Year-End Report for Academic Senate & Committees 2019-2020 … · committees. The results for...

Year-End Report for

Academic Senate

&Committees

2019-2020

President’s Summary

The Academic Senate is one of three senates at SCCD. We are the largest Senate with 30 members and 9 committees (two of which are subcommittees). We represent all faculty in professional and academic matters. (Things covered under the 10+1.). Additionally, the Academic Senate also provides feedback to the district on matters and policies that are not covered under 10+1. The following report has changed again from previous years. Last year, we replaced the very long summary of every initiative from the Academic Senate and its committees. The results for initiatives are provided in the year-end reports that follows this introduction. Additionally, last year all of the feedback from the governance reports was omitted; instead, each committee included a summary evaluation of the governance surveys with their reports. Surprisingly, this report was only about five pages shorter than the previous year. Now, thanks to our Office of Research, Planning, and Institutional Effectiveness, we have a full accounting and analysis of the feedback provided for the Academic Senate and its committees. This adds considerably to the length of our year-end report, but it leaves little left to the imagination!

The Academic year (2019-2020) marked the end of my first term as Academic Senate President and one that saw many changes in the Academic Senate. Over the year, the Academic Senate approved more changes, as it did the year before. This year, we formed a task force with District Governance Senate to develop a new framework and membership for the EDAC Committee. As well, this task force created a new Administrative Procedure (AP) for changing the governance structure in the District. Both initiatives were complete, including the passing of the new documents through the governance process. Finally, the Academic Senate held its first election in the Senate, whereas in past years, we had faculty-wide elections.

In all, the Academic Senate and its committees undertook 33 initiatives (not including routine business and analysis of the governance surveys). Out of those 33 initiatives, the committees designated the completion of 24 as “Satisfactory,” 14 as being “carried forward,” one as “will not pursue,” and two as “Needs Improvement.” It is clear by looking at these designations and reviewing the reports that the few “needs improvements” were on initiatives that will be carried forward. The biggest shift we have seen since last year is going from four to fourteen in the number of initiatives that have been carried forward. It turns out that COVID-19 made it difficult to complete all of our initiatives, especially with so many of our faculty learning to flip their courses online.

As you will see in the following year-end reports, the Academic Senate has been busy. It appears that this next year will be full of challenges as we address the continued COVID-19 emergency and call for action to end systemic racism.

Sincerely,

Greg Turner,

Academic Senate President

Committee/Council/Senate ReportAcademic Senate

Senate - AcademicPurpose Statement: The Academic Senate is a governance and consultative body that represents full-time and adjunct District faculty. The primary purpose of the AcademicSenate are the following:1. Advise the administration and Board on academic and professional matters.2. Make appointments of full-time faculty to other governance bodies and/or their committees.

The Academic Senate meets every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month during the academic year. See the Academic Senate web site under Governance for more details.Membership: Executive Members:Greg Turner (AS President)Juan Arzola (Vice President, Equivalency & IPEC chair)Sondra Bergen (AS Secretary/treasurer & State Delegate)Sarah Harris (O&A and Curriculum chair)Lisa Hott (Committee A chair)Landon Spencer (Committee B chair)Deborah Nolan (ETC & DECOS chair)Joseph Teller (FEC Chair)

Senators:AJ- Alicia CrumplerAG - Shannon CooperIT - Brian UnruhBusiness- Lisa Hott, Gabriel GiannandreaCommunication & Languages- Jonathan BrooksConsumer Family Studies- Glena CrumalEnglish- Katie Beberian, Landon Spencer, Lucia TejedaFine Arts- Chris MangelsLibrary- Emily CampbellMath/Engineering- Stephanie Collier, Melissa MyersNursing/Health Science- Terri Paden, Karen RobertsPhysical Education- Michelle BoltScience- Joshua Dillard, Teresa MendozaSocial Science- Timothy Linehan, Marla Prochnow, Alicia CrumplerStudent Services- Jason Ford, Emily BrionesAdjunct Faculty- Karen Erickson, Celeste SolisClassified- Mayra Diaz

08/17/2020 Generated by Nuventive Improve Page 1 of 3

ASB- Kenneth O'Leary

Initiatives Evaluations Results Actions

Initiative Status: Inactive

Report Type: End-of-Year

The Academic Senate missed quorum one time during the2019 - 2020 Academic year. This resulted in an emergencymeeting where quorum as met. Additionally, after March of2020, the Academic Senate began meeting virtually throughConfer Zoom. All Agenda's and Minutes have beencomposed and distributed by the Academic Senatesecretary. (08/17/2020)

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to Outcome

All meeting agendas have beenproperly posted and distributed toall faculty prior to each meeting.All meeting minutes have beenapproved, but not all are yet posted.All Academic Senate meetings haveattained quorum and haveconducted the business of theSenate.Attendance at meetings is recordedin the minutes.The Academic Senate met quorumfor all meetings in 2015-2016 exceptone.Minutes and agendas have beenposted.

Academic Year: 2019 - 2020, 2020 -2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022 - 2023, 2023- 2024, 2024 - 2025, 2025 - 2026,2026 - 2027, 2027 - 2028, 2028 -2029, 2029 - 2030

Completion of Routine Business -Agendas postedMinutes approved and postedQuorum attainedAttendance at meetings recorded inminutes

Start Date: 08/21/2013



Please see the attached report from the Research Office.(08/17/2020)


Academic Year: 2019 - 2020, 2020 -2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022 - 2023, 2023- 2024

Evaluate district governance surveyfeedback - The Academic Senate willevaluate feedback given by Senatorsin the district governance survey.


The joint Task-force between the Academic Senate andDistrict Governance Senate resulted in the creation of a

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to OutcomeProcesses for changing the District

governance structure. - Incollaboration with DGS, develop andcodify processes for changing the



Initiative Status: Activenew AP that describes how the District can modify itsgovernance structure. (08/17/2020)

Directly related to Outcome

Academic Year: 2019 - 2020

governance structure.

Initiative Status: Active


The joint Task-force between the Academic Senate andDistrict Governance Senate resulted in the creation of theEquity and Diversity Action Committee (EDAC). Theframework for this new committee, which was moved fromAcademic Senate (as the Equity Committee) was movedthrough the governance process. The committee formedbefore the end of the of the 2019 - 2020 academic year.(08/17/2020)



Move the Equity Committee underDGS - In collaboration with DGS,move and/or combine the jointinitiative work group and equitycommittee to a committee underDGS.



The Academic Senate held a training on September 6th,2019 that covered Robert's Rules, 10 +1, and facultyleadership roles. (08/17/2020)



Academic Senate Training - Plan andcomplete Academic Senate trainingfor new and returning Senaterepresentatives.


Committee/Council/Senate ReportCommittee A

Committee - Standing Committee APurpose Statement: Committee A is a standing committee of the Sequoias Community College District. As such, it is charged with Senate business that is referred by theAcademic Senate President with the consensus of the Academic Senate, Faculty issues, guidelines and proceedures.Membership: 2018-19. Lisa Hott (chair), Chris Mangels, Mainou Her, Gabe Giannandrea, Amelia Sweeney, Timothy Linehan, Stephen Tootle, Brian Unruh,Michelle Bolt, Terri Paden, Glena Crumal



Action: A large list of district-widecommittees have been identifiedand the items that should bemaintained for each committeewas determined based onresearch into other college'spublished committees andinternal discussions. It wasdetermined that Committee Abeing responsible for consistentupkeep of committee members,etc. is unrealistic, but ifCommittee A were updated oncea year by each committee chair byforwarding information toCommittee A, it may be feasible.There were discussions regardinghaving committee chairs use theHelp Desk to request changeswhen needed on the Districtwebsite, rather than reportingthem to Committee A orComputer Services can be


Research has been done and conversations are continuingon how to best implement. (05/29/2020)

Result: Carried ForwardDirectly related to Outcome

Academic Year: 2019 - 2020, 2020 -2021

Tracking and publicizing committees- Create, publicize, and maintain a listof District committees and theirfaculty membership.



Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsconsulted for other ideas. Thisinitiative will be carried forward tothe 20/21 year. (08/05/2020)



Inactive Date: 02/26/2020


In discussions with the BIT team, Academic SenatePresident, Greg Turner, Committee A chair, Lisa Hott, andFEC Chair, Joseph Teller, it was determined that a TaskForce will be formed with Faculty and Administration Co-chairs and faculty members (membership to bedetermined). This team will work with the new Maxientsoftware and the BIT committee. Potential charges for thetask force: 1) Create a statement of Academic Integrity 2)Study Ed Code for allowable boundaries of sanctions foracademic misconduct 3) study best practices of othercolleges 4) Determine potential sanctions for instructors todetermine vs. sanctions for a committee level (for moreserious or multiple offenses) 5) Create an AcademicIntegrity page on the COS website that would include thestatement of Academic Integrity, Code of Conduct, Trainingsand Workshops, video tutorials and a link to Maxient 6)changes to BP's/AP's 7) Advertising Maxient to faculty.Committee A considers that their work is completed on thisinitiative. (08/05/2020)



Investigate an academic integritycommittee - Investigate the feasibilityof creating an “Academic IntegrityCommittee” that would work inconjunction with the BehaviorIntervention Team to address loggedstudent violations of academicintegrity such as cheating/plagiarism.



Committee/Council/Senate ReportCommittee B

Committee - Standing Committee BPurpose Statement: Committee B is a standing committee of the Sequoias Community College District. As such, it is charged with Senate business that is referred by theAcademic Senate President with the consensus of the Academic Senate, including, but not limited to Academic Senate elections and referendums and revisions to the AcademicSenate Constitution and by-laws.Membership: Landon Spencer, Shannan Cooper,, Brice Nakamura, Katie Beberian, Teresa Mendoza, Emily Briones, Johnathan Brooks, Emily Campbell, Karen Roberts, CelesteSolis, Stephanie Collier, Jason Ford




Committee B met regularly on the first Wed of each monthin spring 2020 until the Covid19 situation arose., keepingand posting minutes on the COS Academic Senate website.After that point, we conducted informal discussion of someitems through email. (05/21/2020)


Academic Year: 2015 - 2016, 2016 -2017, 2017 - 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019- 2020

Conduct routine business -Committee B will conduct routinebusiness, including meeting regularlyduring the academic year, abiding byour Bylaws, recording and postingminutes, and reporting to the fullSenate as required.




