91ÖØ¿Ú

Distance Education Committee
Meeting Minutes

MEETING DATE: 10/16/2026

1. Call to Order

1. Kat called the meeting to order at 9:32 AM.
2. The committee welcomed current and new members, John Ruys (BSSL Faculty Rep) and Reena Singh (Adjunct Faculty Rep), as well as Deborah Bauer (AH Faculty) attending as a guest who may be interested in joining. 
3. Quorum met. 

2. Review and Approval of Agenda

1. John moved to approve the October agenda; Angel seconded.
2. Agenda approved unanimously.

3. Review and Approval of Minutes

1. Angel moved to approve the September minutes; Anita seconded.
2. Minutes approved, with those not in attendance at the September meeting abstaining.

4. Public Comments

1. No public comments.

5. Reports

1. Teaching + Learning Center
   1. Kat shared reminders about recent weekly emails to the campus:
      1. Upcoming Accessibility/UDL Workshops, to help support the college's ongoing efforts to meet federal web accessibility standards (deadline April 2027)
      2. DE Data Trends, RSI + More, with 91ÖØ¿Ú's DE Board Report, data highlights reviewed by the DE Committee in the last meeting, and tips to help instructors increase regular and substantive interaction in DE courses​
   2. Kat shared that the CCCCO Vice Chancellor of Academic Affairs, James Todd, sent a recent email to CIOs/DE Coordinators offering clarification regarding the articulation of online math courses. Many Math Department began scaling back fully online math course offerings in response to last year's CSU Math Council resolution, interpreted by many to mean math courses without in person exams may not be accepted for transfer. The CCCCO is unaware of any formal changes to articulation policies and campuses can reach out for support if they find students experiencing transfer barriers based on modality. Kat shared the email with our VP, Deans, Academic Senate President, Curriculum Chairs, and Math Coordinators to help further inform scheduling and modality decisions. This situation has revived conversations about the potential creation of system-wide proctoring centers, which could help assuage concerns about assessment integrity, while still supporting students who rely on the flexibility of online coursework. Online math courses typically have strong demand and enrollment, so hopefully ongoing conversations across our system will bring clarity to this unclear situation. ​
2. Technology Committee/Technology Coordinating Committee
   1. Members discussed updates from recent TC/TCC meetings, including that the process for vetting Canvas LTIs continues to be under review by senior leadership. Kat will attend the second Academic Senate meeting in October to remind faculty of the changes necessitated as Canvas continues the shift from an LTI 1.1 process, where instructors could set up integrations at the course-level with digital publisher materials, to an LTI 1.3 process, which typically requires integration at the district-level. These installs require a review of vendors policies to ensure alignment with security, privacy, and accessibility standards for higher ed. We're advocating that the district finalize this process ahead of future textbook adoptions, so faculty can make informed decisions when selecting digital publisher materials that rely on Canvas integrations. Implementation planning for the transition from Proctorio to Respondus also continues at both the college and district-level, with more discussion scheduled for later in the meeting.

6. Action Items

1. Finalize DE Committee Goals for Academic Year 2026-27
   1. Members reviewed the draft of the 5 goals discussed at the last meeting; no changes recommended:
      
      1. Monitor and advise on changes to DE policy and practices. 
      2. Advance accessibility and Universal Design for Learning in Distance Education courses. 
      3. Strengthen Regular and Substantive Interaction in Distance Education courses. 
      4. Modernize Distance Education training and faculty preparation. 
      5. Support effective and responsible responses to artificial intelligence in teaching and learning. 
   2. Mike F. motioned to approve the 5 goals; Kali seconded. Goals unanimously approved.
2. Review and finalize edits to Draft DE Committee Course Review Checklist.
   
   1. Kat shared key insights from the October Deans Meeting, where she was invited to discuss DE Committee questions about processes related to Article 19H (DE training/DE Committee Course Review):
      1. The DE Committee's current practice of only conducting course reviews when an instructor requests one is most aligned with our purview. As managers, deans would be the ones to follow up with instructors who do not begin or complete the OCDP or DE Committee Course Review. 
      2. Our Online Instruction webpage helps clarify the process of meeting training requirements outlined in Article 19H/I in the faculty contract; our internal Faculty Online Training Master List helps Deans track which instructors begin and complete trainings. Deans also shared onboarding messages to new employees that amplify DE training requirements, and Kat shares requirements in Faculty Orientations. Deans will increase efforts to follow up with those who have not met the requirements. Bandwidth is a challenge, as large departments have coordinators who can help with tracking ahead of future scheduling decisions, but not all do.
   2. Committee members discussed whether DE Committee Course Review is redundant now that the college has a specific evaluation form/process for online instructors, and whether it fully aligns with language Title 5 § 55208 Faculty Selection and Workload. Members will discuss with bargaining members when future contract negotiations open.
   3. Members discussed expectations of those completing DEC Course Reviews; these reviews provide a good opportunity for supporting colleagues who are close to alignment, but committee members are not expected to provide extensive instruction if a course is significantly out of alignment with minimum standards. Space is included on the form to recommend completion of the OCDP if revisions would require more time than a committee member could reasonably spend.
   4. Members discussed the best format for the checklist, including a Word Doc, Adobe Form, or Microsoft Form. A plain document may provide the most flexibility for those who need to complete revisions before finalizing review. 
   5. Members discussed final edits to the language/structure, including breaking apart the Substantive and Regular sections and adding language to clarify that 2 of the 4 options for Substantive Interaction are required, while both of the Regular Interaction items are required.
   6. Kali motioned to approve as updated; Angel seconded. Members unanimously approved.
   7. Kat and Wanda will work on formatting for accessibility/usability ahead of the next committee meeting, where a mock review is planned for norming. 

