DENTAL HYGIENE STANDARD MET STANDARD NOT MET STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL

Transcription

1 The Best Place to Start PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT INSTITUTIONAL EFFECTIVENESS DENTAL HYGIENE The Program Review Report assesses the viability and quality of credit and non-credit instructional programs to support program improvement through Area Improvement Plans, as established by College Procedure : Program Review. The Office of Institutional Research provides the data, which are by academic year as of August 31, 2013; the Office of Institutional Effectiveness produces the report, which presents the data by program. Standards are marked as Met or Not Met based on DISTRICT ( D ), not site, performance. Data by site are shown where available (if unavailable, boxes are blank). Standards after slashes denote critical thresholds, which identify especially unacceptable performance (and if not met, are marked "Not Met-Critical"). Results are color-coded, as follows: STANDARD MET STANDARD NOT MET STANDARD NOT MET - CRITICAL Viability Indicator scores 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompt formal review by the Program Review Committee. The Committee's authority concerning program continuation is limited to recommending that the senior instructional administrators review the program's capacity to improve its service to students and the community. The final decision on program continuation rests with the President. Program Type: Health Career Program Report s Recommendation Last Year: No Formal Review Program Review Committee Action required this year: No Formal Review - Viability above 50% Mandatory Accreditation: Yes Fully Accredited? (Y/N): Yes Reason Why Not Fully Accredited: THE PROGRAM S RECENT PERFORMANCE SCORES (Citation of a year such as "1415" or "2015" refers to the academic year.) VIABILITY QUALITY 85.71% 87.50% 87.50% 87.50% 66.67% 58.82% 72.22% 66.67% RECENT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PROGRAM REVIEW COMMITTEE None None None SOURCES 1. State Annual Data Profile, Mainframe, 2. Annual Data Profile and/or Automated Student and Adult Learner Follow-up System, 3. Mainframe/State Lonestar, EMSI proprietary database, 4. Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 5. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), 6. Banner, 7. Master Class Schedule (Mainframe), Fac. Employment Status (Mainframe), 8. SLO Assessment Task Force; TracDat database (All fields must have data for applicable cycle no blank fields), 9. Credit Student Faculty Evaluation, 10. Graduate Survey, 11. Employer Survey, 12. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, 13. THECB Statewide Annual Licensure Report, 14. Faculty Development Records, 15. Non-Credit Faculty Evaluation, 16. Course Syllabus (Curriculum Office), 17. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Program Review Status Form completed by Dean of District Discipline Coordinator/CE Dean/Director, 18. DACUM Audit (Curriculum Office), 19. Curriculum Office, 20. Advisory Committee Survey & Minutes, Employer Survey, 21. Student Banner Files, Budget Office, Public Community/Junior & Technical College Basis of Legislative Appropriations, 22. Credit Academic History. OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AND ACCOUNTABILITY Z:RS/ RPT/PROGREVRPT YR DENTALHYGIENE IE Report /16/ EPCC does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, gender, age, disability, veteran status, sexual orientation, or gender identity.