Greg Turner and Landon Spencer had scheduled a meetingwith Dr. La Serna in March 2020, but this meeting waspostponed due to the Covid19 situation. In fall, Senateshould discuss whether to carry this initiative forward, orwhether there is cause to amend the initiative to somethingregarding attendance issues in the Covid19 situation.(05/21/2020)



Research Attendance Polices -Committee B will research currentattendance polices and guidelinesand potentially makerecommendations for improvedfaculty resources and guidance indeveloping and adhering to classpolices regarding attendance andparticipation.






Committee B held Senate Officer Elections and reported theresults to the COS faculty. (05/21/2020)



Academic Senate Election of Officers- Committee B has begun to plan forthe election of Senate officers tooccur in Feb of 2020 in accordancewith the newly revised constitutionand bylaws.




Committee B will discuss in fall if any further actions arecalled for to include in the description of election process.(05/21/2020)



Actively encourage candidates forAcademic Senate officer positions -Encourage additional candidates forAcademic Senate office throughtraining, distribution of Senate jobdescriptions, and other methods asappropriate.



Committee B will complete the written procedure in fall2020. (05/21/2020)



Write-up of Senate ElectionProcedure - Committee B will developa written procedure on how toconduct Academic Senate Electionsbased on the newly revised AcademicSenate Constitution and AcademicSenate Bylaws.




Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020

Revise Academic Senate Bylaws -Revise Academic Senate Bylaws basedon feedback from Academic Senate atfirst meeting of the academic year.


Six out of eleven committee members responded to theResult: Satisfactory

Directly related to OutcomeAssess Year-end Survey - Analyze theresults of the year-end governancesurvey


Initiatives Evaluations Results ActionsInitiative Status: Inactive survey. This response rate is a bit low--in future semesters

the chair will send a reminder email to encourage greaterresponse rates.

Questions:The committee met its roles and responsibilities1 Agree, 5 Strongly AgreeAdequate and appropriate resources are available tosupport my work2 Agree, 4 Strongly AgreeThe workload of this committee is appropriate2 Agree, 5 Strongly AgreeThe committee was effective in completing its initiatives1 Agree, 6 Strongly AgreeThe committee stayed on task1 Agree, 5 Strongly AgreeThe committee adhered to Robert's Rules6 Strongly Agree

The results show that all respondents agreed with all thequestions and felt good about the work load and thecommittees effectiveness at completing the work. Therewere few written responses, these included that "we are aneffective team" "leadership was good" and "we need tocontinue the attendance initiative as it was interrupted byCovid19." (05/21/2020)

Directly related to OutcomeAcademic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020Start Date: 05/01/2019


Committee/Council/Senate ReportCurriculum Committee

Committee - CurriculumPurpose Statement: The purpose of the Curriculum Committee, as reflected in the COS Governance Manual, is to: Review and approve all proposed changes andadditions to District curriculum; Review other District functions related to curriculum; Advise the Vice-President of Academic Services oncurriculum development; and Review the general education requirements and recommend changes as appropriate.

The committee meets the first Wednesday of each month during the academic year.Membership: Co-Chairs:Dr. Sarah HarrisDr. Jennifer La Serna

Articulation Officer:Greg Keen

Course Librarian:Daniel Alverado

Faculty Representatives:Amy Vega-PritchettAndy HinojosaVanessa BaileyCharles AbeeImara QuinonezLeah VelasquezMilena SeyedEric HeatheringtonErik ArmstrongJames McDonnellMario BringettoAnne MorrisDavid HeywoodBarbara Laird

Deans:Brent Davis


Jesse WilcoxonJenny Sae ChaoJonna SchengelLouann WaldnerRichard LubbenMichele BrockFrancisco BanuelosThad Russell

Advisory Members:Deborah Nolan - DE CoordinatorAmanda Cota - Financial AidResource SpecialistMary-Catherine Oxford – Director ofLearning Resources

Student Representative:Alyssa Arce





Academic Year: 2013 - 2014, 2014 -2015, 2015 - 2016, 2016 - 2017, 2017- 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019 - 2020

Review and approve all curriculumchanges - Send reports for allcurriculum changes to Senate, Districtand Chancellor's Office. Advise Dr.LaSerna on curriculum matters.





Academic Year: 2013 - 2014, 2014 -2015, 2015 - 2016, 2016 - 2017, 2017- 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019 - 2020

Currency - Ensure course andprogram currency.


Report Type: End-of-YearResult: Satisfactory

Directly related to OutcomeMeta Majors - Using data frommultiple sources, including COS




This initiative was satisfactorily completed at mid-year.(08/05/2020)



summits and the RP group, identifyand categorize areas of study in aninitial Meta-Majors draft.




Currency updates for ESL curriculum are in-progress andcatalog updates for ESL placement have been submitted.The district is AB705 compliant for ESL. Math and Englishco-requisite data has been collected and shared by theresearch office; this initiative will be updated in fall tosupport data submission to the Chancellor's Office.(08/05/2020)



AB705 ESL - Support Districtimplementation of AB705 byreviewing ESL curriculummodifications in a timely manner andcollecting Math and English co-requisite support data.




The CPL taskforce was moved from curriculum committeeto the Academic Senate, as membership could not belimited to CC members. The committee taskforce met toupdate the AP/BP on pre/co requisites -- this update wasdelayed by the COVID-19 emergency but is on-track for fallsubmission to governance. (08/05/2020)

Result: Will Not PursueDirectly related to Outcome


CPL - Update District AP/BP’s asappropriate to comply with Title 5requirements on Credit for PriorLearning and Pre/Co-Requisites.




District policy on disipline re-assignment was completedand approved by the committee. Handbook developmentwas delayed by the COVID-19 emergency and will be movedto next year's initiatives. (08/05/2020)



Curriculum Handbook - Create aDistrict curriculum handbook, toinclude curriculum policy, process,and technology guidelines.



The committee met eight times in 2019-2020, completingroutine business including but not limited to review ofcourses and programs, completing training in curriculumprocesses, and the transition to virtual meetingsnecessitated by the COVID-19 emergency. In addition to

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to OutcomeStandard Business - The committee

will complete routine business suchas taking up curriculum issues anddeveloping curriculum policies asnecessary, resolving curricularproblems, developing andmaintaining the current procedures in




completion of routine business, the committee alsoreviewed several policies related to the emergency,including feedback on grading policies, an update to the DEaddendum form, and the creation of a plan for emergencyDE addendum course approvals. Although some initiativeswere delayed by the emergency, the committee was able tocomplete most initiatives and provide timely response tourgent District needs.

Agendas and minutes for all meetings are posted on thecommittee website:https://www.cos.edu/en-us/governance/academic-senate/curriculum-committee

20 committee members completed the annual governancesurvey. Of the committee members surveyed, all agreed thecommittee met its roles and responsibilities (100%), andmost agreed the committee provided adequate resources(95%), had an appropriateworkload (85%), was effective in completing its initiatives(95%), stayed on task (95%), and adhered to Robert's Rules(90%). Comments indicate that though the committee itselfremains focused and on-task, additional resources forfaculty and completion of the committee's handbookinitiative (which was delayed by the COVID-19 emergency)should be priorities for next year, as well as a focus onresources for remote work/instruction.

The committee will continue to conduct its standardbusiness, but has done so effectively for this year.(08/05/2020)



the CMS, completing an annualevaluation of the governance survey,etc.



Committee/Council/Senate ReportDistance Education Committee (DECOS)

Committee - Distance EducationPurpose Statement: a. Review and recommend policies and procedures for the conduct of online instruction and the operation of online coursesb. Make recommendations to the Academic Senate regarding priorities as they relate to instructional support for online and hybrid coursesc. Provide input to the Academic Senate on the development of policies and academic initiatives as they relate to online coursesd. Serve as a discussion forum for pedagogical issues regarding the teaching, learning, assessment, ADA/504/508 compliance, and student support services for online andhybrid courses.

Meets on the first Tuesday of the month. 2019: 9/3, 10/1, 11/5, 12/3. 2020: 2/4, 3/3, 4/7 (spring break), 5/5Membership: Distance Education Coordinator, co-chair (Deborah Nolan)VP of Academic Services or designee, co-chair (Mary-Catherine Oxford)Faculty (one per division) appointed by Academic Senate upon recommendation from the divisionsAgriculture – vacantBusiness – Lucy DeCaro and Susan MazzolaConsumer Family Studies – Glena CrumalFine Arts – Mike TackettIndustry and Technology – Donal HowellLanguage Arts – David HurstLibrary –Math – Don RoseAllied Health – Joe SousaP.E. – vacantScience – vacantSocial Sciences – Linda Del RioCounseling – Lyndsi LittenOne classified employee appointed by classified employees (Jeremy Tierce)One student, nonvoting, appointed by students

Initiatives Evaluations Results ActionsReport Type: End-of-Year

We had been waiting to revise the DLA after theChancellor's Office issued the long-awaited new DEguidelines. That release has been delayed, so we were going

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to OutcomeRevise Distance Learning Addendum

(DLA) - Due to changes in title 5 andrecommendations from the newstate-wide DE guidelines, thecommittee will review and revise the




to wait until next year to finish this initiative. COVID-19necessitated the immediate revision of the DLA which waspassed by DECOS on May 5th. (05/08/2020)



Distance Learning Addendum to theCourse Outline of Record (COR).




In the spring 2020 semester, DECOS approved therecommendation of a 30-day trial of CourseEvalHQ, anEtudes product. The next step was to select a studentquestionnaire to be used in the trial. COVID-19 caused adelay in the selection process. This initiative will be carriedforward to 2020-2021. (05/08/2020)



Student Questionnaires for OnlineClass Faculty Evaluation - Since somefaculty who teach online select onlineclasses to be observed for theirfaculty evaluation process, DECOSbelieves that the process forobtaining student feedback isunacceptable as it has beenaccomplished. DECOS will exploreoptions with the goal of making arecommendation to the AcademicSenate.




