DRAFT 10/6/05
Program Review
Summary
Context
The Program Review process at Maui Community College occurs
within the context of the following frameworks: MCC Mission Statement,
MCC Strategic Plan, Community College Survey of Student Engagement Reports,
Banner (student and program information) data, UH Community College
System guidelines, UH System guidelines and legislative intent.
The MCC Budget Process/Relationships Overview (See Attachment #1) identifies the Program
Review as one of the :�Budget Drivers/Parameters� in the Biennium Budget appropriations
and annual budgeting process. The UH-MCC Detailed Tactical/Operational
Planning Process (See Attachment
#2) describes the context within which the Strategic Plan implementation
and Program Reviews interface and integrate recommendations from the �review�
process to inform the strategic and annual
planning and budgeting needs. The program reviews are also reflective
of the WASC Jr. and Sr. Commission Standards, the County, State, national
and regional economic environmental conditions, native Hawaiian issues,
demographic shifts, and other external factors.
Introduction
In fulfilling Maui
Community College�s commitment to
continuous improvement and advancement of our mission, the 2003-04 cycle of
annual and comprehensive program review reports for instruction were submitted,
analyzed, and completed with priorities and recommendations in October
2005. The comprehensive reports have undergone the process of analysis
and evaluation by two review teams, one composed of internal and external members,
and the other composed of campus Executive Committee members. Individual
program plans of action will be implemented, and results based on data from the
program reviews will be integrated into the
college�s planning, budgeting, and decision-making processes. The
comprehensive, annual and non-instructional program reviews as well as
the 2004-05 Annual Program Health Indicators
are on file and available.
After the analyses, recommendations and Program Review
Summary are completed, program coordinators
will again meet with the Dean and Assistant Dean of Instruction to
discuss the feedback from the program reviews and data in terms of program
effectiveness, demand, efficiency, budget, outcomes, and plans for this and the
next year.
Program Reviews
The Comprehensive Program Reviews on a five-year cycle (See Attachment #3) that were reviewed
this year include Accounting, Nursing, and Continuing Education. Additionally
reviews of non-instructional programs included Administrative Services, and
Student Services. In our second cycle of Program Reviews, the review
processes also include each degree program�s annual program health indicators.
(In subsequent years, the UH System parameters for Program Reviews which are
currently under discussion among the UHCC Chancellors, the Interim Vice President
for the UHCCs, Senior Administration and the UH Board of Regents will undoubtedly
refine MCC�s approach to Program Reviews.)
Through Executive Committee (EC) presentations by each
program leader beginning in March 2005 and continuing through the summer, each
of the Comprehensive and Non-Instructional Program Reviews was assessed
regarding the general requirements and expectations of the Program Review
process. Each of these dialogues was taped for the record and subsequent
review. This included faculty and staff involvement, external input
(program advisory committees), data collection, mission statement development
(where they did not exist before, e.g., business office and Operations &
Maintenance), analysis of accomplishments, identification of program
needs and priorities, and plans for improvement.
The Accounting, Nursing, and non-instructional
Administrative Services Program Reviews were excellent and established a clear
benchmark for future program reviews. In the Administrative Services
arena, national metrics were unsuccessfully sought. UHCC System criteria
for this area are now under discussion. The Office of Continuing
Education comprehensively addressed most of its metrics. However, the EC
noted that relationships and data regarding program decisions and financial
deficits in some of the areas would benefit from additional analysis and
more assertive financial and programmatic leadership. The Student
Services program ambitiously identified the Council for the Advancement of
Standards in Higher Education as its template for criteria against which to
measure its progress in meeting program and service goals. While there
now exists more data than ever regarding the services and programs in Student
Services, the entire review has not been completed. The Admissions and Records
office was scheduled for a comprehensive program review in FY 2004-05.
However, the self-study required for the comprehensive review was not
completed. The external program review team recommended that the
Admissions and Records Office be given an extension of 9/30/05 to
complete the self-study. The recommendation was accepted. To date,
the Admissions and Records Office has completed a partial self-study which will
be reviewed by the external program review team.
Data related to academic
advising and the relationship between counseling resources and the connection to
student success were also recommended. Assessing the consistency,
availability and quality of student services to
outreach center and online students were also identified as challenges to
be addressed. This information should be reported back to
the EC as part of the next annual and comprehensive reports.
Additionally, Annual Program Assessments based on Program
Health Indicators were completed. The
Dean of Instruction provided data and analysis for each program. While
there were discussions about each program, a summary of the entire
instructional program priorities based on the data would be useful. Such
a summary would include programmatic needs, academic actions (including
termination, stop-out, revisions, etc.),
faculty and other personnel priorities, and plans for resource development and
deficit reduction. Overall, there seemed to
consistent data regarding each program�s achievement metrics. However,
data and analyses regarding efficiency and effectiveness were uneven.
Additionally, involvement by the Program Advisory Committees in the Program Review
process appeared to be uneven and in need of a
more systematic scheduling of dialogues regarding a data-based performance for
program review. Importantly, it was noted that Student Learning Outcomes
have been developed for each course and program�which was a first and
critically important step.
