Appendix AProgram Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective RevisitedAcademic Senate for California Community CollegesFall 2012EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE2011 – 2012Lesley Kawaguchi, Chair, Santa Monica College, HistoryBeth Smith, Grossmont College, MathematicsDon Gauthier, Los Angeles Valley College, GeographyKim Harrell, Folsom Lake College, KinesiologyAngelina Stuart, Southwestern College, Spanish & ESLAllison Moore, Los Angeles Southwest College, AccountingSpecial thanks to David Morse (Long Beach City College)and Phil Smith (American River College) for their contributions to this paper.EDUCATIONAL POLICIES COMMITTEE2010 - 2011Richard Mahon, Chair, Riverside City College, HumanitiesKevin Bontenbal, Cuesta College, LibraryArshia Malekzadeh, Moorpark College, Student RepresentativePatricia Marquez, Antelope Valley College, CounselingPaul Setziol, De Anza College, MusicDon Gauthier, Los Angeles Valley College, GeographyKarolyn Van Putten, Laney College, PsychologyMarcy Drummond, Los Angeles Trade Tech CollegeProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 1

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements3Abstract41. Introduction42. Background and Scope5Statute, Regulation, and Accreditation Standards63. Definitions8A. Defining a Program8B. Defining Program Vitality and Viability9i. Standard Definitions of Vitality and Viability9ii. Maintaining Essential Programs in Times of Economic Crisis104. Faculty, Administrative, and Governing Board Roles in Developing Program DiscontinuanceProcesses1111A. Roles of the Local Academic SenateB. Roles of Administrators11C. Role of the Governing Board125. Processes and Criteria12A. Developing a Process for Program Discontinuance12i. Connecting Program Discontinuance to Educational and Budget Planning12ii. Considerations When Developing a Local Model for Program Discontinuance13iii. Considerations in Developing Processes for Dire Fiscal Emergencies16iv. Program Review and Its Relationship to Program Discontinuance17B. Criteria for Identifying At-Risk Programs and Determining Research Needs186. Cautions and Considerations18A. Organizational Restructure19B. Class Cancellations and Unintended Consequences19C. Regional Issues20D. Effects on Students21E. Bargaining Agent21F. Steps to Avoid22G. Recommendations to Local Senates237. Conclusions and Summary23Appendix A – Program Discontinuance Turnaround Survey 1996 . 24Appendix B – Program Discontinuance Survey 2011 . 25Appendix C – Examples of Program Discontinuance Policies . 28American River College . 28Cuesta College. 30Los Angeles Valley College . 36Southwestern College . 40Appendix D – Sample Rubric for Budget-Driven Cuts/Napa Valley College . 44Program Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 2

AcknowledgementsThe Academic Senate for California Community Colleges would like to thank the members ofthe 1997-1998 Educational Policies Committee who authored the 1998 paper, Program Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective:Janis Perry, Chair, Santa Ana College, CounselingJohn Nixon, Santa Ana College, CIO RepresentativeLinda Collins, Los Medanos College, Sociology/HumanitiesLin Marelick, Mission College, Graphic DesignRichard Rose, Santa Rosa College, CounselingChris Storer, DeAnza College, PhilosophyKathy Sproles, Hartnell College, English/Basic SkillsDavid Wilkerson, Santa Barbara College, Student Senate Rep.Ian Walton, Mission College, MathematicsProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 3

AbstractThe 1998 Academic Senate for California Community Colleges paper Program Discontinuance:A Faculty Perspective presented issues of program discontinuance and addressed principles andkey factors for effective faculty participation in the development of fair and equitable programdiscontinuance processes. In 2009, an Academic Senate resolution called for an update to thatpaper to provide senates with information that reflects various changes regarding program discontinuance and related issues that have occurred since 1998. This paper responds to that resolution by incorporating changes that have taken place in the last decade and providing further guidance to local senates about faculty roles in the development and implementation of program discontinuance policies and procedures. This paper is intended to replace the earlier paper by building on its foundation.1. IntroductionThe 1998 Academic Senate for California Community Colleges paper Program Discontinuance:A Faculty Perspective (available at pdf )began with the following:Increased attention has been given to program discontinuance. Local senates have lookedto the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges for direction. The purpose ofthis paper is to focus on the many issues of program discontinuance faced by local academic senates. This paper addresses the need to identify key factors for developing a fair,equitable, and faculty driven and student-focused program discontinuance process.This paper, developed by the Academic Senate Educational Policies Committee, reviewscurrent regulation and statute, the role of local academic senates, effects on students, theneed to balance the college curriculum, educational and budget planning issues, collectivebargaining concerns, and other considerations when developing a local model.The paper concludes with a set of recommendations to local senates on the key factors foreffective participation in the program discontinuance process and recommendations forregulation changes.Such a beginning is as fitting today as it was in 1998. Furthermore, the principles in the 1998 paper continue to provide a solid foundation for discussions about faculty roles in program discontinuance. Therefore, the current paper builds upon the foundation established by the original paper and is intended to update and replace that document. This updated paper incorporates additional information and changes that have occurred in the last decade and reinforces the importantand necessary role faculty play in the development and implementation of program discontinuance policies and procedures, as called for in Resolution 9.02, Fall 2009:Update Paper on Program DiscontinuanceProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 4

Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopted the paperProgram Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective in Spring 1998;Whereas, While the 1998 paper directly addresses issues specific to program discontinuance, it does not address program contraction, suspension, or expansion and does notbuild a solid case for why the topic of program discontinuance is an academic and professional matter under the purview of Title 5 §53200, and it does not effectively build a casefor how program discontinuance can dramatically affect our ability to serve students fromdiverse socio-economic backgrounds;Whereas, Education Code, Title 5 Regulations, Accreditation Standards, district practices,and Academic Senate positions have evolved since the 1998 paper was written; andWhereas, Some colleges have established or are establishing improved program discontinuance processes that address program expansion, suspension, and contraction;Resolved, That the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges research thevarious changes regarding program discontinuance and related issues that have occurredsince the 1998 paper Program Discontinuance: A Faculty Perspective was written andupdate the paper as necessary.Ultimately, this paper aims to assist faculty with the challenging and sometimes difficult discussions that occur at their colleges and districts by addressing the principles and key factors for effective faculty participation in the development of fair and equitable program discontinuance policies and processes. Discontinuing a program directly affects curriculum, student success, andbudget and planning processes, and in many cases program review processes, all of which fallunder the purview of the academic senate. Thus, program discontinuance itself is an academicand professional matter. As such, local governing boards should consult collegially with theiracademic senates in establishing policies and procedures for program discontinuance and reduction. Local academic senates need to identify key factors for developing a fair, equitable, facultydriven, and student-focused program discontinuance process. This paper serves as a resource notonly to local senates but to all faculty members who participate in local program discontinuanceactivities and policy development.2. Background and ScopeAlthough college districts are required by current statute and regulation to develop a process forprogram discontinuance and minimum criteria for the discontinuance of occupational programs(Education Code §78016 and Title 5 §51022), two informal surveys conducted by the AcademicSenate for California Colleges found that many districts do not have a process for either whichhas been agreed-upon by the local academic senate and the governing board. Moreover, in somedistricts, programs have been terminated using inconsistent approaches, which is problematic forstudents, counselors, and academic senates, each of whom feels significant repercussions whenProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 5

discontinuance is managed inconsistently. Furthermore, failure to implement and follow a process may be an accreditation issue if appropriate arrangements for enrolled students have notbeen made.The first informal turn-around survey of local academic senates regarding program discontinuance was conducted at the Fall 1997 Plenary Session (Appendix A) and found that only 7 of 62colleges responding had a discontinuance policy. A similar, broader informal turn-around surveywas distributed in Spring 2011 to all California Community College Academic Senate Presidents. The results of this survey showed that fourteen years later, 37 of the 54 colleges responding had a discontinuance policy (Appendix B). The results of the Spring 2011 survey suggestcurrent activity regarding program discontinuance in the California Community College system.The majority of colleges that responded have an approved program discontinuance policy andprocedure in place. However, responses to some of the questions from the 2011 survey yieldedconcerns that merit further consideration: Over 60% of those who responded said that program discontinuance decisions were madewith no policy in place or without following established policy.Almost half of those responding said that local senates were not included in program discontinuance despite this issue being an academic matter.More than three-fourths of those responding indicated that program discontinuance was aresult of an administrator-initiated decision.Over 60% of those responding said that programs were ultimately discontinued throughincremental cuts to course offerings over several terms or years thereby circumventingany local process for official program discontinuance.These results suggest that, even with formal discontinuance policies in place, agreed upon processes may be ignored. Thus, local academic senates, working in consultation with their localadministrations and with their collective bargaining agents where appropriate, must not only ensure that the college has developed a formal program discontinuance process but also that theprocess is comprehensive, fair, and efficient and that it is employed for making all program discontinuance decisions.Statute, Regulation, and Accreditation StandardsCentral to the development of any policy or process is knowing which Education Code sections,Title 5 regulations, and accreditation standards are relevant to campus-wide program discontinuance or reduction practices.Ed. Code §78016 “Review of program; termination” states the following:(a) Every vocational or occupational training program offered by a community college districtshall be reviewed every two years by the governing board of the district to assure that eachprogram, as demonstrated by the California Occupational Labor Market Information ProgramProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 6