DECOS has discussed the idea of creating a new DE plan forthe District but could not agree on a focus. It was agreed atthe May 5th meeting that we may want to carry forwardthe initiative to 2020-2021, so we have placed it on theSeptember 2020 agenda. The District's COVID-19 responsehas impacted every aspect of DE, all of which will requiretime to understand. (05/08/2020)



Develop New DE Plan for the District- The 2017-2020 DE Plan has reachedits end of life. Because of the successof the 2017-2020 plan, DECOS intendsto develop a new plan for 2020-2023.




All routine business for 2019-2020 was completed. Agendasand relevant documents were posted, and the committeeevaluation survey was conducted. (05/08/2020)



Routine Business 19-20 - DECOS willconduct routine business as outlinedin the Governance Manual, includingthe review of annual committeesurvey.



Committee/Council/Senate Report2019 - 2020 Equivalency Committee End-of-Year Report

Committee - EquivalencyPurpose Statement: The Equivalency Committee’s is primary charge is to determine whether a candidate who applies for equivalency has the equivalent education and/orexperience/expertise to meet the minimum qualifications for a Faculty Service Area (FSA). Secondarily, the committee’s charge is to review campus processes and policies forequivalency and make recommendations for revision when warranted.Membership: Juan Arzola (chair)Craig ArnoldJeanne DraperRolando GonzalezDonal HowellRick Mangnall




During the spring 2020 semester, the Equivalency met onetime and approved two equivalency requests. However, theresults were not published on the Committee's share pointsite, as the Committee chair still does not have properauthority to do so. (05/25/2020)


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020, 2020 - 2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022- 2023, 2023 - 2024, 2024 - 2025

Updating Equivalency Results onWeb - Equivalency Committee willprovide updates on share point on aregular basis regarding progress oninitiatives and the number ofequivalency requests granted anddenied.




The Equivalency Committee met two times during thespring 2020 semester through various forms ofcommunication (online through email and conference call)based on the Committee's agreed upon 2019 - 2020

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to OutcomeRoutine Business - Equivalency

Committee will meet regularly toaddress routine business, such asapproval of minutes and agenda, andupdate on initiatives.


Initiatives Evaluations Results ActionsMeeting Schedule. (05/25/2020)Directly related to OutcomeAcademic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -

2020, 2020 - 2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022- 2023, 2023 - 2024, 2024 - 2025Start Date: 08/17/2015



The Equivalency Committee begun amending AP 7211,specifically, a new the Committee began discussing a needfor a new Template for Equivalency Request, which is tiedto one of the Committee's initiatives (Initiative #5). Due tothe COVID-19 emergency and fallout, the Committee didnot make any progress on the initiative. (05/25/2020)


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020, 2020 - 2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022- 2023, 2023 - 2024, 2024 - 2025

Review and Revise AP7211 andBP7211 - The Equivalency Committeewill review and revise, as necessary,AP 7211 and BP 7211.




There were 4 respondents to the survey provided to theCommittee members by the District. The 4 surveyparticipants is represents 66.6% of the Committee andshould allow for an analysis of the effectiveness of theCommittee. Here are the survey questions, as well as thequantitative and qualitative response scales presented tothe survey participants:

Question 1: Based on your involvement with theEquivalency Committee, on a scale of 1 – 4, (1 stronglydisagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score each ofthe following:

a. The senate/committee/council met its roles andresponsibilities.b. Adequate and appropriate resources are available tosupport my work on this senate/committee/council.c. The workload of this senate/committee/council isappropriate.d. The senate/committee/council was effective incompleting its initiatives.e. The senate/committee/council stayed on task.f. The senate/committee/council adhered to Robert’s Rulesof Order.


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020, 2020 - 2021, 2021 - 2022, 2022- 2023, 2023 - 2024, 2024 - 2025

Analyze District Governance Year-End Survey Results - The Committeewill conduct an analysis of the DistrictGovernance Year-End Survey Resultsat its last regular semester meeting.



Initiatives Evaluations Results ActionsQuestion 2: How could the Equivalency Committee improveits effectiveness in regard to meeting its roles andresponsibilities?Question 3: How might the Equivalency Committee improveits effectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?Question 4: What resources are needed to assist theEquivalency Committee in performing its operations?Question 5: What topics should be addressed by theEquivalency Committee next year?Question 6: Are there any additional roles or responsibilitiesthe Equivalency Committee should be fulfilling?

Here are the survey results for question 1(a-f), as well asanalysis of the open-ended written responses to questions2 - 6.

1a. Seventy-five percent of survey respondents eitherstrongly agreed or agreed that "[t]hesenate/committee/council met its roles andresponsibilities." One respondent disagreed with thestatement.1b. All survey respondents either strongly agreed or agreedthat "[a]dequate and appropriate resources are available tosupport my work on this senate/committee/council."1c. All survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that"[t]he workload of this senate/committee/council isappropriate."1d. Survey respondents were split in the views, with 50%disagreeing (one strongly disagree & one disagree) and 50%agreeing (one strongly agree & one agree) that "[t]hesenate/committee/council was effective in completing itsinitiatives."1e. Seventy-five percent of survey respondents stronglyagreed or agreed that "[t]he senate/committee/councilstayed on task." One respondent disagreed with thestatement.1f. All survey respondents strongly agreed or agreed that"[t]he senate/committee/council adhered to Robert’s Rulesof Order."

Question 2: How could the Equivalency Committee improve



Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsits effectiveness in regard to meeting its roles andresponsibilities?There were 3 written responses. One response highlightsthat the effectiveness of the Equivalency Committee wasimpacted by the failure "to adhere its established meetingschedule." This statement represents the failure of the chairto bring the committee together after the shutdown of thecampus and eventual transition to online learning.

The two other responses highlighted that the effectivenessof the Equivalency Committee is hampered by theequivalency claims process. There has been difficulty inrecent equivalency claims, particularly for Career TechnicalEducation applicants, that proved difficult to determineequivalency. The Equivalency Committee will be vetting andhopefully adopting a new Equivalency Request templatealong with a video tutorial on applying for equivalency mayaddress these concerns.

Question 3: How might the Equivalency Committee improveits effectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?There were 3 written responses. One response highlightsthat the effectiveness of the Equivalency Committee wasimpacted by the failure "to adhere its established meetingschedule." This statement represents the failure of the chairto bring the committee together after the shutdown of thecampus and eventual transition to online learning.

Another response speaks to the failure of the chair toproperly manage committee work, specifically the need toestablish deadlines for when such work should becompleted and presented to the Committee. The otherresponse identifies the continued challenge with properlyvetting equivalency requests. The chair must do a better jobwith holding committee members accountable forcompleting assigned work in a reasonable time. To do so,the chair will need to establish mandatory deadlines forassigned work. As for the need to "finish instructions fordepartments", the committee will hopefully address thisissue in the next academic year with the adoption of a newEquivalency Request template and video tutorial on



Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsapplying for equivalency.

Question 4: What resources are needed to assist theEquivalency Committee in performing its operations?There was one written response; however, the respondentdoes not believe the Equivalency Committee needsadditional resources.

Question 5: What topics should be addressed by theEquivalency Committee next year?There were 4 written responses. There appears to be acommon theme in 3 of the 4 written responses: improvedequivalency vetting process. These responses wereadvanced due to the challenges that the EquivalencyCommittee experienced when vetting equivalency claims ofCareer Technical Education applicants. As explained earlier,these past challenges should be addressed with the newlyrevised AP 7211 and this issue has been calendared for thenext academic year. The other response reflects a view thatthe Committee does not need to investigate additionaltopics.

Question 6: Are there any additional roles or responsibilitiesthe Equivalency Committee should be fulfilling?There were no substantive written responses. (05/25/2020)




Due to the limited number of times the EquivalencyCommittee met in the spring semester, this initiative wasnot completed. However, it is clear that the committeemembership agrees on the need to modify the AP 7211;specifically, removing the Sample Application SeekingEquivalency Based on Coursework for an academicdiscipline attachment (pages 16 - 19), and replacing with atemplate that will present specific, relevant informationrequired to determine equivalency. Hence, the EquivalencyCommittee will continue working on this template withhopes of presenting a draft to the Academic Senate for theirconsideration in the early part of the fall 2020 semester.(05/25/2020)



New Template for EquivalencyRequests - The EquivalencyCommittee will develop a newtemplate (example) of an academicand Career Technical Education (CTE)equivalency request that reflects acomparison of course descriptionanalysis.






Due to the limited number of times the EquivalencyCommittee met in the spring semester, this initiative wasnot completed. However, the Committee believes, as anequity matter, that there is a need to assist prospectiveequivalency applicants with an instructional video thatprovides direction and shares insight on the approach tocompleting a request for equivalency, while ensuring thatthe applicant includes the correct information that willallow the Equivalency Committee to properly vet suchrequests. Hence, this initiative will be pursued in the 2020-2021 academic year. (05/25/2020)



Instructional Video on Applying forEquivalency - The EquivalencyCommittee will produce aninstructional (how-to) video onapplying for equivalency at SequoiasCommunity College District.



Committee/Council/Senate ReportFaculty Enrichment Committee

Committee - Faculty EnrichmentPurpose Statement: a. Review and approve faculty enrichment activities proposed by faculty, staff, and administration; administer the District's Flexible Calendar Programb. Record FLEX hours for facultyc. Communicate available development opportunitiesd. Solicit, support, and evaluate faculty sabbatical proposals; recommend faculty sabbatical proposals to the District as per governance processese. Solicit and evaluate faculty proposals for Institutional Improvement Projects as per COSTA Master Agreement.

