General Meeting Information
Date: October 25,
Time: 2:30 - 4:20 p.m.
Time Topic Purpose Discussion Leader 2:30-2:35
(representatives who have not updated their report-out and wish to, please do so)
D All 2:35-2:40 Approval of Agenda and Minutes from Oct. 18, 2021 I/D/A Balm, Lee 2:40-2:50
Public Comment on Items Not On Agenda
(Senate cannot discuss or take action)
I All 2:50-2:55
Needs and Confirmations
I/D/A Pape 2:55-3:00
Brown Act and AB361
A Balm 3:00-3:10 D/A Balm 3:10-3:30
ASCCC Fall Plenary discussion
I/D Balm, Chow 3:30-3:50 Goals and Priorities: Continuing with the worksheet, grounded in the 10+1
Balm, All 3:50-4:10
Role of Senate in Approving Proctoring Software for Purchase and Implementation
Kalpin, Maynard, Woodbury 4:10-4:20 Report-outs and Good of the Order: Continuing to use the new interactive system for written and verbal reports and conversations from around the college I/D All
To request to add an item to the agenda of a future Academic Senate meeting, email email@example.com by noon on the Wednesday before.
A = Action
D = Discussion
I = Information
Cheryl reminded representatives to update their Report-out.
Approval of Agenda and Minutes from October 18, 2021 Meeting
- Bob moved, Robert seconded to approve the agenda and the minutes as amended. No objection.
- Agenda and minutes approved by unanimous consent.
Public Comment on items not on agenda (Senate cannot discuss or take action)
Lee: The Fall I.D.E.A Workshop series organized by the Office of Equity, Social Justice,and Multicultural Education will be coming to a close. They will wrap up with “Getting Started on Defining and Applying Equity and Equality at De Anza,” October 28, 3:30-5:30 PM and “Getting Started on Defining and Applying Access and Acceptance at De Anza,” November 4, 3:30-5:30 PM. They will run the 4-part workshop series again in Winter on Fridays and in Spring on Tuesdays. More details and registration link in the Report-out.
Shagun, Communication Studies, was previously the De Anza OER Coordinator, and has served a leadership role at the state level for OER for the last four years. She wanted to make a correction to the suggestion in the 10/18 OER report that the ASCCC was not in favor of compensation for the creation of OER materials. She put in the Report-out ASCCC resolutions in support of stipends, release time, and other compensation. ASCCC recognized that OER adoption is often more work than the adoption of a commercial textbook.
Shagun also clarified the ASCCC OERI Inclusion, Diversity, Equity, and Anti-Racism (IDEA) Audit Framework. The policy or audit framework was to ensure that funds were equitably distributed especially with the $115 million approved by the governor for ZRC and OER. The framework was to ensure that federal and state guidelines are followed to prevent the have/have not situations where a few selected college colleges reaped all the benefits, and the creation of a transparent process. The IDEA (inclusion, diversity, equity) framework also included peer evaluation, state leaders working with guided pathways and other state initiatives. More details in the Report-out.
Needs and Confirmation
Head Football Coach/FAST (Football Academic Success Team) Coordinator Hiring Committee
This was a position approved by IPBT last spring.
Eric Mendoza, Dean/Chair of Committee
Rachel Catuiza, Physical Education & Athletics Division (Faculty)
Arden Kragalott, Physical Education & Athletics Division (Faculty)
Nick Mattis, Physical Education & Athletics Division (Faculty)
Michele LeBleu-Burns, EO Rep, Student Development
David Kobata, Physical Education & Athletics Division (Classified)
Mark moved, Erik seconded to approve the committee. No objection, passed by unanimous consent.
Brown Act and AB361
It has been 28 days since the last vote to invoke AB361 to continue meeting online. The Brown Act requirements include the publication of the location of voting members attending on zoom and those members must allow the public to join them to attend the meeting. Also, those meeting online must be within the district boundaries.
During the pandemic Governor Newsome has issued multiple executive orders that suspended those restrictions. All those orders expired at the end of October. A new bill AP361 allows the body to continue meeting online as long as certain conditions are met. The first is a proclaimed state of emergency which the governor has not lifted. To invoke AP361 the body must pass by a majority vote that meeting in person presents an imminent risk to some or all the members in terms of health or safety.
Mary D moved to invoke AP361 because meeting in person will present imminent health risk to the members. Shagun seconded.
Motion passed unanimously.
Cheryl will inform the board of trustees of the Senate’s decision to continue meeting via zoom
ASCCC Exemplary Program Award and Rubric (second discussion)
Theme: Addressing Equity in a Time of Crisis.