2 VIABILITY (Overall viability score 50% or lower or unmet Graduation and Student Success prompts formal review by the Program Review Committee) INDICATOR 1314 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2013) STATE-MANDATED 1. No. of Graduates Within latest 5-year period (Fall, Spring, Summer) provided by the State (State counts graduates with more than 1 award more than once) (For info. only, after the score: Latest 5-yr award total known to EPCC, if not the State) Source: 1 Standard: 25/<15 2. Student Success Percent of students employed/transfer/enter military w/in 1 yr of grad., for last 3 years provided by the State. Source: 2 Standard: 90%/<50% INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT 1. Workforce Demand Whether the no. of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso, Hudspeth, Dona Ana, Luna, & Otero counties during the 5 years following this report s publication meets/exceeds the no. of graduates during the 5 years preceding this report s publication. (See end of report for data) Source: 3 Standard: Yes 2. Contact/Credit Hours per FT Faculty Sufficient contact/credit hours for all discipline courses, District-wide, disregarding lecturers, for FT faculty workload for last 3 years (F/Sp). (Excluding C.E. courses) (Unduplicated) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 4 Standard: Yes/No 3. Class Fill Rate Percent of classes 75% full (including C.E. students), based on optimum and no. of students in each section for last 3 years (F/Sp/Sum) on census date; if room capacity is below optimum, score reflects room capacity. (For info. only, after score the measure is also calculated w/o C.E students.) (For info. only, District average fill rate appears after foregoing data (No. of seats filled divided by no. of seats available)) Source: 5 Standard: 80%/<50% 4. Enrollment Trends Seat count (including C.E. students) is increasing, level or decreasing no more than 5% from the benchmark year (1st yr of last 3 yrs, F/Sp/Sum), based on program-specific courses. (For info. only, after score measure calculated w/o C.E. students.) (For info. only, appears the unduplicated no. of students by year) Source: 6 Standard: Yes/>10% decrease 5. Full-Time Faculty in Discipline There is at least 1 FT instructor with primary teaching load in the discipline. (Sept. 1-May 1 of latest year) (Cred. Tran. & Career & Tech. versions of programs share the same results) Source: 7 Standard: Yes/No 6. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) For each 2-year cycle, has the program documented & implemented the recommendations for its active SLOs and completed its assessment process for its active SLOs? Source: 8 Standard: Yes 38. For inf. Data: For inf. Data: For inf. Data: % 100% 97.7% 96% Yes, for 69 Yes, for 73 Yes, for 76 D: 95% Dist. 99.3% D: No, -24%, Undupl. 2008: 109, 2010: 42 D: 98% Dist % D: No, -32%, Undupl. 2009: 150, 2011: 43 D: 94% Dist. 94.5% D: No, -8%, Undupl. 2010: 42, 2012: 36 Yes (Not scored) Yes Yes Yes 73. For inf. Only, EPCC Data: 77* Yes, for 77 last 5 years. D: 92% Dist. 91.5% ** D: No, -11%, Undupl. 2011: 43, 2013: 30** 92% No, -11% * revisions to the Program Review procedure increased the period of years covered from 3 to 5 and changed the standard from 15/<10 to 25/<15. ** revisions to the Program Review procedure required that C.E. students be included in the scored calculation. For information only, a second calculation was required to be made without including C.E. students; in the report, the changes are effective only for Advanced Technology Industrial Manufacturing, Electrical Technology, HVAC, and Machining Technology. The change will be applied to the remaining programs in the report. DENTAL HYGIENE 2

3 QUALITY INDICATOR 1314 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2013) STAKEHOLDER SATISFACTION/PROGRESS 1. Student Satisfaction with Program Based on fall/spring percent of students satisfied with labs & technology averaged for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on combined on averaged of responses: Excellent : 1, Good : 1, Acceptable : 1, Weak : 0, Unacceptable = 0. Average of 1=Satisfaction) Source: 9 Standard: 80% 2. Student Evaluation of Faculty Percent of satisfaction in fall/spring averaged for last 3 years, based on question: "Would you recommend instructor?" Source: 9 Standard 80% 3. Graduate Satisfaction with Program Based on percent of cumulative fall, spring, & summer graduates satisfied with usefulness of my major courses w/ respect to my job, availability of courses in my major, & level of technology in my major. (Combined average of all 3 responses) for previous 3 years. Source: 10 Standard: 80% 4. Employer Satisfaction Percent of surveyed employers satisfied with graduates for last 3 years. Names of employers surveyed provided by the Dean/District-wide Coordinator. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the 8 responses: Excellent = 1, Good = 1, Acceptable = 1, Weak = 0, Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction) Source: 11 Standard: 80% 5. Advisory Committee Satisfaction with Program Percent of surveyed members satisfied, based on averaged percent of satisfaction for the last 3 years. (Surveys scored 1 or 0 based on the combined average of the eleven responses: Excellent = 1, Good = 1, Acceptable = 1, Weak = 0, Unacceptable" = 0. An average of 1 indicates satisfaction.) Source: 12 Standard: 80% 6. Student Licensure/Certification, As Applicable Percent of graduates/completers receiving licensure/certification, based on annual pass rate for the most recent year. Source: 13 Standard: 90% D: 98% D: 96% D: 95% D: 96% 96% D: 95% D: 94% D: 94% D: 96% 96% Deferred pending review Deferred pending review 97% 94% 92% 100% 100% 88% yrs yrs INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT 1. Full-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of FT teaching Faculty at 2 prof. development activities during the fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of FT teaching Faculty at 2 such activities during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If FT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 100% Database under revision 85% 100% 100% DENTAL HYGIENE 3