Membership: a. Faculty co-chair, elected from faculty membershipb. Administrator co-chair,VP of Academic Services or designeec. Faculty (up to one per division) appointed by Academic Senate upon recommendation from the divisionsd. One classified employee appointed by classified employeese. One student representative

1. Joseph Teller, faculty co-chair2. Jesse Wilcoxson, administrative co-chair3. Faculty Membershipa. Agriculture – VACANTb. Business - VACANTc. Consumer Family Studies – Kyran Wileyd. Fine Arts – Allyson Sullivane. Industry and Technology – Mario Bringettof. English – David Hurstg. Library – Linda Yamakawah. Math – Jon Blakelyi. Nursing – Nancy Schneiderj. P.E. – Kim Rixk. Science – Ryan Froesel. Social Science – David Wheelerm. Counseling – Cynthia Beltrann. Language and Communication - Christopher Stillwello. Adjunct – VACANT4. One classified employee appointed by classified employees – Nicole Tudor, FEC Master of All Knowledge5. One student representative -- Patrick Richardson


(updated 9/16/19)




FEC received no applications for Sabbaticals for AY 2020-21.The committee is confident that this is a direct result of theworkload and uncertainty created by the COVID-19pandemic, which began affecting the college directly onMarch 12, 2020. As a committee, we believe this yearcannot serve as a useful data point when it comes toconsideration of demand and need for faculty sabbaticals.FEC plans to continue with our established processes forsoliciting, evaluating, and recommending sabbaticals in thenext academic year. (05/01/2020)


Academic Year: 2015 - 2016, 2016 -2017, 2017 - 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019- 2020

Sabbaticals - Develop sabbaticalpolicies and processes in conjunctionwith District through governanceprocesses; revise AP/BP onsabbaticals; solicit, evaluate, andrecommend faculty sabbaticals to theDistrict for AY 2019-20.




FEC received one application for an IIP for AY 2020-21. Thecommittee was pleased with the IIP application, andrecommended it to the President/Superintendent as perthe COSTA MA. Given the previous year's demand for IIPs,FEC believes the comparatively low submission rate is adirect result of the COVID-19 pandemic, which beganaffecting the college's operations on March 12, 2020. FECdoes not believe this year can serve as a meaningful datapoint when it comes to considering faculty need anddemand for IIPs. (05/01/2020)


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020

Institutional Improvement Projects -FEC will develop processes forrecommendations for InstitutionalImprovement Projects as per 12.6 ofthe COSTA MA.




FEC coordinated and helped secure funding for a widerange of AB 705-related trainings throughout AY 2019-20.Although these trainings (both on- and off-site) were mostfrequent and regular for math, English, and ESL, otheracademic divisions participated in their own in-housediscussions, resulting in a variety of pedagogical andcurricular shifts in thinking. The FEC faculty co-chair willneed to continue coordination with academic divisions (andpossibly "AB 705 Leads," should the District retain thesepositions) for continued training and PD when it comes to


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020

Preparation for Implementation ofAB 705 - FEC will coordinate trainingand other preparatory enrichmentactivities for the full implementationof AB 705 (in fall 2019).



Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsteaching in the post-AB 705 world. FEC should also considerdiscontinuing this initiative in the next AY and replacing itwith a more appropriate initiative re: ongoing facultytraining for co-requisite support classes (since AB 705 hasbeen a reality for a full year and we are, strictly speaking,past the "implementation" stage). (05/01/2020)




FEC worked closely with IT to develop electronic forms andto onboard Cornerstone as the platform for coordinatingand tracking professional development. Unfortunately,because of a lack of institutional coordination on DistrictObjective 4.3.1, and a consequent lack of a District-levelProfessional Development Plan, work on Cornerstoneintegration has stalled. As the only constituency activelyworking with IT on this initiative, FEC lacks the resources tocontinue alone in on-boarding Cornerstone, and can onlyresume work on this project when there is broaderinstitutional support for a District-wide PD plan of whichCornerstone is a part.

Fortunately, however, this collaboration with IT has resultedin electronic forms for all FEC proposal and self-documentation forms, which could be made available andintegrated into FEC's process exclusive of Cornerstone byFall 2020 or Spring 2021. (05/01/2020)

Result: Needs ImprovementDirectly related to Outcome

Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020

Integration of Cornerstone Softwarefor Faculty Enrichment - FEC willcoordinate with District to implementCornerstone training software forfaculty enrichment activities.




FEC began the academic year with a budget of almost$40,000 for the funding of adjunct faculty stipends for PDand service work at COS. As of 5/20, FEC has distributedalmost 80% of this total to faculty for their participation inPD and service activities. This total would likely have beenhigher were it not for the COVID-19 pandemic interruptingregular institutional operations.

Additionally, FEC has implemented and supported the new"Faculty Mentorship Program," which has seen a number ofapplicants in the past AY. We hope to increase the number


Academic Year: 2014 - 2015, 2015 -

Promote adjunct faculty attendanceat workshops and conferences - FECfunds are set aside to pay adjunctfaculty to attend on-campusworkshops and off-campusconferences. There is a growingdemand for adequate adjunct facultytraining, and FEC needs to continue tofacilitate and meet this need boththrough offering of enrichmentactivities and by financial support.


Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsof adjunct faculty participating in this program.(05/01/2020)

Directly related to Outcome2016, 2016 - 2017, 2018 - 2019, 2019- 2020Start Date: 10/07/2014



As discussed in the update on the Cornerstone initiative,there has been no further work completed on DistrictObjective 4.3.1 (the development of a District-wide PDplan). In addition, the Giant Questionnaire has not beenadministered, which is the usual instrument FEC uses todevelop its own Professional Development plan. FEC needsto survey faculty again ASAP to discern the faculty'sprofessional development needs, and needs to update itsown internal professional development plan based on thesefindings. This is important, too, in order to comply with theState's guidelines for the Flexible Calendar Program.

Additionally, FEC needs to be more assertive in coordinatingdata-based pedagogical sessions. Currently, Convocationdays and Dialog Days are the only times set aside for officialdata-driven conversations, but FEC would like to see moreregular sessions focused specifically on teaching strategiesas they grow out of meaningful data practices. This iscertainly work that can be improved or clarified movingforward. (05/01/2020)

Result: Needs ImprovementDirectly related to Outcome

Academic Year: 2015 - 2016, 2016 -2017, 2017 - 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019- 2020

Data Training - Promote District-widetraining related to the uses of data,especially as it grows out of theFaculty Enrichment Plan.




FEC has continued publishing information through regularemails and through the monthly newsletter (though regularpublication of the newsletter has been interrupted forApril/May due to COVID-19 and the increased workloadrelated to this pandemic). Orientation information has beenadded to Canvas, reflecting essentially the same orientationmaterial that has been used for new full-time and part-timefaculty orientations during the August Convocation Weekbefore each Fall term. FEC should continue the newsletteras a vital source of PD info. (05/01/2020)


Academic Year: 2017 - 2018, 2018 -2019, 2019 - 2020

Review and update FECwebsite/online presence - FECinformation, including information onsabbaticals, as well as FLEX activitiesand requisite forms are all availableon the FEC webpages. We need to (1)keep this information up to date, and(2) increase the availability of FECmaterials and orientations in Canvas.


Assessment of District Governance





Related Documents:FEC Survey Results AY 2019-20.pdf

Results from the DG Survey were positive across the board.See related documents. Out of 7 respondents (a sizableproportion of the committee), 100% agreed or stronglyagreed with all assessment areas, and the few writtencomments expressed uniform satisfaction with the workFEC has accomplished. Overall, it seems the committeebelieves we are discharging our duties well and efficiently,and there are no obvious avenues suggested forimprovement at this time. (05/01/2020)


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -2020

Survey - This initiative will track andanalyze the results of the annualDistrict Governance Survey.




Completed, with flair, regularly.

FEC will need to revisit and possibly update its bylaws in thecoming AY in order to keep them current and accurate. FECwill also need to implement and revise initiatives based onthe end-of-year report available sometime in May 2020.(05/01/2020)


Academic Year: 2016 - 2017, 2017 -2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019 - 2020

Conduct regular business - FEC willconduct regularly business meetingsusing its bylaws and will also reportregularly to the academic senate onthe progress and status of itsinitiatives. FEC will review and act onresults of end-of-year committeesurvey conducted by District.



Committee/Council/Senate ReportGE Committee

Committee - General EducationPurpose Statement: 1. Draft and maintain the district’s general education policy and plans

2. Assist in developing general education outcomes/assessments

3. Conduct annual assessments of the committee’s own processes

Membership: Co-Chairs: Jesse Wilcoxson & Linda Flora

Committee Members:

Ray Alvarado

Emily Briones

David Jones

Annette Klein

Josh Muller

Manlia Xiong

Greg Keen, Articulation Officer

Student Representatives: Natalie Cosmos

Guests: Daniel Alvarado, Vanessa Escobar

Initiatives 2019-2020: Develop alternative GELO assessment process.



Action: -The committee met five

times between September 27,

2019 and February 21, 2020. We

had two more meetings planned

but when the college went online

in March, we were not able to

organize any further meetings.

Thus our end-of-the-year business

was not completed.

-Five courses (SSCI 108; AGMT


The committee met five times in 2018 - 2019. One course

(SJS 110) was reviewed and approved for the COS GE

pattern. Minutes and meeting agendas are posted on the

committee website:

https://old.cos.edu/About/Governance/AcademicSenate/G

eneralEducation/ (08/19/2019)

Result: Carried Forward


Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -

Standard Business - The committee

will complete routine business as

assigned in the Governance Manual:

drafting and maintaining the District’s

general education policy and plans,

and assisting in developing general

education assessments.


Initiatives Evaluations Results Actions006; OH 001; KINE 088; KINE 093)

were reviewed. Four were

approved for the COS GE pattern.

-Minutes and meeting agendas

are posted on the committee

website:

https://old.cos.edu/About/Govern

ance/AcademicSenate/GeneralEd

ucation/ (08/11/20) (08/11/2020)

Directly related to Outcome2020




Academic Year: 2018 - 2019, 2019 -

2020

Governance Survey Review - The

committee will review the annual

results of the governance survey and

make plans for improvement as

needed.