established in Section 10533 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, or if this program is notavailable in the labor market area, other available sources of labor market information, doesall of the following:(1)Meets a documented labor market demand.(2)Does not represent unnecessary duplication of other manpower training programsin the area.(3)Is of demonstrated effectiveness as measured by the employment and completionsuccess of its students.(b) Any program that does not meet the requirements of subdivision (a) and the standardspromulgated by the governing board shall be terminated within one year.(c) The review process required by this section shall include the review and comments by thelocal Private Industry Council established pursuant to Division 8 (commencing with Section15000) of the Unemployment Insurance Code, which review and comments shall occur priorto any decision by the appropriate governing body.(d) This section shall apply to each program commenced subsequent to July 28, 1983.Title 5 also addresses the topic of program discontinuation. Title 5 §51022 requires that “Withinsix months of the formation of a community college district, the governing board shall adopt andcarry out its policies for the establishment, modification, or discontinuance of courses or programs. Such policies shall incorporate statutory responsibilities regarding vocational or occupational training program review as specified in section 78016 of the Education Code.” Title 5§55601 requires local governing boards to appoint advisory committees for career technical education programs. An active and effective advisory committee can be a very valuable asset inlaunching, growing, reducing or eliminating a program since it provides a direct link to the specific community need each program serves.Additionally, Title 5 §55130 specifies that program approval “is effective until the program orimplementation of the program is discontinued or modified in any substantial way.” This sectionalso gives authority to the state chancellor to evaluate periodically “an educational program, afterits approval, on the basis of factors listed in this section. If on the basis of such an evaluation theChancellor determines that an educational program should no longer be offered, the Chancellormay terminate the approval and determine the effective date of termination.” Among the factorsthat the chancellor may use to evaluate a program are library and media center resources, availability of faculty, and availability of adequate or proposed financial support. Moreover, “the development, establishment and evaluation of an education program shall include representativefaculty involvement.”The 2002 Accreditation Standards (revised June 2012) also contain a discussion of program discontinuance that would seem to prohibit a district from eliminating programs too hastily. In parProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 7

ticular, the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) StandardII.A.6.b states, “When programs are eliminated or program requirements are significantlychanged, the institution makes appropriate arrangements so that enrolled students may completetheir education in a timely manner with a minimum of disruption.” This requirement is broaderthan the one established in Title 5. By specifically obligating a college to meet the needs of enrolled students, this standard implies that colleges should have policies to address the eliminationof or significant structural changes to programs and should ask themselves whether students areadvised on how to complete educational requirements when programs are eliminated or modified.Perhaps the most relevant and most challenging accreditation expectation to meet in a fiscal crisisis the requirement that colleges plan and budget effectively. The introduction to the accreditationstandards states, “The institution provides the means for students to learn, assesses how well learning is occurring, and strives to improve that learning through ongoing, systematic, and integratedplanning” (Standard I). Colleges should include program discontinuance processes and evaluationas part of the regular planning processes for institutional effectiveness, as required in the accreditation standards. The effectiveness of planning processes and the working relationships local senates develop in their colleges before a crisis arrives are the best foundation for a thoughtful approach to the threat of program reduction or discontinuance.3. DefinitionsA. Defining a ProgramAn important piece that should be in place before any program discontinuance policy is implemented is the definition of a program. This definition will vary from college to college dependingon the culture and structure of the institution. One aspect that is consistent across all colleges isthat this definition should be determined through discussion between faculty and administrationand approved by the college’s or district’s academic senate.To inform this discussion and decision, the question of what constitutes a program is discussed atlength in the Academic Senate’s 2009 paper Program Review: Setting a Standard (pages 12-16).The paper lists the following bullet points as examples of different kinds of programs: Title 5 §55000(g) defines an educational program as "an organized sequence of coursesleading to a defined objective, a degree, a certificate, a diploma, a license, or transfer toanother institution of higher education”Disciplines, such as natural sciences, or, even more broadly, scienceDepartments, such as early childhood education, counseling, etc.Academic majors or areas of emphasis, such as humanitiesStudent pathways such as career technical education, basic skills, and transferProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 8

