TOP Code Review and Revision

Resolution Number: 
Assigned to : 
Career Technical Education
In Progress

Whereas vocational programs are subject to performance-based accountability by SB 645 (January 1, 1996), requiring measures of employment rate, employment retention at one and three years, pre- and post-program participation earnings, and employer satisfaction, and

Whereas TOP coding and designated program titles/descriptions are used to identify program specialties and are specifically tied to tracking program graduates through the EDD using Social Security Numbers, and

Whereas vocational program viability for future state and federal funding is very much dependent on the accuracy of TOP code and program title and description designations as established through the Chancellor's Office, and accurate titles and descriptions currently exist in such documents as the Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Handbook, the American Medical Association Health Professionals Education Directory, and the local community college catalogues, and

Whereas many TOP codes are outdated, are inaccurate, or do not adequately identify current programs to meet statistical accountability of SB 645,

Resolved that the Academic Senate urge the Chancellor's Office to revise all TOP codes, titles, and descriptions on an ongoing basis and provide for the following procedures: 1. revise TOP codes annually as related to Federal Classification of Instructional Programs (CIP); 2. provide an annual opportunity for local senates to suggest appropriate changes in classification; and 3. provide an annual opportunity for local academic senates to suggest additions to TOP coding to reflect current practices.

I suspect that nothing has been done on this, but I am not sure. I recommend that SACC follow up on this to see if it is feasible and then suggest a recommendation on what to do with this resolution. (mwl 2009)
Status Report: 

Initial discussions between the President and Chancellor's Office staff have raised this issue, and considered the feasibility of ongoing review.

This issue was raised again in 2015-16 and has come up repeatedly. I believe it is under discussion at SACC.