Action: From our first meeting in

September, committee members

discussed past GE assessment

practices, results from those

practices, and whether the

work/outcome balance made

sense. As a group we decided the

most important information we

need is confirmation that every GE

approved course can show that a

significant portion of the

curriculum is based on the GE area

for which that course gained

approval. None of the processes

previously attempted

accomplished this goal without a

massive time committment from

the GE committee members. Also,

we believe we would more

success if the faculty in charge of


Related Documents:GE Assessment Proposed Process 2.21.20.docx

Our committee worked diligently on this initiative until

COVID interrupted our plans. We reviewed past assessment

methods and results, including the methods we attempted

during the 18/19 academic year. We worked directly with

Sarah Harris to explore workable assessment options. After

much discussion and research, we designed a plan and

proposal to implement an alternative approach. We were

not able to complete this initiative and will carry it forward

to the 20/21 academic year. (05/08/2020)

Result: Carried Forward



Develop alternate GELO assessmentmethod - Work with Curriculum

Committee to design a GELO

assessment plan that accurately

follows GE Committee governance

policy



Initiatives Evaluations Results Actionsthe courses made the decisions

about which artifacts best

represent the GE area.

We researched GE assessment

protocols and methods from a

wide-variety of two-year colleges.

We developed an assessment plan

proposal, see attached, that we

hoped to share with the

groups/individuals who might be

involved. However, COVID

prevented us from further

investigation of the possible

technical and practical barriers to

'The Plan'. This work will be

continued with a during the 20/21

academic year.

(05/08/2020)



End-of-Year ReportOutcomes Assessment Committee

Committee - Outcomes and AssessmentPurpose Statement: (1) Make recommendations to the Academic Senate on student learning outcome assessment(2) Monitor the development and assessment of student learning outcomes(3) Recommend and/or provide training for faculty, staff, and administrators related to the development and assessment of student learning outcomesMembership: Co-Chairs:Thad Russell/ Angela SanchezSarah Harris

Representatives:Allison Ferry-Abee–AGVACANT –BUS/WEXPRaul Angeles –CFSMegan Baptista-Geist–ENGLJames McDonnell –FINAWilliam Reilly–I&TJeff Maryanow - LANGManlia Xiong –LIBRDavid Jones –MATHLorie Campbell –NURSJoseph D’Agostino–PELinda Flora –SCIJosh Muller–SOCSKristine Hodges –STSVRyan Barry-Souza--Research Office




The committee met seven times over the course of theacademic year and successfully completed routine business.All committee documents, including minutes and agendas,are available on the committee website.


Academic Year: 2015 - 2016, 2016 -

Standard Business - The committeewill complete routine business asdescribed in our bylaws, including theannual review of the governancesurvey.


Initiatives Evaluations Results Actions10 committee members responded to the governancesurvey. Of those respondents, 100% agreed that thecommittee met its roles and responsibilities, that thecommittee effectively completed its initiatives, that thecommittee stayed on task, and that the committeeworkload was appropriate, that adequate resources wereavailable and that the committee adhered to Robert's Rules.Comments generally suggest that the committee isoperating effectively, but suggest reviewing TracDat foreffectiveness, collaboration with other groups includingIPRC and the GE committee, and working to get PLOassessments completed.

The committee will continue to conduct its standardbusiness, but has done so effectively for this year.(08/01/2020)

Directly related to Outcome2017, 2017 - 2018, 2018 - 2019, 2019- 2020Start Date: 09/07/2015



The committee held the first of two planned assessmentworkshops for the assessment of critical thinking in Springwith several participants, however the second plannedworkshop was cancelled due to COVID-19. It will be re-imagined as a virtual event this fall. (08/01/2020)



Critical Thinking ILO - Follow up onand complete the ILO Assessment ofCritical Thinking/ Problem Solving/Analysis.




The committee completed planning for the life skills ILOassessment to mirror the critical thinking workshop model,including a rubric design and collection of several sampleassignments. This assessment will likely be scheduled forSpring, with additional planning should there be a need tomeet virtually. (08/01/2020)



Life Skills - Design assessment of theLife/ Interpersonal Skills ILO.




The committee provided several training sessions in fall aspreviously reported, and was able to provide open hours inSpring. However the planned Spring dialogue day sessionwas cancelled due to the COVID-19 emergency.(08/01/2020)

Result: SatisfactoryDirectly related to OutcomeTraining 2019 - Provide assessment

training, materials, and support tofaculty, including supporting guidedpathways implementation withtraining on outcomes mapping andMeta Majors.


Initiatives Evaluations Results ActionsAcademic Year: 2019 - 2020Start Date: 09/06/2019



The OAC chair and a shared committee member met withthe IPRC to discuss training and make sure suggestedupdates to TracDat phrasing to help emphasize assessmentreporting in program review. (08/01/2020)



PLO Assessment - Work with ProgramReview committee to increase use ofprogram-level assessment results andencourage completion of PLOassessment.



��$04��(PWFSOBODF�4VSWFZ��3FQPSU��"DBEFNJD�

4FOBUF�BOE�$PNNJUUFFT�3FTVMUT

+VMZ��

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2

Academic Senate and Committees Aggregate Results .............................................................................. 3

Academic Senate and Committees Observations ......................................................................................10

Academic Senate Results ............................................................................................................................14

Curriculum Committee Results .................................................................................................................22

Distance Education Committee Results .....................................................................................................30

Educational Technology Committee Results .............................................................................................38

Equity Committee Results ..........................................................................................................................46

Equivalency Committee Results .................................................................................................................54

Faculty Enrichment Committee Results ....................................................................................................62

General Education Committee Results ......................................................................................................70

Outcomes & Assessment Committee Results ............................................................................................78

Standing Committee A Results ...................................................................................................................86

Standing Committee B Results ...................................................................................................................94

1

To:

From: Date:

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). During Spring 2020, all members of the Academic Senate (AS) and the Academic Senate committees were invited to participate in the 2020 COS Governance Surveys. The surveys provided members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experiences at COS, including insight into the workload, roles/responsibilities, effectiveness, and future directions of the senate/committee. This report includes the results from member of the Academic Senate as well as the Curriculum, Distance Education, Educational Technology, Equity, Equivalency, Faculty Enrichment, General Education, Outcomes & Assessment, Standing A, and Standing B Committees, who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. Overall, the response rate was 54% (N = 90). The response rate for the Academic Senate survey was 63% (n = 20). The response rate for the Curriculum Committee survey was 80% (n = 20), and the response rate for the Distance Education Committee survey was 55% (n = 6). The response rate for the Education Technology Committee survey was 59% (n = 10), and the response rate for the Equity Committee survey was 27% (n = 3). The response rate for the Equivalency Committee survey was 67% (n = 4), and the response rate for the Faculty Enrichment Committee survey was 47% (n = 7). The response rate for the General Education Committee survey was 25% (n = 3), and the response rate for the Outcomes & Assessment Committee survey was 59% (n = 10). The response rate for the Standing Committee A survey was 10% (n = 1), and the response rate for the Standing Committee B survey was 50% (n = 6).

Attached for your review and use, is the 2020 Governance Survey report for the Academic Senate and its committees. The report includes the aggregate results, as well as the individual senate/committee results with comments. You may share the survey results and comments, as appropriate.

Please be aware that survey results are only reported in the aggregate so that the privacy of the respondent is protected. Disclosure of the personally identifiable information to unauthorized parties violates the Family Education Rights & Privacy Act (FERPA). This report includes comments/responses to open-ended questions and may include sensitive information. It is expected that employees/administrators exercise the privilege of using such data/information with care and integrity, and protect the confidentiality and privacy of individuals. Please use this information only for its intended purpose and handle it in a professional and careful manner as required by the District’s General Ethical Standards (COS AP 3050). If the survey results and comments indicate that there may be a personnel issue that requires attention, please contact your immediate supervisor and Human Resources, as appropriate.

The Office of Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness is happy to provide consultation and assistance with interpretations of the survey results, if needed. We highly encourage you to submit a Data/Research Request form for additional survey data and analysis: https://www.cos.edu/en-us/Research/Pages/Ad-Hoc-Data-and-Research-Requests.aspx

Sincerely,

Dr. Mehmet “Dali” Ozturk Dean, Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness

Subject: 2020 Governance Survey Report – Academic Senate and Committees Results

Greg Turner, Academic Senate President

Dr. ehmet Dali Ozturk, Dean, Research, Planning and Institutional Effectiveness uly 23, 2020

2

"DBEFNJD�4FOBUF��$PNNJUUFFT�

"HHSFHBUF�3FTVMUT

3

***Note. The scores ranged from Strongly D

isagree (1) to Strongly Agree (4). H

igher scores indicated greater agreement w

ith the statement.

3.553.45

3.603.50

3.453.35

3.673.67

3.603.60

2.502.50

3.253.50

3.713.43

3.333.33

3.60

3.30

4.004.00

3.833.67

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Met roles &

responsibilitiesA

dequate & appropriate resources are available

Average Agreement Scores for Each Statem

ent By Comm

ittee

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education

Educational TechnologyEquity

EquivalencyFaculty Enrichm

ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

4

98%97%

100%95%

100%95%

100%100%

100%100%

50%50%

75%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Met roles &

responsibilitiesA

dequate & appropriate resources are available

Percent of Respondents who Agree/Strongly Agree w

ith Each Statem

ent

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education



ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

5




ith the statement.

3.403.40

3.473.37

3.203.30

3.833.83

3.603.50

1.50

2.50

3.25

2.50

3.573.57

3.003.33

3.403.40

4.004.00

3.673.83

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

The workload is appropriate

Effective in completing its initiative


ent By Comm

ittee

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education



ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

6

93%94%

100%100%

85%

95%100%

100%100%

90%

0%

50%

100%

50%

100%100%

67%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The workload is appropriate

Effective in completing its initiative


ith Each Statem

ent

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education



ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

7




ith the statement.