In light of the work that colleges and faculty have done to maintain the focus on student success, the Academic Senate selected the theme of “Addressing Inequity in a Time of Crisis” for this year’s 2021-22 Exemplary Program Award. Excellence in this area can be demonstrated in programs by faculty and for faculty to aid in transitioning to and from virtual environments, engaging in transformative curriculum design, supporting colleagues through professional development, mental health support, and other services, and promoting efforts to advance social justice and establish equity-driven practices.
There was confusion and discussion over the need for the nominated program as a program for faculty. They asked about the two criteria, by faculty and for faculty.
Five programs were suggested and discussed for nomination for the exemplary program award.
MPS expansion into STEM pre-calculus series
HEFAS, undocumented students
Guided Pathway (GP specified program)
Ethnic Studies Multiracial Panel Series
OPD/Online Education work to get faculty ready to teach online.
Lydia pointed out it will take a lot of work to gather the information to prepare and write the nomination. She asked the group to consider its capacity to work on the nomination in the next two weeks.
Lydia: MPS won in 2002, so it might not be eligible again.
There was a question if the Senate even wanted to nominate a program for the award. The award for the winner would be $4000. Also, the nominee would be recognized even if they do not win.
The Senate did not feel comfortable with voting to select a program to nominate since not everyone was familiar with all the programs.
After some discussions, the consensus was 2 people to volunteer to work on this project in the next 13 days: to gather the information, choose the program, and write the application. Those interested should contact Cheryl within the next 48 hours.
Dawn pointed out to everybody that it's absolutely okay for us not to force ourselves to do things at the last minute and cause stress on ourselves.
ASCCC Fall Plenary discussion
Karen explained the Discipline List and Hearing. Each year, the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) conducts a review of the Disciplines List, which establishes the minimum qualifications for the faculty of California Community Colleges. The Disciplines List Hearing will be held Friday, November 5th from 8:00a.m. to 9:00a.m. In the annual hearing new disciplines are proposed and submitted for approval. During the hearing people may voice concern over disciplines that should not be approved.
This year’s proposal included two new ethnic studies disciplines, Asian American Studies and Native American-Indian Studies.
During the past year, faculty in the ethnic studies discipline formed the California Community College Statewide Ethnic Studies Council.
The other two new proposed disciplines are Nanotechnology Studies, and Geographic Information Systems.
Anyone wishing to attend the hearing should contact Karen for the meeting link.
Discussion on the resolutions.
The delegates will vote on each of the resolutions. FHDA district has 3 votes, one for each of the college AS presidents and the District AS president.
Karen, the district AS president will be voting on Fall Plenary resolutions as an ASCCC Exec Member, and so another FHDA faculty senate officer Mary Pape will be the District AS delegate. Our District agreement/tradition is that the District Senate delegate only votes to boost DA & FH Senate President votes that are in agreement either for or against. If the DA & FH President votes are not in agreement, then the District Senate delegate does not vote on the resolution.
Cheryl asked everyone to go over the packet to bring up any strong pro and con as well as any resolutions that need clarification. Also, identify any resolutions that should be removed from the consent calendar.
Mary D has emailed and asked Mark Healy, Faculty Open Educational Resources Coordinator, his opinion of items 3.04, 3.05, 3.05.01, 16.01 and 17.01. These are all textbook and OER related and Mark was fine with all of them.
Cheryl had issues and raised questions about 17.0. She felt that the resolution needed clarification. She has spoken to different people and received different interpretations.
Shagun: That resolution came from the ASCCC OER Initiative. She explained the intent of the resolution was to protect students and uphold academic freedom in cases where changes to faculty class assignments result in changes to required course materials.
Shagun: The questions raised are valid and she recommended that Karen as Area B representative invite clarification on 17.01 from ASCCC OERI/Michelle to bring to the local regional meeting.
Karen drew attention to 7.02, a resolution on defining HyFlex and a proposed model of apportionment for HyFlex as a modality.
Goals and Priorities: Continuing with the worksheet, grounded in the 10+1
The heart stamp voting last week resulted in a clear top choice, receiving almost twice the votes as the others.
Top goal: Empower faculty to participate in return to campus planning and scheduling of classes and to feel prepared to return to the physical classroom.
Cheryl highlighted a few of the proposed actions related to this priority.
Create a faculty guide sheet of things to consider for creating safe and equitable scheduling and classroom practices for online, in-person and hybrid teaching and learning.
Hosting a Town Hall for students and faculty to ask Q’s and offer feedback.
