Introduction The PRVC has established the structure through which identified programs or departments will enter into a viability review (Appendix A). Possible reasons for the initiation of a viability review include: A) Decline of 30% or more in census enrollment throughout the program over a 5 yr period (excluding winter & summer sessions) B) Consistently low enrollments of 50% below the maximum fill rate capacity over a 5 yr period C) A new program never reached the 50% fill rate D) Poor rate for student achievement of program goals (e.g. completion rate, number of degrees and certificates, transfer, transfer readiness) E) A major shift in the field/discipline F) Personnel changes that will leave, or have left the department without a full time faculty member G) Declining market/industry demand or community needs H) Program no longer central to the college mission and educational master plan I) Program no longer in line with current technology J) Unresolved problem or issue for which all other administrative remedies have been exhausted -Please explain in attached narrative K) Other condition(s) The College President, the Academic Senate President or the supervising Vice President can request a review of a program for any of these reasons. The PRVC reviews the documentation submitted by the requesting party and enters into a dialog centered on the programs ability to meet its mission and promote student learning. Should the committee determine that a viability review is warranted, a viability review will be initiated. The goal of the review is to determine whether modifications in programming could improve the reviewed program in a manner that enhances the College mission. Following approval of the PRVC, a Viability Committee is created with the following constituencies: The Supervising Vice President of the reviewed unit 2 Deans 3 Academic Senate representatives (at least 1 chair from similar type of department: Vocational Education or Liberal Studies) The Curriculum Chair 1 AFT representative 1 Classified representative (if department employ classified instructional assistants or Laboratory Technicians) 1 Research and Planning Facilitator 1 | P a g e A viability review for the Program for Adult College Education (PACE) was initiated by the Program Review and Viability Committee (PRVC) on September 23, 2008. The viability review was initially requested by Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Richard Moyer. Dr. Moyer collaborated with the supervising Dean of PACE, Vy Li, to prepare an initial report requesting a viability review on the PACE program (Appendix B). The report indicates a continuous decrease in PACE enrollment that fits condition A for requesting a Viability Review: Decline of 30% or more in census enrollment throughout the program over a 5 year period (Appendix C). In addition, the report indicates a concern that PACE has deviated from its stated model and moved away from the pedagogy focusing on a cohort model. Given these concerns, the PRVC approved the creation of a viability committee to review PACE, determine the viability of the program in its current state, and make recommendations for programmatic improvements that will assist PACE in best meeting the needs of its student population. Following the approval of the viability process, a viability committee for PACE was created with the following representation: Vice President Richard Moyer Deans Vi Ly and Karen Daar Academic Senate Representative Robert West Academic Senate Representative Helen Sarantopoulus Academic Senate Representative and PACE Director Kirk Olsen Curriculum Chair Steve Wardinski AFT Representative Viviana Castellon Research and Planning Facilitator Kim Misa The viability structure calls for a data collection period in which the Viability Committee works to decide which data elements will be used in the viability decision- making processes. The stipulated elements may include: A) Enrollment-- current and projected B) Class retention C) Term-to-term persistence of students in major (compared to college & state-wide norms for discipline over 3-5yrs) D) Program completion / transfer readiness / transfer rates / articulation efforts E) Rate for student achievement of program goals (i.e. Completion rate) F) Number of degrees and certificates awarded G) Student learning outcomes H) Frequency of course offerings to assure reasonable opportunity for completion of the program I) Relationship to College mission J) Relation of the program to the Educational Master Plan K) Program Review recommendations L) Importance of service to related programs 2 | P a g e M) Quality and the breadth of the curriculum, teaching, & learning process; Currency of course outlines N) Percentage of faculty who have participated in professional development activities in their discipline over the last three years O) FTES generated by the program P) Budget/cost factors (but not primary consideration) Q) Comparison of WSCH to cost (when appropriate) R) State and other external regulations and requirements; outside accreditation S) Impact/service/needs to the community T) Demand for program U) Staffing Levels V) Outside expert opinion W) Student perceptions (position papers) X) Any additional data requested by the Viability Review Committee Given the diversity of programming offered at ELAC, the Viability Committee must determine the most appropriate data based on the program under review and the cause for review indicated in the initial request. The approach used reflects data from a broad range of constituents across campus and the District. This approach served multiple purposes: to collect formative and summative feedback on the program, to understand the PACE program from start to present day, and to provide students, staff, faculty, and administrators a structured opportunity to reflect on and share their experiences with respect to PACE. Data was collected from various perspectives. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were employed. The specific data included: Research and Planning Office data from the past 3 years on: a. Section counts and course offerings b. Enrollment c. Student Headcount and demographics d. Estimate of PACE students (using PACE admissions requirements) Position papers from the interim director of PACE, past director of PACE, and the supervising Vice President a. Both the current and former directors of PACE were solicited for position papers. They were requested to define the original conception of the program, where the program has deviated from the original concept, and a current assessment of the program. Testimonials from PACE faculty Phone Interviews with Chairs and Administrators Student surveys Information from other campuses within the District 3 | P a g e Over the course of several months, the Research and Planning Office in conjunction with Dean Vy Li and PACE director, Kirk Olsen gathered the required data elements. The following report represents the major findings of the data collection process. General interpretations are offered to assist the Validation Committee in determining the strengths and weaknesses of the PACE program and in developing central recommendations for programmatic improvement. PACE Description History The PACE program was developed in the 1970’s as a general education core curriculum meant for working adults (Appendix D). The original model called for half the classroom hours required in traditional courses with the remainder of required time dedicated to instructional television and participation in weekend conference lectures and activities. The PACE program was first initiated in the Los Angeles Community College District in 1981with complete core curriculum leading towards an Associate in Arts degree in five semesters. The emphasis on working adults was determined based on the increase in non- traditional college students who were outside the traditional age range between 18 and 22. The goals are to provide high quality liberal arts-based education to fulltime working adults through interdisciplinary and team taught courses based upon themes oriented towards working adults. In doing so the program aims to qualify students for AA completion and/or transfer and develop student skills in reading, writing and critical thinking. At East Los Angeles College, PACE was adopted in the mid 1980s. The program is described in the following manner: PACE is a college program enabling people with daytime commitments who want to enroll in college and work towards transfer or completion of a degree. In five semesters, by following the pre-designed PACE curriculum, transfer requirements can be met. Upon completion of the program, students may also be able to earn an Associate in Arts and/or satisfy the general education transfer requirements and lower division requirements in teaching or business majors for some California State Universities and other private colleges and universities. The PACE student takes one or two courses at a time during an eight-week session. There are two eight-week sessions per semester; therefore, the student typically completes three or four courses each semester. Eleven to thirteen units are earned per semester and, 60 transferable units can be completed in five semesters. Attendance involves one weekday evening selected by the student, Monday through Thursday from 6 pm to 10 pm, and six to seven Saturdays per eight-week session. Students have the choice of taking the weekday evening classes at the ELAC campus as well as various off-campus locations. Saturday classes are scheduled