3.473.45

3.503.45

3.303.20

3.673.50

3.603.50

2.00

3.003.25

3.25

3.713.57

3.503.33

3.403.60

4.004.00

3.834.00

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

Stayed on taskA

dhered to Robert's Rule of Order


ent By Comm

ittee

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education



ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

8

95%96%

100%95%

95%90%

100%100%

100%100%

0%

50%

75%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%100%

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Stayed on taskA

dhered to Robert's Rule of Order


ith Each Statem

ent

All A

S & Com

mittees

Academ

ic SenateCurriculum

Distance Education



ent

General Education

Outcom

es & A

ssessment

Standing Comm

ittee AStanding Com

mittee B

9

"DBEFNJD�4FOBUF��$PNNJUUFFT�"HHSFHBUF�

0CTFSWBUJPOT

10

re committees meeting their roles and responsi ilities

This statement was agreed/strongly agreed to by the most participants. On average the Academic Senate and its committees all agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee met its roles and responsibilities, with 98% of all senate and committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all members of the Academic Senate as well as the curriculum, distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, general education, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee met its roles and responsibilities, while only 50% of the equity committee agreed/strongly agreed with the statement. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and all its committees combined was 3.55 which indicates that most participants strongly agreed that their respective committee met their roles and responsibilities. The Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and all its committees combined. While still in agreement, with the statement, the curriculum, equivalency, and general education committees had lower average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and all its committees combined. The equity committee had lowest average rating, and its committee’s average rating bordered agreed/ disagreed.

re ade uate and appropriate resources availa le to the committees

On average the Academic Senate and its committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee had adequate and appropriate resources available, with 97% of all senate and committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all members of the distance education, educational technology, equivalency, faculty enrichment, general education, outcomes & assessment, standing A and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committees had adequate and appropriate resources available, while only 50% of the equity committee agreed/strongly agreed with the statement. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and its committees combined was 3.45 which indicates that most participants agreed that their respective committee had adequate and appropriate resources available. Finally, the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, equivalency, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. While still in agreement with the statement, the curriculum, faculty enrichment, general education, and outcomes & assessment committees had lower average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. The equity committee had lowest average rating, and its committee’s average rating bordered agreed/ disagreed.

re the committees wor loads appropriate

This statement was agreed/strongly agreed to by the least amount of participants, but on average the Academic Senate and its committees all agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee’s workload was appropriate, with 93% of all senate and committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all the members of the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, equivalency, faculty enrichment, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee had an appropriate workload, while none of the equity committee members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement.

11

On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and its committees combined was 3.40 which indicates that most participants agreed that their respective committee had an appropriate workload. Finally, the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. While still in agreement with the statement, the curriculum, equivalency, and general education committees had lower average ratings, while the outcomes & assessment committee had the same average rating when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. The equity committee had lowest average rating, and on average did not agree with the statement. Its committee’s average rating bordered disagreed/ strongly disagreed.

re the committees effective in completing initiatives

On average the Academic Senate and its committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee was effective in completing its initiatives, with 94% of all senate and committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all the members of the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, faculty enrichment, general education, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee was effective in completing its initiatives, while only 50% of the equity and equivalency committees agreed/strongly agreed with the statement. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and its committees combined was 3.40 which indicates that most participants agreed that their respective committee was effective in completing their initiatives. Finally, the

distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating the Academic Senate and its committees combined. While still in agreement with the statement, the Academic Senate as well as the curriculum and general education committees had lower average ratings, while the outcomes & assessment committee had the same average rating when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. The equity and equivalency committees had lowest average rating, and these committees’ average rating bordered agreed/disagreed.

o the committees stay on tas

On average the Academic Senate and its committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee stayed on task, with 95% of all senate and committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all members of the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, general education, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee stayed on task, while none of the equity committee members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and its committees combuned was 3.47 which indicates that most participants agreed that their respective committee stayed on task. Finally, the Academic Senate as well as the distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, general education, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. While still in agreement with the statement, the curriculum, equivalency, and outcomes & assessment committees had lower average ratings when compared to the average rating the Academic Senate and its committees combined. The equity committee had lowest average rating, with its members’ average rating being disagree .

12

o the committees adhere to o ert s ules of rder

On average the Academic Senate and its committees agreed/strongly agreed that their respective committee adhered to Robert’s Rules of Order, with 96% of all committee members selecting agree or strongly agree. Additionally, all members of the distance education, educational technology, equivalency, faculty enrichment, general education, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees agreed/strongly agreed that their committee adhered to Robert’s Rules of Order, while only 50% of the equity committee members agreed/strongly agreed with the statement. On a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree), the average score for the Academic Senate and its committees combined was 3.45 which indicates that most participants agreed that their respective committee adhered to Robert’s Rules of Order. The distance education, educational technology, faculty enrichment, outcomes & assessment, standing A, and standing B committees had greater average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. While still in agreement, with the statement, the curriculum, equity, equivalency, and general education committees had lower average ratings when compared to the average rating of the Academic Senate and its committees combined. The Academic Senate had the same average rating as the Academic Senate and its committees combined.

13

"DBEFNJD�4FOBUF�3FTVMUT

14

cademic Senate– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Academic Senate – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Academic Senate members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of 20 responses were received to the survey during this time (20/32).

15

Academic Senate - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Academic Senate, on a scale of 1– 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score

each of the following:Answered: 20 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

40%8

60%12 20

0%0

5%1

40%8

55%11 20

0%0

0%0

53%10

47%9 19

0%0

0%0

63%12

37%7 19

0%0

0%0

50%10

50%10 20

0%0

5%1

45%9

50%10 20

Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly Agree

Thesenate/commi...

Adequate andappropriate...

The workloadof this...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

60%60%60%60%60%

55%55%55%55%55%

47%47%47%47%47%

37%37%37%37%37%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

40%40%40%40%40%

40%40%40%40%40%

53%53%53%53%53%

63%63%63%63%63%

50%50%50%50%50%

45%45%45%45%45%

5%5%5%5%5%

5%5%5%5%5%

STRONGLYDISAGREE

DISAGREE AGREE STRONGLYAGREE

TOTAL

The senate/committee/council met its roles and responsibilities.

Adequate and appropriate resources are available to supportmy work on this senate/committee/council.

The workload of this senate/committee/council is appropriate.

The senate/committee/council was effective in completing itsinitiatives.

The senate/committee/council stayed on task.

The senate/committee/council adhered to Robert’s Rules ofOrder.

16


Q2 How could the Academic Senate improve its effectiveness in regard tomeeting its roles and responsibilities?

Answered: 6 Skipped: 14

# RESPONSES DATE

1 Continue to work with COSTA 4/23/2020 4:34 PM

2 The Academic Senate was effective in meeting its roles and responsibilities. 4/20/2020 8:52 PM

3 no changes 4/19/2020 11:13 AM

4 I can't think of another way to improve our already effective ways. 4/16/2020 9:54 AM

5 Doing well. 4/13/2020 8:52 PM

6 Maybe set aside time to think about long term goals in a structured way. 4/13/2020 1:02 PM

17


Q3 How might the Academic Senate improve its effectiveness in regard toaccomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 I think it would be nice to switch senators periodically from Committee A and B, especially ifsenators serve for several years.

4/24/2020 11:34 AM

2 Screen initiatives before just assigning them to a committee. 4/23/2020 4:34 PM

3 The Academic Senate was effective in accomplishing its initiatives. 4/20/2020 8:52 PM

4 By providing stronger initiates of equal importance to both standing committee A and B. 4/20/2020 9:16 AM

5 no changes 4/19/2020 11:13 AM

6 We are already effective at accomplishing initiatives. 4/16/2020 9:54 AM

7 Doing well. 4/13/2020 8:52 PM

8 Before beginning a task, identify how it ties back to a goal. 4/13/2020 1:02 PM

18


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Academic Senate inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Budget for awards. 4/23/2020 4:34 PM

2 The Academic Senate does not require additional resources to perform its operations. 4/20/2020 8:52 PM

3 no changes 4/19/2020 11:13 AM

4 None that I can think of. 4/16/2020 9:54 AM

5 just keep on with the surveys to help us make decisions. There have been some recent movesto make this better...Just keep is up!

4/13/2020 8:52 PM

6 Time! 4/13/2020 1:02 PM

19


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Academic Senate next year?Answered: 6 Skipped: 14

# RESPONSES DATE

1 First item - Senate should look into the practice of management violating Ed Code 76224 ofchanging grades from what was assigned by the instructor, especially when students petitionfor Academic Renewal and the instructor is no longer working at the college, but in otherinstances as well. Second item - The cannibalization of classes due to excessive dualenrollment Third item - Determine a way to evaluate the rigor of dual enrollment classes held athigh schools.

4/23/2020 4:34 PM

2 Equity and Critical Pedagogy in the class room. 4/20/2020 8:52 PM

3 review spring 2020 effects on students and faculty (survey maybe?) 4/19/2020 11:13 AM

4 This has already been discussed and a list has been created. 4/16/2020 9:54 AM

5 Well, our current COVID-19, which includes at minimum, grading and the issues surroundingdistance education.

4/13/2020 8:52 PM

6 Holding the line on academic standards. 4/13/2020 1:02 PM

20


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the Academic Senateshould be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No 4/20/2020 8:52 PM

2 no 4/19/2020 11:13 AM

3 No. 4/16/2020 9:54 AM

4 Ensuring academic integrity in hiring. 4/13/2020 1:02 PM

21

$VSSJDVMVN�$PNNJUUFF�3FTVMUT

22

urriculum Committee– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Curriculum Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Curriculum Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of 20 responses were received to the survey during this time (20/25).

23

Curriculum Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Curriculum Committee, on a scaleof 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score


0%0

0%0

55%11

45%9 20

0%0

5%1

55%11

40%8 20

0%0

15%3

50%10

35%7 20

0%0

5%1

60%12

35%7 20

0%0

5%1

60%12

35%7 20

0%0

10%2

60%12

30%6 20


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

45%45%45%45%45%

40%40%40%40%40%

35%35%35%35%35%

35%35%35%35%35%

35%35%35%35%35%

30%30%30%30%30%

55%55%55%55%55%

55%55%55%55%55%

50%50%50%50%50%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

5%5%5%5%5%

15%15%15%15%15%

5%5%5%5%5%

5%5%5%5%5%

10%10%10%10%10%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







24


Q2 How could the Curriculum Committee improve its effectiveness inregard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No suggestion 4/22/2020 9:12 PM

2 A clearly defined handbook would help many non curriculum committee members. I know it is inthe works but is on hold due to COVID-19

4/20/2020 10:33 AM

3 CC did a good job transitioning to remote meetings. Meetings went well and time managementimproved.

4/20/2020 9:43 AM

4 It would be helpful to have deans be voting members. 4/18/2020 9:47 AM

5 Sarah does a great job; but still hard to get work on the course level 4/14/2020 3:13 PM

6 By having its roles and responsibilities clarified for each member. The new handbook mighthelp with this, too.

4/13/2020 3:00 PM

25


Q3 How might the Curriculum Committee improve its effectiveness inregard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE


2 Other members of the Curriculum Committee could head up subgroups or task forces. Toooften this falls to the same people.

