validation Committee considers students’ perceptions of the service area to be extremely important. The “major problems or challenges” component really gets at where the energy and resources need to be placed in order for the service area to improve. This last component often leads directly to a number of recommendations from the Validation Committee.
The self study is given to the Validation Committee one week prior to the time when the committee formally meets. During that week the committee members critically read the document. When the committee meets, there is a discussion of the self study. Following this discussion, representatives of the service area under review are invited to answer committee questions and/or concerns. Shortly after this meeting, with input from committee members, the chair drafts a report. Eventually, the report is signed-off by all committee members. The report is then given to the representative of the service area to review for accuracy. A final report is sent to the Vice President of Student Services, the College President and the Budget and Planning Committee.
After coordinating the student services program reviews for the last 10 years, I have come to believe that the program review process is a valuable tool that can be used to bring about positive change in programs. It can also be a viable avenue to acquire needed resources. For example, when a program requests funding for program improvement, the fact that the Program Review Validation Committee recommended this type of funding can be important.
Having lauded the program review process, it is only fair to mention that there are also a number of challenges for those who oversee its implementation. Firstly, there is always the challenge of adhering to timelines. My experience has been that after agreeing on a due date for the self study, that you make it abundantly clear that there will be no postponements—for any reason; and you secure administrative support for this policy. Of the 76 program reviews that I have been involved in as Validation Committee chair, I cannot recall any service areas that were given a postponement. Another problem that one encounters with program reviews is that a set of recommendation emanates from the Validation Committee. How do you know that these recommendations will be addressed? In my opinion, the best way would be to mandate that these recommendations be integrated into the goals and objectives for the service area. In that way the service area will be annually evaluated on how well they have followed through on these recommendations.
Whether or not you embrace the idea of program review, the reality is that program review is here to stay. It’s the law. So, why not get the most out of it. If you are new at the “program review game”, you may want to consider some of the ideas put forth in this article. All colleges are not like Orange Coast, but I think most of the issue discussed will have some applicability to most community colleges.
Supplementary Documents:
Student Services Self Study/Program Review Guidelines for 2002-2003
Major Recommendations
|
PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION
Author eMail
