Meeting Notes 
November 19, 2015
1:30 - 2:30 pm

Attending: Bryant, Espinosa-Pieb, Fayek, Hunter, Kandula, Markus, Maynard, Mieso, Neal, Newell, Norte, Spatafore, Tomaneng

Visiting: Lee-Wheat, Ly

Student Equity Plan

Ly, Mieso, Neal and Tomaneng presented the Student Equity Plan by putting the document in context. Since August, the composition of the student equity working group has evolved into the SSSP-Student Equity Advisory Group. This was a result of the collaboration and overlap between SSSP and EAC, feedback from the Chancellor’s office and other colleges doing the same. The Student Equity group has moved to a tri-chair model with Mieso, Neal and Tomaneng working closely with the research office. The committee includes PBT and EAC members, however, it currently lacks a DASB/student representative.

Neal presented the executive summary and including visuals being developed by the Communications department. She provided a quick overview of some activities and initiatives outlined in the plan and described linkages to other on-campus activities not funded by the equity budget.

Ly presented the fall 2015 data, which revealed areas of disproportionate impact in course completion and transfer among target student groups, notably African American, Latino/a and Foster Youth. Moving forward, the data analysis will disaggregate the target groups to better understand demographic profiles. Based on campus-based research and findings, the tri-chairs created goals to be achieved by 2020. Ly emphasized the overarching goal is to reduce achievement gaps by 2020. The equity plan data is analyzed annually and progress will be assessed, goals will be re-evaluated to account for any enrollment fluctuations.

Tomaneng provided information on the Equity Plan budget with every position and activity in the plan correlating by which indicator is improving. Bret Watson was instrumental in getting budget completed. The report will be included in the December 7 Board of Trustees agenda, with a due date to the state on December 18.

The Student Equity Plan was unanimously approved by college council.

College Planning Committee Membership Proposal

Newell discussed a proposal to add additional members to the College Planning Committee. The CPC charge will be taking over the role of Accreditation Steering Committee moving forward with the self-study. Additional members approved by College Council include: Academic Senate executive member, Classified Senate executive member, EAC member and one additional administrator.

Newell shared two additional institutional metrics which will be added to the Educational Master Plan. These include Course Success by Subject and Career Technical Education Employment Rate. The Course Success by Subject was added to address an ACCJC requirement and the CTE Employment Rate was added by request of the College Planning Committee to more clearly capture the varied outcomes of CTE students, with full-time employment being the ultimate goal.

Tech Task Update

In Spring 2015, Spatafore mentioned the Tech Task Force process to become a more functional committee. TTF is an advisory committee to College Council. Markus stated it was a proposal to expand and redefine membership and what the committee will do moving forward. The next meeting will include exercises to redefine guiding documents posted on the website. A proposal will be formally shared with College Council in January. One of the first projects of the updated Technology Committee will be developing the technology plan. The committee will also provide key accreditation self-study materials.

Bryant raised a question regarding committee membership, with Spatafore’s response requesting formal membership and co-chair. TTF committee membership will be brought to governance groups requesting representation.

As a separate item, Spatafore announced that the comprehensive redesign of the website will be occurring next year following feedback sessions, and that there will be a Website Redesign Advisory Group. Discussion ensued regarding sharing feedback, media, and inviting the technology specialist, in view of her expertise, to serve on the advisory group. In response to a question from Bryant, Spatafore said that the Technology Task Force will not be serving in the advisory group role, emphasizing that technology is separate and apart from content and design of the website. Technology support will be largely invisible and in support of the content and design.

Back to Top