Lydia encouraged people to think more broadly about the kind of campus and learning environment in the return to campus. A new student survey will be coming out since last Spring. The responses might have changed with a new incoming student population and the presence of the Delta variant.
Mark expressed some ideas about starting the project. He imagined many other colleges also thinking about their futures. Our Winter quarter should be very much like the Fall. The semester schools will be planning for the Spring. Don’t reinvent the wheel. Survey those schools around us and across the state to identify their best practices.
Mary D: The masking and other requirements may change with the higher vaccination rates, lower hospitalization rate.
Cheryl felt comfortable moving forward with goals and actions as expressed by Mark.
Role of Senate in Approving Proctoring Software for Purchase and Implementation
Bob, Rick, and Erik brought forth the agenda to represent the interests of a broad group of faculty in their divisions interested in using Proctorio.
They presented a powerpoint that gave some background on the use of Proctorio at De Anza.
A video exam proctoring service called Proctorio was made available to De Anza instructors during the Covid-19 pandemic with the abrupt shift to online teaching.
In the March 15, 2021 Academic Senate meeting, Online Education and the Associated Vice President of Instruction gave a presentation that explained their decision to cease the support and funding for Proctorio.
During the summer, faculty, administrators, and Academic Senate officers had a discussion over whether faculty should be allowed to use Proctorio in the Fall or in the future. It was asserted that the Academic Senate maintains purview over instructional assessment such as Proctorio.
The presenters were not at the Senate to debate the merits of Proctorio but to establish the purview of the Academic Senate in decisions to allow or prohibit specific assessment tools.
They quoted BP4190 on Academic Freedom approved in 2009 by both De Anza and Foothill Academic Senates. The policy is linked on the Academic Senate website. They encouraged everyone to read it since academic freedom is the bedrock principle of all institutions of learning.
Second paragraph: “Faculty members have the principal right and responsibility to determine the content, pedagogy, methods of instruction, the selection planning, and presentation of course materials, and the fair and equitable methods of assessment in their assignment in accordance with the approved curriculum and course outlines and the educational mission of the District, and in accordance with state laws and regulations. These rights and responsibilities include, but are not limited to, the faculty member’s choice of textbooks and other course materials, assignment and assessment methods, teaching practices grading and evaluation of student work, and teaching methods and practice.
They concluded that individual instructors have the right to determine the appropriate assessment methods. And, that the Academic Senate does not prohibit any specific assessment practices or technologies.
They believed that a comprehensive review of academic integrity is overdue, and one that should be driven by faculty and the Academic Senate.
And one that includes an appraisal of assessment strategies and best practices.
They asked the Senate to determine whether it is within the scope of 10+1 for the Academic Senate to make this decision. And, if it is not, they would like to bring the request to whomever that will make the decision.
Felisa: The Foothill Academic Senate voted against the use of Proctorio or any other surveillance software. An assessment method should be the test itself and not watching people take the test.
From Khoa link to the Foothill Resolution: https://foothill.edu/gov/equity-and-education/2020-21/jun18/Resolution%20on%20Online%20Proctoring%20June%202021_Approved.pdf
Kevin: there has been a widespread feeling that such surveillance methods are invasive and overreaching; there should be a distinction between faculty academic freedom and infringement. There were also concerns over erroneous software and false detections. The Office of Professional Development has been working on new and innovative approaches to ensure test security and further clarify security features that already existed in Canvas.
Lydia: The collegewide cost for the adoption of Proctorio would be between $50,000 to $60,000. The college can only adopt and manage one software.
Melinda: There has been some controversy over that particular software in its ability to detect darker skin tone, like our African American students, thus, creating a racial bias. She acknowledged the problem with academic integrity. She wondered if there was software that would not discriminate against students of color.
From Brandon Gainer in chat:
This may speak to both Kevin's point and Melinda's points:
Lee: Authentic Assessments really are a better option.... surveillance state assessment solutions are problematic.
Bob understood and appreciated the concern over facial recognition technology and its racial biases. Proctorio does not use facial recognition technology to distinguish students. It does have the ability to track movements, like eye and face movements, and if someone has left or entered the room. Instructors may choose the level of detection or completely disable them.
Bob wanted to clarify their “ask.” They were not there to discuss the pros and cons of Proctorio. They were there to look at whether the Academic Senate would take a position on the ability for instructors to use proctoring software.
Rani and Melissa were there to represent the Math Performance Success Program. They have written a letter of their dismay over online Proctorio. There were issues with student privacy, discrimination racially, as well as disabilities, and gender. There are also student mental health issues.