4 INDICATOR 2. Part-Time Faculty Development For most recent year, percent of PT teaching Faculty at 1 prof. development activity during fall semester (1st day of fall Faculty Development Week (FDW) through last day of final exams) and percent of PT teaching Faculty at 1 such activity during spring semester (1st day of spring FDW through last day of final exams). If PT faculty teach in 2 or more programs, their attendance is credited to all the programs. Source: 14 Standard: 75% 3. Sections taught by Full-Time Faculty Percent of sections taught by FT Faculty for last 3 years (Fall, Spring). Source: 7 Standard: 50% 4. Course Syllabus Reviewed/revised within the last 3 years, based on no. of course syllabi in the program and the revision date of each syllabus. Source: 16 Standard: Yes 5. Advisory Committee Meetings Held at least once annually, based on the meeting date(s) of each program advisory committee for the last 3 years. Source: 17 Standard: Yes 6. DACUM Completion within last 5 years, based on completion date of each program DACUM. Source: 18 Standard: Yes 7. DACUM Findings Incorporated, as appropriate, into curriculum, based on most recent DACUM Audit for each program. Source: 18 Standard: Yes 8. Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Percent of ISD requests for articulation addressed through analysis of EPCC course objectives for last 3 years. Source: 19 Standard: 100% 9. Post-Secondary Articulation Agreements, as appropriate Written evidence of attempted/revised articulation within the last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes 10. Program Accreditation, As Applicable Maintains/actively seeking voluntary accreditation, based on documentation of accreditation or application for accreditation for last 3 years. Source: 4 Standard: Yes 11. Community Benefit/Service Percent of surveyed advisory committee members acknowledging program meets community needs for each of the last 3 years. Source: 12 Standard: 85% 12. Program Need Percent of surveyed employers acknowledging program is needed for each of the last 3 years. Names of surveyed employers identical to those used by Employer Satisfaction indicator. Source: 11 Standard: 85% 13. Competitive Advantage: Quality Percent of surveyed respondents acknowledging EPCC meets/exceeds quality of proprietary schools for each of the last 3 years. (Combined average of responses on both the Advisory Committee Survey and the Employer Survey) Source: 20 Standard: 85% Database under revision 71% 100% 100% 1314 (District Data as of Aug. 31, 2013) D: 84% D: 88% D: 88% D: 86%*** 86% N/A N/A N/A N/A yrs yrs yrs *** revisions to the Program Review procedure reduced the standard from 60% to 50%. DENTAL HYGIENE 4

5 VIABILITY INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT INDICATOR 1 - WORKFORCE DEMAND Measure: Whether the sum of new and replacement jobs in the field forecast for El Paso and Hudspeth Counties and the New Mexico counties of Dona Ana, Luna and Otero during the 5 years following the publication of the Program Review Report meets or exceeds the number of graduates during the 5 years preceding the publication of the report. To ensure that the data include career paths addressed by the program, each program shall provide the IE Office with a list of jobs for which it prepares graduates. The listings are from the EMSI database, which was created in 2001, in consultation with the Association of Community College Trustees (ACCT), to track occupational demand and wages nationally, by state and by region, drawing on some 91 databases, which include those of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The number preceding each occupational title is the unique Bureau of Labor Statistics SOC (Standard Occupational Classification) number assigned to each job title. Job titles were specified by the disciplines. Numerical anomalies may be due to rounding. SOC Code Occupation TOTAL NUMBER OF JOBS PER YEAR Total New/Replacement Jobs Average Hourly Wage (2012) Dental Hygienists $30.27 Associate's degree Education Required DENTAL HYGIENE 5