Programs specific to certain populations, such as EOPS or DSPSPlanning and goal setting processes (planning units), possibly relating to divisions such ascareer technical educationCollege budget processes (cost centers)Student service pathways that end in a specific outcomeAdministrative services defined by administrative reporting structuresGovernance structures, such as board of trustee processes or divisions underneath a particular dean or administratorGeneral educationThe Title 5 definition of a program is clearly focused primarily on curriculum. However, at manycolleges such things as athletics, honors, Puente, distance education, and other student supportservices are considered to be and in many cases view themselves as programs, even though theywould not fit the Title 5 definition. Program Review: Setting a Standard goes on to note thatwhile the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) requires thatall colleges assess student learning at the course, program, and degree levels, it does not establishor impose a definition of what constitutes a “program,” leaving that question to be answered differently by different colleges seeking to fulfill their mission and serve their communities.A college’s definition of a program is crucial to the program discontinuance process. Many colleges now see that programs are not isolated to either student services or instruction, as goals ofprograms may overlap both areas, leading to a recognition and definition of hybrid programs.Broader definitions may give the academic senate a stronger voice in discussions and evaluationsof all types of college services if those definitions lead the college to apply one process for allvarieties of programs. On the other hand, a broader definition may also make developing oneconsistent process that can apply to all programs covered by the definition more difficult. Therefore, academic senates should take into consideration the variety of programs and services thatmay exist at their colleges and the ways in which they want their program review and discontinuance processes to serve them as they develop a definition of programs.B. Defining Program Vitality and Viabilityi. Standard Definitions of Vitality and ViabilitySince the original Program Discontinuance paper was first written, several colleges havebegun to use the terms “program vitality” and “program viability” to examine programs.The terms “vitality” and “viability” can, in some cases, have similar meanings. Amongthe definitions of vitality in the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is “the capacity tolive and develop.” The same source defines viability as “capable of growing or developing,” “capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately,” and “having a reasonable chance of succeeding.” These definitions are consistent with the way in which mostcolleges characterize program vitality and viability: a program is viable if it demonstratesitself to be capable of functioning adequately in terms of serving sufficient numbers ofProgram Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 9

students effectively and vital if it shows the capacity to continue serving students at thesame or increased levels of production, effectiveness, and relevance as compared tostandards set by the institution. For these reasons, the two terms are often used interchangeably in discussions of program discontinuance.The specific manner in which programs are evaluated in regard to vitality and viabilitydiffers according to local processes and determinations. The vitality and viability of programs may be called into question due to numerous factors, including declining enrollment, changes to industry standards or community need, and others. No universally accepted definition of or criteria for evaluating academic programs exist. While this paperwill offer suggestions that might be considered in establishing local criteria, the most important element of such discussions is that the academic senate and the college administration work together collegially to agree on definitions of viability and vitality that canbe applied fairly and objectively to all programs at the college.ii. Maintaining Essential Programs in Times of Economic CrisisIn most cases, questions of program discontinuance or restructuring have been raisedbased on the vitality of the program in terms of such factors as student enrollment, employment trends, and community needs. In times of fiscal crisis, however, economic factors also enter the discussion, and programs that in more stable budget times might beseen as viable and vital might be endangered due to their cost to the college. While faculty would not wish to consider discontinuing a seemingly healthy program, economic realities may force administrators and faculty to raise exactly such a possibility.This form of program discontinuance – the elimination of successful programs due tobudget exigencies – is quite distinct from individual program viability processes. Just asdefinitions of program vitality and viability in terms of program health should be basedon specific, collegially agree-upon criteria, so should definitions of viability based oneconomic factors. Any program being scrutinized for such reasons should be judged according to criteria that are determined in advance and can be applied fairly across the college. In the absence of such a definition of vitality involving economic factors, programsmight appear to be targeted inappropriately, and discussions of program discontinuance insuch circumstances will likely be both more difficult and more contentious. Academicsenates should therefore work with their college administrations to define the criteria anddata that will be used to define program vitality in challenging economic times.Program Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 10

