G-6-9.7 Review and Support Committee: Course Review (RSC)

CHARGE:

1. Goal of Review Process: Identify and implement remedies for sets of courses determined to be at risk when identified benchmarks are reviewed. Assist all programs in understanding and analyzing the data for the program.
2. Key indicators and benchmarks: Identified by the Review and Support Committee (RSC). Schedule for re-examination of data, indicators, and benchmarks normally every 3 years.
3. Data tracking of above indicators: By October 15 of each academic year, "Strategic Indicators for Instructions" are published to the campus community with data sets for the prior academic year.

Membership, Voting Status and Terms

Tenured Transfer Faculty (1)	Elected by the Faculty Senate	Voting	Three years
Tenured Career/Technical Education Faculty (1)	Elected by the Faculty Senate	Voting	Three years
Tenured Transfer Faculty (1)	Elected by the ChairMoot	Voting	Three years
Tenured Career/Technical Education Faculty (1)	Elected by the ChairMoot	Voting	Three years
Faculty Substitute (1)	Elected by the Faculty Senate
Faculty Substitute (1)	Elected by the ChairMoot
Vice President for Instruction	Automatic	Voting	Standing

Committee members must request themselves recuse from RSC review of programs or sets of courses in their departments.

Chair Election:
The Vice President for Instruction will chair this committee.

Tasks (as per contract-referenced document of 3/22/2007):

1. Prior to implementation of this process, identify "key indicators of viability" (beginning with strategic indicators) and define "thresholds" for each key indicator: what numbers are "low"? This would include not only the threshold level for each indicator, but how many of the key indicators need to exceed the threshold to put the program on the "potentially at risk" list. There may be an indicator or two that automatically triggers the program to go on the list. The goal would be to make the initial "trigger" objective and automatic.
2. Annually, review key indicators and create the list of programs or sets of courses that are included on the "potentially at risk" list based on exceeding the defined thresholds (by November 1 each year).
3. Review those programs with the department and faculty: by the end of fall term, determine whether there is a legitimate risk (not a data error, not a quick fix, not external circumstances which reduce or balance the viability risk).
4. Notify all program faculty, department chair and Forum of timeline for review/remedy/recommendations. Notifications should stipulate areas of concern and suggested remedies. Forum to be copied on all such notifications.
5. Continue to monitor progress of all programs "at risk."
6. Annually (in spring term), review and refine process in consultation with Chairmoot and Program Coordinators.

College Support for Programs at Risk

The College is committed to seeking remedies prior to any program closure decision and will provide reasonable support to the change process. Such support might include release time for curriculum work, pay for outside consultants, and alumni survey development and implementation.

Remediation and Review Timeline

A. Normally, the academic year in which initial notice occurs is devoted to defining and implementing remedies to address the deficient indicators.

1. Before notice is given, RSC will determine whether anomalies exist in the data, such as cost is inflated by the presence of a senior faculty member in a small program and if that is the case and the only concern, the notice will not be given. Similarly, whether the program is capped by facilities or equipment as a limiting factor for growth will also be considered. The Committee may also consider whether a recent program or curriculum change has occurred and may wish to postpone review until the change has had time to make its impact.
2. Remedies may include but are not limited to marketing and recruiting, curriculum, change, seeking of partners for financial assistance to program, program fees.
3. RSC will suggest remedies; department or program will respond with remedies to be adopted.
4. Early in the spring term, the RSC reviews proposed changes in light of viability concerns. The aim of this spring term review is to provide feedback as to whether the proposed changes are likely to indeed remediate those concerns.

B. In the following academic year, remedies will normally be in place and RSC will review all key indicators early in spring term to determine whether improvement has occurred. After the remediation process has extended for a minimum of 5 terms following notification, the RSC can recommend one of the following to the VPI:

1. To remove the program or set of courses from the "at risk" category
2. To continue on "at risk" status for one additional year. Justification for this recommendation should include positive trends and the plans for that year.
3. In rare cases, normally when changes in statewide academic requirements or in industry support for and employment of students have adversely affected program need, the RSC may recommend that program closure be considered. If the College agrees with the program closure recommendation, the VPI will produce a timeline which meets the needs of students as required by NWCCU and CCWD guidelines, if applicable. Timeline to be published to department, students, and the Forum. If such a decision results in a faculty position being reduced, timeline for notice will be in accordance with the Faculty Collective Bargaining Agreement.

C. Exceptions to timeline: at any point, the program faculty may wish to propose voluntary closure and/or the College will begin working with them on any possible retraining under contract guidelines at that point in the process. The College will create a contract modeled on the sabbatical contract to clarify the terms under which training is to be undertaken.