MSP Letter to Senate
Khoa, MPS counselor: The letter outlined several reasons for why surveillance or proctoring software should not be used. As to the question whether it was within academic senate purview to determine if the college should purchase and implement the software, he believed that it is within academic senate purview. He also encouraged the college to develop a test to look into the disadvantages and advantages of online proctoring software. Then, create a training program to move forward with the chosen software or strategies.
Helen Pang posted in chat an article about Proctorio: https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/is-online-test-monitoring-here-to-stay/amp
Glynn was also interested in addressing academic integrity. However he felt that the software does discriminate against people of color, students with disabilities, and people with test anxiety. It might drop the test score for students with these issues.
Erik explained their reason for bringing this to the Senate and how it was handled last year when the administration decided to stop using and paying for the software. Unlike Foothill, the De Anza Senate did not discuss and take an official position. Now, there are reasons people want the item to come back and the Senate should take a position on it. Moving forward, we should look at different tools people use on campuses.
Cheryl shared that Proctorio was given to the school by the state without cost during the emergency switch to online education. It was not vetted nor chosen. It was free at first and it was no longer free. Administration decided to pay for the rest of the year to avoid discontinuities.
Anita found the program problematic, especially for students with anxiety or disabilities, like mobility or vision limitations. There are also accessibility issues.
Lydia: Some faculty have expressed their needs for the software and she has directed them to the Senate. The cost would be a factor in adopting any software. If the Senate decides on having some type of software, it can only be one. They do not have the capacity nor funds to handle many different ones.
Bob: They were not there to advocate indiscriminate use of the tool. There are responsible ways to use the tool. Faculty should be allowed to use it in those situations where they think it is important. Some students that have matriculated into their next program have expressed appreciation for the opportunity to have taken exams on Proctorio.
Brandon: Online Education had offered a transition plan and training opportunity in their presentation on Authentic Assessments last year. No one took up their offers for training.
Shagun tried to define the issue. The bigger picture is academic freedom and the faculty’s right to decide how they evaluate and set up evaluation for the course. It is absolutely the rights of the faculty and very much within the purview of academic freedom. As for the purchase of the software, the decision should rest with the Office of Instruction. She suggested designing a set of guidelines to dictate the adoption technology with equity and accessibility lenses.
Some people expressed the need for more time for discussion and clarification.
One more comment from Michele LeBleu-Burns in chat:
One of the things that I find to be equally harmful to students from an equity perspective is that we have seen a HUGE increase in academic dishonesty. Sadly we are seeing students with the financial means paying for others to do their work, which creates grade inflation. This forces hardworking students who cannot afford to pay others to do their work to compete with students who can.
Report-outs and Good of the Order: Continuing to use the new interactive system for written and verbal reports and conversations from around the college
Lisa motioned, Erik seconded, to adjourn, no objection.
So Kam Lee
Part-time Faculty Representatives
Academic Services &
Career Technical Education & Workforce Development
Counseling - General
Counseling - Embedded
Disability Support Programs & Services and Adapted PE
Equity and Engagement
Mark Landefeld (F)
Physical Sciences, Math, & Engineering
Social Sciences & Humanities
Student Development & EOPS
Dawn Lee Tu
Faculty Association Representative*
Affinity Group Representatives*
Glynn Wallis, BFSA
De Anza President
VP of Student Services
VP of Instruction
VP of Administrative Services
Hyon Chu Yi-Baker
Director of College Life & Student Judicial Affairs
Associate VP of Communications & External Relations
De Anza Student Trustee
Dean of Business/Computer Info Systems
Tenure Review Coordinator
Dean of Creative Arts
Dean of Physical Education and Athletics
Dean of Language Arts
Dean of Equity and Engagement
Dean of Career & Technical Education (CTE)
Foothill Academic Senate President
FHDA District Academic Senate President
Dean of Counseling, DSPS & Title IX Coordinator
Dean of Biological, Health, and Environmental Sciences
Dean of Student Development/EOPS
Director of Financial Aid
Dean of Enrollment Services
Dean of Intercultural/International Studies
Dean of Physical Sciences, Math & Engineering
Dean of Social Sciences and Humanities
Director, Book Store
FHDA Research & Planning
Curriculum Committee Vice-Chair
Faculty Director of Equity, Social Justice & Multicultural Education
Meeting URL: https://fhda-edu.zoom.us/j/98598770352?pwd=YUdNL3ZEaUJvYWlVTnFDb0pZUVprZz09
Meeting ID: 985 9877 0352
Phone one-tap: +14086380968,,98598770352# US (San Jose)