Program Review Conclusions and Recommendations:
The above programs were generally performing satisfactorily
in fulfilling their respective missions. The reviews of data were
generally very thorough and in all cases presented a comprehensive reprise of
each program�s performance. However, there are areas of focus that will
preface next year�s and future program reviews:
(More detail on each program may be needed>)
1. Although
Comprehensive and Annual Program Review data were presented, a summary of all
instructional programs is required. Such a summary should minimally
describe program priorities within the instructional and academic support
programs, identify any program changes, and rationalize allocation of resources
with community demands for the program and its performance.
2. Criteria for the
development of each data point should be reviewed to
prevent arbitrary metrics that result in the program health being assessed
positively or negatively without accurately reflecting the actual program�s
performance.
3. Additionally, a
longitudinal view of each program�s number of majors, graduates, etc. was
requested and provided to inform the
discussion. The longitudinal graphs were helpful and should be part of
all future program review presentations. A specific recommendation to
separate the data in Human Services to permit
a clear view of Early Childhood Education should be completed in this academic
year. Recommendations for program terminations and combinations should
also be identified for construction-related curricula. The combination of
Building Maintenance Carpentry, Drafting and Welding into
Sustainable or Construction Technology proposal.was described.
Other programs with credit/non-credit implications were also identified with
possible dual purpose possibilities. Annual data presentation on and review of
the Liberal Arts program were also noted to be
essential Data and analysis related to
developmental programs should be included as well.
4. While all
instructional programs and courses have student learning outcomes, preparation
for a review of SLOs next year should be considered with workshops for faculty
on evidence collection, storage, analysis, and
reporting..
5. Additionally, the
efficiency dimension of Continuing Education, a number of instructional and
non-instructional programs, and a variety of services did not indicate
sufficient attention and require more financial detail and perspective in the
future.
6. Follow-through on
prior year plans and the feasibility of realistic future plans with measurable
steps appeared to be problematic in several
programs.
7. Student
continuation and transfer rates require additional investigation to
determine strategies for improvement.
8. As the learning
support services and programs (developmental programs, distance education,
library, etc.) were viewed to be important to
student learning, an annual summary of academic support programs should
be also be considered in the future.
9. A prior dialogue
with program coordinators regarding the
department chair and Dean�s preliminary reviews will be suggested to
assure that the relevant accomplishments and challenges are identified.
Recommendations
The college�s response to
the convergence among program reviews, data analyses, Strategic Plan
priorities, and resource availability enlists a combination of strategies and
resource applications:
�
Creating more revenues to meet
programmatic needs through the integration of credit and noncredit offerings as
well as increases in both resident and nonresident enrollment;
�
Accessing Rural Development Project grant funds through identifying
sustainable revenue generation possibilities that coincide with instructional
and institutional mission;
�
Improving efficiency through class scheduling, class sizes, cost
controls, and generally more productive instruction-revenue generation
strategies are all under examination;
�
Considering less services within a finite budget;
�
Leveraging extramural grants and gifts to
meet mission critical needs;
�
Forwarding Electricity restoration as
MCC�s top priority Supplemental Budget request,
with other priorities including WASC Program Review support staffing, Workforce
Development (Oral Health, Biotech, and Early Childhood faculty positions), and
Hawaiian Studies requests;
�
Maintaining a high level of indirect cost grant contribution to
college operational needs, and
�
Constructing a 400 bed privately funded Student Housing facility to
address resident and nonresident student needs.
Process Refinement
The Strategic Plan Implementation Committee is presently reviewing
refining this and other analytical processes. The five month Program
Review process extended beyond the length initially planned.
However, the amount of data and quality of dialogue were robust.
The data often triggered more questions than they answered. In some
cases, the EC concluded that there were more important data needed but still
requiring development. Repurposing of resources and energy to
eliminate the superfluous and tangential permitting the college to
focus on the critical and central will challenge our commitment to
continuous improvement.
As the tuition fee revenues have slightly exceeded our
budget projections, the campus instructional priorities will generally be
maintained. Budget challenges faced by some instructional and
non-instructional programs have revealed that efficiency metrics require
special attention in Culinary, Oral Health, and the Office of Continuing
Education and Training. Adjustments to
address budget requirements in each program have been requested and will be
integrated to reverse downward trends in the
imbalance between cost of services and revenues. The escalation of
electricity and other costs have additionally challenged all facets of the
college.
Early Dialogue and Planned Responses to
Program Reviews
The college�s initial response to
the convergence among program reviews, data analyses, Strategic Plan
priorities, and resource availability enlists a combination of
strategies. Some of the early strategies regarding resource development and
applications:
�
Improving efficiency through class scheduling, class sizes, cost
controls, and general more productive instruction-revenue generation
relationships are all under examination;
�
Considering less services within a finite budget;
�
Leveraging extramural grants and gifts to
meet mission critical needs;
�
Forwarding Electricity restoration as
MCC�s top priority Supplemental Budget
request, with other priorities including WASC Program Review support staffing,
Workforce Development (Oral Health, Biotech, and Early Childhood faculty
positions), and Hawaiian Studies requests;
�
Maintaining a high level of indirect cost grant contribution to
college operational needs,
�
Constructing a 400 bed privately funded Student Housing facility to
address resident and nonresident student needs. Creating more revenues to
meet needs through program credit and noncredit resident and nonresident
enrollment increases; and
�
Accessing Rural Development Project grant funds through identifying
sustainable revenue generation possibilities that coincide with instructional
and institutional mission.