4/21/2020 2:54 PM

3 Sarah does a good job in keeping the committee on task and focused on intiatives. 4/20/2020 9:43 AM

4 more help on how to get faculty to update courses - maybe they should get a direct email fromSarah.

4/14/2020 3:13 PM

5 By prioritizing and focusing. Also, not adding new ones if possible. 4/13/2020 3:00 PM

26


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Curriculum Committee inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE


2 The workload for this committee can be pretty steep, especially depending upon the Divisionthat one represents. More resources to make that workload more manageable would be helpful.This could include reassigned time, etc.

4/21/2020 2:54 PM

3 Sarah/Daniel always provide the necessary resources. 4/20/2020 12:33 PM

4 Dialog Days are nice to allow faculty time to collaborate and get input from the CurriculumChair.

4/20/2020 10:33 AM

5 Instead of one time high paced training offer ongoing focused training with plenty of examples,guided problem solving scenarios to work on, and shared best practices for all members.

4/13/2020 3:00 PM

27


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Curriculum Committee nextyear?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Best practices in teaching remotely 4/22/2020 9:12 PM

2 Continue GP work Course Outlines (curricular requirements) and COVID-19 emergencyContinue Curriculum Handbook As I type these, clearly just continue work on initiatives that didnot get/could not be addressed during the COVID-19 emergency.

4/21/2020 2:54 PM

3 Continued work on a curriculum handbook. Quick cliff notes style tutorials for new faculty thatexplain curriculum processes. Videos would be helpful in an easily accessible place.

4/20/2020 10:33 AM

4 Emergency distance education addendum Support for labs teaching remotely 4/20/2020 9:43 AM

5 How to receive more help and input (instead of hurried approvals and only occasionalcomments) during the course design or updating process while working in the CourseLeaf.

4/13/2020 3:00 PM

28


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the CurriculumCommittee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 None 4/22/2020 9:12 PM

2 No, this committee does a lot already. 4/21/2020 2:54 PM

3 None I feel the committee is doing its job adequately 4/20/2020 10:33 AM

4 Sarah and Daniel do an amazing job! 4/18/2020 9:47 AM

5 No. 4/13/2020 3:00 PM

29

%JTUBODF�&EVDBUJPO�$PNNJUUFF�3FTVMUT

30

istance ducation ommittee overnance urvey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Distance Education Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Distance Education Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of six responses were received to the survey during this time (6/11).

31

Distance Education Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Distance Education Committee,on a scale of 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly

agree) score each of the following:Answered: 6 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

33%2

67%4 6

0%0

0%0

33%2

67%4 6

0%0

0%0

17%1

83%5 6

0%0

0%0

17%1

83%5 6

0%0

0%0

33%2

67%4 6

0%0

0%0

50%3

50%3 6


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

67%67%67%67%67%

67%67%67%67%67%

83%83%83%83%83%

83%83%83%83%83%

67%67%67%67%67%

50%50%50%50%50%

33%33%33%33%33%

33%33%33%33%33%

17%17%17%17%17%

17%17%17%17%17%

33%33%33%33%33%

50%50%50%50%50%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







32


Q2 How could the Distance Education Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 A good 5 minutes per meeting should be used for reflection. All of us teach DE. Our problemcould be other problems. A good example is searching for an Online, Hybrid or in person class.These are college problems that we should be addressing. Not individual specific ones.

4/13/2020 10:45 AM

33


Q3 How might the Distance Education Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

There are no responses.

34


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Distance EducationCommittee in performing its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 We need a clone of Deborah Nolan! 4/24/2020 3:20 PM

2 N/A 4/13/2020 10:45 AM

35


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Distance EducationCommittee next year?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Evaluation of online classes 4/24/2020 3:20 PM

36


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the DistanceEducation Committee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

There are no responses.

37

&EVDBUJPOBM�5FDIOPMPHZ�

$PNNJUUFF�3FTVMUT

38

Educational Technology Committee– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Educational Technology Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Educational Technology Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of 10 responses were received to the survey during this time (10/17).

39

Educational Technology Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Educational TechnologyCommittee, on a scale of 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree,

4 strongly agree) score each of the following:Answered: 10 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10

0%0

10%1

30%3

60%6 10

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10

0%0

0%0

50%5

50%5 10


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

50%50%50%50%50%

40%40%40%40%40%

40%40%40%40%40%

40%40%40%40%40%

30%30%30%30%30%

40%40%40%40%40%

50%50%50%50%50%

10%10%10%10%10%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







40


Q2 How could the Educational Technology Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 I don't see how it could be improved. Dr. Nolan is an excellent and efficient leader. 4/21/2020 1:31 PM

2 The Ed Tech committee does stay on task and meets its objectives 4/13/2020 10:39 AM

41


Q3 How might the Educational Technology Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No change needed. 4/21/2020 1:31 PM

2 Initiatives for this year are being worked on and resolved (completed) on task 4/13/2020 10:39 AM

42


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Educational TechnologyCommittee in performing its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 We have the resources we need. 4/21/2020 1:31 PM

2 None that I am aware of 4/13/2020 10:39 AM

43


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Educational TechnologyCommittee next year?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Any changes due to COVID-19. 4/21/2020 1:31 PM

2 Educating faculty & students on ed tech 4/13/2020 9:39 AM

44


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the EducationalTechnology Committee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No. 4/21/2020 1:31 PM

2 Communicating tech resources and giving use case examples. 4/13/2020 9:39 AM

45

&RVJUZ�$PNNJUUFF�3FTVMUT

46

uity ommittee overnance urvey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Equity Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Equity Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of three responses were received to the survey during this time (3/11).

47

Equity Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Equity Committee, on a scale of 1– 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score


0%0

50%1

50%1

0%0 2

0%0

50%1

50%1

0%0 2

50%1

50%1

0%0

0%0 2

0%0

50%1

50%1

0%0 2

0%0

100%2

0%0

0%0 2

0%0

50%1

0%0

50%1 2


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

100%100%100%100%100%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







48


Q2 How could the Equity Committee improve its effectiveness in regard tomeeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Meet on a regular basis. 4/13/2020 8:17 AM

49


Q3 How might the Equity Committee improve its effectiveness in regard toaccomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Determine which programs actually fall under equity funding. 4/13/2020 8:17 AM

50


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Equity Committee inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 A new funding request form. 4/13/2020 8:17 AM

51


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Equity Committee next year?Answered: 1 Skipped: 2

# RESPONSES DATE

1 We didn't meet this year because of the transition to EDAC. I think it will be better with theimplementation of the EDAC committee.

4/13/2020 9:42 AM

52


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the EquityCommittee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Not sure if this survey refers to the now defunct committee or the new EDAC committee. Theequity committee stopped meeting because of the changes and EDAC has only met once.

4/20/2020 8:13 AM

53

Equivalency Committee Results

54

Equivalency Committee– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Equivalency Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Equivalency Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of four responses were received to the survey during this time (4/6).

55

Equivalency Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Equivalency Committee, on ascale of 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree)

score each of the following:Answered: 4 Skipped: 0

0%0

25%1

25%1

50%2 4

0%0

0%0

50%2

50%2 4

0%0

0%0

75%3

25%1 4

25%1

25%1

25%1

25%1 4

0%0

25%1

25%1

50%2 4

0%0

0%0

75%3

25%1 4


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

50%50%50%50%50%

50%50%50%50%50%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

50%50%50%50%50%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

50%50%50%50%50%

75%75%75%75%75%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

75%75%75%75%75%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

25%25%25%25%25%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







56


Q2 How could the Equivalency Committee improve its effectiveness inregard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 The Equivalency Committee could improve its effectiveness by adhering to its establishedmeeting schedule.

4/20/2020 9:09 PM

2 N/A 4/20/2020 9:17 AM

3 Publish guidelines for applying for equivalency. 4/14/2020 6:52 AM

4 We need to inform Departments about what an application should include, and that the burdenof proving equivalency is on the applicant.

4/13/2020 9:12 AM

57


Q3 How might the Equivalency Committee improve its effectiveness inregard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 The Equivalency Committee could improve its effectiveness by adhering to its establishedmeeting schedule.

4/20/2020 9:09 PM

2 N/A 4/20/2020 9:17 AM

3 divide up the work more and give clear deadlines for work to be accomplished 4/14/2020 6:52 AM

4 Finish the instructions to the Departments. 4/13/2020 9:12 AM

58


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Equivalency Committee inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 The Equivalency Committee doe not require additional resources to perform its operations. 4/20/2020 9:09 PM

2 N/A 4/20/2020 9:17 AM

3 None. 4/13/2020 9:12 AM

59


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Equivalency Committee nextyear?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Improving CTE and Academic Discipline Equivalency Templates. 4/20/2020 9:09 PM

2 Seems like it is running very well. Cannot think of any besides going through normal requests 4/20/2020 9:17 AM

3 Continue with developing a clear equivalency process for CTE programs. 4/14/2020 6:52 AM

4 The same subject that was on the agenda at the end of last semester. 4/13/2020 9:12 AM

60


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the EquivalencyCommittee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No 4/20/2020 9:09 PM

2 No 4/20/2020 9:17 AM

3 No 4/14/2020 6:52 AM

4 No. 4/13/2020 9:12 AM

61

Faculty Enrichment Committee Results

62

aculty nrichment ommittee overnance urvey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Faculty Enrichment Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Faculty Enrichment Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of seven responses were received to the survey during this time (7/15).