4. Faculty, Administrative, and Governing Board Roles in Developingand Implementing Program Discontinuance ProcessesA. Roles of the Local Academic SenateThe involvement of the local academic senate is critical to the successful development and implementation of a program discontinuance policy. Academic senates are specifically charged withresponsibilities in curriculum, program review, budget processes, and other pertinent areas of academic and professional matters recognized in statute and regulation that pertain specifically toprogram development or discontinuance. The participation of the local academic senate offers agreater opportunity to create a collegial, student-centered, faculty driven, and academically relevant process for program vitality and re-vitalization as well as the termination of college programs. A collegial process involving both the local academic senates and college administrationcan work to eliminate inconsistent criteria and inappropriate objectives associated with programdiscontinuance. Senates must take a leading role in developing a well-defined, educationallysound program discontinuance policy that can then become one of the most important processesfor defining the balance of a college curriculum and the future of students' educational pursuits.The local academic senate needs to be especially involved and assist faculty in related disciplineswhen no full-time faculty are present in the affected program. Because part-time faculty are often less likely to be involved in college planning processes even though they may lead programs,their voices and perspectives are likely to be absent or diminished. The role of the academic senate is to represent all faculty and to ensure that all relevant voices are heard and respected. If aprogram without full-time faculty is under consideration for restructuring or discontinuance, thesenate must make every effort to ensure that the input of the part-time faculty in the program islegitimately included and the needs of the students in the program are taken into account.B. Roles of AdministratorsDistrict and college administrators also play various roles in program discontinuance by workingwith faculty, whether in program vitality or viability reviews or program discontinuance. Theywill likely have specified roles in a program viability or discontinuance policy that is developedthrough collegial consultation. Because they may be aware of issues such as environmentalchanges or workforce data regarding a program, administrators need to ensure that programs areroutinely reviewed, plans are developed, and actions are taken to ensure the strength and vitalityof programs are sustained. However, if the recommendation resulting from program discontinuance is the termination of the program, administrators facilitate the implementation of programdiscontinuance processes by providing necessary resources and support and making certain thatrecommendations resulting from program discontinuance processes are carried out. They are responsible for ensuring that all contractual and legal requirements regarding impacted employeesare met, students are accommodated, and the negative impact is mitigated as much as possible.Administrators manage regional issues that may arise from program discontinuance activities,Program Discontinuance Paper DraftOctober 8, 2012P a g e 11

ensure program discontinuance processes are linked with educational and budget planning processes, and usually make the final recommendation for program discontinuance to the board oftrustees.C. Role of the Governing BoardIn addition to the Title 5 requirement for the governing board of each community college districtto develop, file with the state chancellor, and carry out its policies for the establishment, modification, or discontinuance of courses and programs, the decision to discontinue a program ultimately rests with the members of the governing board itself. However, that decision needs to bebased on a deliberative process that the board approved and that was developed through collegialconsultation. Governing boards should ensure that district planning documents and policies,which are integrally linked to effective program discontinuance processes, are approved and implemented. Examples of such planning documents and policies include the district’s missionstatement, strategic and other master plans, and policies regarding student access and success.When the board makes the final decision to eliminate a program, the board members are responsible for responding to concerns from the community and upholding the collegial processes usedto come to that conclusion.5. Processes and CriteriaA. Developing a Process for Program Discontinuancei. Connecting Program Discontinuance to Educational and Budget PlanningCommunity college educational planning requires that the college examine what it does and howits current situation compares to a forecast of what is needed in the future, all while adhering tothe mission of community colleges. As stated in the Academic Senate’s 2009 paper Program Review: Setting a Standard,We see enrollments decreasing in course A and wait lists growing in course B so we offerfewer of A and more of B. But planning asks why these changes are occurring, whetherthe condition can be changed by the college and the faculty, and what is to be done.A college’s comprehensive educational planning process should connect to the prog

Sep 12, 2010 · Linda Collins, Los Medanos College, Sociology/Humanities Lin Marelick, Mission College, Graphic Design Richard Rose, Santa Rosa College, Counseling Chris Storer, DeAnza College, Philosophy Kathy Sproles, Hartnell College, English/Basic Skills David Wilkerson, Santa Barbara College, Student Senate Rep.