63

Faculty Enrichment Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Faculty Enrichment Committee,on a scale of 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly

agree) score each of the following:Answered: 7 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

29%2

71%5 7

0%0

0%0

57%4

43%3 7

0%0

0%0

43%3

57%4 7

0%0

0%0

43%3

57%4 7

0%0

0%0

29%2

71%5 7

0%0

0%0

43%3

57%4 7


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

71%71%71%71%71%

43%43%43%43%43%

57%57%57%57%57%

57%57%57%57%57%

71%71%71%71%71%

57%57%57%57%57%

29%29%29%29%29%

57%57%57%57%57%

43%43%43%43%43%

43%43%43%43%43%

29%29%29%29%29%

43%43%43%43%43%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







64


Q2 How could the Faculty Enrichment Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No improvement necessary 4/18/2020 9:35 AM

2 The FEC under Dr Tellers leadership has been a pleasure to work on. Nothing more could havebeen done.

4/14/2020 8:45 AM

65


Q3 How might the Faculty Enrichment Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No improvement necessary 4/18/2020 9:35 AM

2 The committee did a great job given the parameters of the job 4/14/2020 8:45 AM

66


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Faculty EnrichmentCommittee in performing its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 None 4/18/2020 9:35 AM

2 Nothing 4/14/2020 8:45 AM

3 Electronic submission and approval processes to expedite forms 4/13/2020 8:25 AM

67


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Faculty EnrichmentCommittee next year?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Nothing comes to mind. But then again, who knows what will pop up. 4/14/2020 8:45 AM

68


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the FacultyEnrichment Committee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 If we had more responsibilities, I could no longer serve. There are only so many hours in a day. 4/14/2020 8:45 AM

69

General Education Committee Results

70

eneral ducation ommittee overnance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the General Education Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide General Education Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of three responses were received to the survey during this time (3/12).

71

GE Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the GE Committee, on a scale of 1 –4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score each

of the following:Answered: 3 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

67%2

33%1 3

0%0

0%0

67%2

33%1 3

0%0

33%1

33%1

33%1 3

0%0

0%0

67%2

33%1 3

0%0

0%0

50%1

50%1 2

0%0

0%0

67%2

33%1 3


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

33%33%33%33%33%

33%33%33%33%33%

33%33%33%33%33%

33%33%33%33%33%

50%50%50%50%50%

33%33%33%33%33%

67%67%67%67%67%

67%67%67%67%67%

33%33%33%33%33%

67%67%67%67%67%

50%50%50%50%50%

67%67%67%67%67%

33%33%33%33%33%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







72


Q2 How could the GE Committee improve its effectiveness in regard tomeeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Based on adopted Shared Governance Policy the committee is responsible for "assisting" in thereview of GE outcomes and other entities on campus assume it is the committee's soleresponsibility. This task should be the responsibility of the Outcomes and AssessmentCommittee and the GE committee should "assist.

4/13/2020 11:09 AM

73


Q3 How might the GE Committee improve its effectiveness in regard toaccomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Focus on our role and responsibilities as dictated by district shared governance policy. 4/13/2020 11:09 AM

74


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the GE Committee in performingits operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Direction om how to "assist" in the review of GE outcomes. 4/13/2020 11:09 AM

75


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the GE Committee next year?Answered: 1 Skipped: 2

# RESPONSES DATE

1 5 year review of the GE framework. 4/13/2020 11:09 AM

76


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the GECommittee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 NO 4/13/2020 11:09 AM

77

Outcomes & Assessment

Committee Results

78

Outcomes & Assessment Committee– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Outcomes & Assessment Committee – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Outcomes & Assessment Committee members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of 10 responses were received to the survey during this time (10/17).

79

Outcome and Assessment Committee - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Outcomes and AssessmentCommittee, on a scale of 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree,

4 strongly agree) score each of the following:Answered: 10 Skipped: 0

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10

0%0

0%0

70%7

30%3 10

0%0

0%0

60%6

40%4 10

0%0

0%0

60%6

40%4 10

0%0

0%0

60%6

40%4 10

0%0

0%0

40%4

60%6 10


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

60%60%60%60%60%

30%30%30%30%30%

40%40%40%40%40%

40%40%40%40%40%

40%40%40%40%40%

60%60%60%60%60%

40%40%40%40%40%

70%70%70%70%70%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

60%60%60%60%60%

40%40%40%40%40%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







80


Q2 How could the Outcomes and Assessment Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 The committee itself is effective, as an engaged participant I have work. 4/25/2020 8:29 AM

2 We need to confront that SLOs and PLOs assessments are falling behind and formulate anapproach to curb that.

4/24/2020 2:41 PM

3 There is nothing that needs to be improved. 4/22/2020 8:53 AM

4 no improvements at this time 4/20/2020 9:12 AM

81


Q3 How might the Outcomes and Assessment Committee improve itseffectiveness in regard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 They are committed. 4/25/2020 8:29 AM

2 Review all PLO assessment plans and ensure they are realistic and timely. In addition, theutility and design of Tracdat should be questioned. Is there room for improvement there? Mostdefinitely!

4/24/2020 2:41 PM


4 A bit more clarity on the general purpose of O&A committee 4/20/2020 9:12 AM

82


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Outcomes and AssessmentCommittee in performing its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 I cannot recommend any. 4/25/2020 8:29 AM

2 We need a willing spirit from other constituencies (IPEC, IPRC) to re-imagine tracdat and how itrelates to outcome management.

4/24/2020 2:41 PM


4 Where to find different docs in the system 4/20/2020 9:12 AM

83


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Outcomes andAssessment Committee next year?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 none 4/25/2020 8:29 AM

2 The plans to move through the assessment cycle for ILOs are already in place. 4/22/2020 8:53 AM

3 none at this time 4/20/2020 9:12 AM

84


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the Outcomes andAssessment Committee should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 none 4/25/2020 8:29 AM

2 GE Outcome assessments need to be synthesized so they get done! We cannot expect ourfaculty to engage in SLO, PLO, ILO, and GELO activities that are somewhat piecemealtogether, if you will. We need to synthesize efforts and combine the staffing into one committee.

4/24/2020 2:41 PM

3 No 4/22/2020 8:53 AM

4 none at this time 4/20/2020 9:12 AM

85

Standing Committee A Results

86

t n n Committee A– Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Standing Committee A– Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Standing Committee A members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of one responses were received to the survey during this time (1/10).

87

Standing Committee A - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Standing Committee A, on a scaleof 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score


0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%1 1


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

100%100%100%100%100%

100%100%100%100%100%

100%100%100%100%100%

100%100%100%100%100%

100%100%100%100%100%

100%100%100%100%100%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







88


Q2 How could the Standing Committee A improve its effectiveness inregard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 I feel that Committee A has been very effective and organized this year. No improvementneeded.

4/23/2020 3:36 PM

89


Q3 How might the Standing Committee A improve its effectiveness inregard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Greater levels of attendance and participation. Many senators who attend Senate regularlydon't feel like it is part of their responsibility to participate in a standing committee. Senateshould reiterate this responsibility to all senators.

4/23/2020 3:36 PM

90


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Standing Committee A inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No resources are needed. 4/23/2020 3:36 PM

91


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Standing Committee A nextyear?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 There is one initiative left to finish and anything else that is assigned by Senate. 4/23/2020 3:36 PM

92


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the StandingCommittee A should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No. 4/23/2020 3:36 PM

93

Standing Committee B Results

94

t n n Committee – Governance Survey

District-wide feedback is valued, and it is integral to our improvement efforts at the College of the Sequoias (COS). This section of the report contains a detailed statistical analysis of the results for the Standing Committee B – Governance Survey. The purpose of this survey is to provide Standing Committee B members with an opportunity to reflect on their shared governance experience at COS. The results analysis includes answers from all respondents who took the survey in the 14-day period from April 13 to April 26, 2020. A total of six responses were received to the survey during this time (6/12).

95

Standing Committee B - Governance Survey

Q1 Based on your involvement with the Standing Committee B, on a scaleof 1 – 4, (1 strongly disagree, 2 disagree, 3 agree, 4 strongly agree) score


0%0

0%0

17%1

83%5 6

0%0

0%0

33%2

67%4 6

0%0

0%0

33%2

67%4 6

0%0

0%0

17%1

83%5 6

0%0

0%0

17%1

83%5 6

0%0

0%0

0%0

100%6 6


Thesenate/commi...



Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

Thesenate/commi...

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

83%83%83%83%83%

67%67%67%67%67%

67%67%67%67%67%

83%83%83%83%83%

83%83%83%83%83%

100%100%100%100%100%

17%17%17%17%17%

33%33%33%33%33%

33%33%33%33%33%

17%17%17%17%17%

17%17%17%17%17%

STRONGLYDISAGREE


TOTAL







96


Q2 How could the Standing Committee B improve its effectiveness inregard to meeting its roles and responsibilities?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Standing Committee B was great. Landon is a fantastic leader. 4/21/2020 10:57 AM

2 We are an effective team. 4/15/2020 10:55 AM

97


Q3 How might the Standing Committee B improve its effectiveness inregard to accomplishing its initiatives?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 We effectively accomplish our initiatives. 4/15/2020 10:55 AM

98


Q4 What resources are needed to assist the Standing Committee B inperforming its operations?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 I can't think of any. 4/15/2020 10:55 AM

99


Q5 What topics should be addressed by the Standing Committee B nextyear?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 Attendance Policies 4/15/2020 10:55 AM

2 Continue to pursue the "Attendance Policy Guidance" and "Title IX" guidance, since it wasinterrupted by Covid19.

4/13/2020 2:59 PM

100


Q6 Are there any additional roles or responsibilities the StandingCommittee B should be fulfilling?


# RESPONSES DATE

1 No. 4/15/2020 10:55 AM

101

Office of Research, Planning &

Institutional Effectiveness College of the Sequoias

915 S Mooney Blvd, Visalia, CA 93277

Year-End Report for Academic Senate & Committees 2019-2020 … · committees. The results for...

Documents

Transcript of Year-End Report for Academic Senate & Committees 2019-2020 … · committees. The results for...