7. New Business

1. Review and revisions warranted to local DE Policies, Guidelines + Agreements.
   1. Kat shared the memo sent out to CIOs this month about changes to DE language in Title 5, filed October 8, 2026, effective November 7, 2026, and amending 55200, 55204, 55210. According to a presentation at the DE Coordinator's meeting at the Online Teaching Conference, the changes were intended to:
      1. Align with upcoming changes to the Code of Federal Regulations on allowable non-instructional activities in distance education
      2. Modernize DE policy by removing the outdated 51% rule and eliminate the requirement for an annual DE report to local boards
      3. Standardize course modality definitions (synchronous, asynchronous, Hyflex, partially online/hybrid) and maintain them in the Program and Course Approval Handbook (PCAH).
   2. Because there has been ongoing discussion about statewide definitions, which may be in need of future updates, we'll need to continue to monitor this. A future work group may be formed to help identify local resources that will need to be updated to align with regulatory changes.
2. Secure Online Proctoring Tool Transition (Proctorio-to-Respondus)
   1. Committee members discussed C91ÖØ¿ÚCD's transition from Proctorio to Respondus as the district-provided tool to support secure online exams, including background context for new members:
      1. Last year, the district began searching for a new tool based on the request of instructors at Chabot and 91ÖØ¿Ú, who had expressed frustration with Proctorio and a desire for a tool that would better support growing demand for a product that would support the needs of on campus instructors who administer exams online during class sessions.
      2. Respondus, which differentiates licenses for its LockDown Browser (that supports on campus exam proctoring) and Monitor (a more robust product that allows for video and screen recording to support fully online instruction), was selected for a district-wide pilot in Spring 2026.
      3. Based on positive feedback from instructors at both Chabot and 91ÖØ¿Ú and a cost analysis, C91ÖØ¿ÚCD procured a district-wide license to Respondus for the 2026/27 academic year. Anticipating potential bandwidth issues some instructors may have due to other changes at the colleges, including the shift to the compressed calendar, the colleges purchased a reduced number of Proctorio licenses to provide more flexibility for those who may not have time to transition ahead of the Fall 2026 semester.
      4. We continue to coordinate with our counterparts at Chabot and the college and district IT teams on implementation planning to make the transition as smooth as possible and troubleshoot challenges expected during any tool transition. At 91ÖØ¿Ú, this includes:
         1. Updated Faculty Proctoring Guides. This page now includes tutorials for both Respondus and Proctorio, with technical tips that can help instructors effectively transition. It also includes general information about secure online proctoring tools that can help instructors make an informed decision about whether or not to use secure online exam proctoring tools. Guidance on alternative assessments is included for those interested, as are suggestions to support students who may not have the right equipment to run proctoring software or a space they are comfortable being recorded. 
         2. Updated Student Proctoring Guides. Since this semester, we have students who may be in some classes that require Respondus and others that require Proctorio, information and support resources for both tools is available.
         3. Install has begun on campus computers through imaging, beginning with testing in the Computer Center; other labs have been imaged based on instructor requests, with more initial demand than expected. IT teams are working on a feasible plan for campus-wide installation and updates. This is complicated by security features of campus computers and ongoing browser updates Respondus pushes out to keep the product as secure as possible. Kali noted the Librarians have needed to help students with proctoring software, as they aren't always allowed to download the Proctorio extension/Respondus browser when signed into their school-issued Google accounts. The IT teams are aware of these issues and we should learn more soon about when and where Respondus will be readily available on campus computers.
      5. Due to time constraints, the committee didn't have enough time to review/discuss potential updates to Grace Guidance (2020). This can be reviewed in an upcoming meeting to determine if updates are warranted, since it included information about proctoring.
      6. Members discussed ways to help ensure instructors are aware of the transition from Proctorio to Respondus in time to get training before subsequent terms, since Proctorio will not be available after the Fall 2026 semester. Kat will send out another email to instructors and host workshops near the end of the term and at Flex Day, and committee members will direct colleagues to emails/workshops at upcoming division/department meetings.
3. Discuss formation of temporary DE Committee work groups to support committee goals.
   1. Members discussed potential challenges with completing committee goals given the compressed calendar reducing the number of typical meetings, the surplus of DE-related regulatory changes, and ongoing staffing capacity issues.
   2. The committee will form ad hoc work groups as needed that align with Brown Act requirements. The first work group will advise on revisions in progress to the Online Course Development Program. Kali, Mike F, and Anita volunteered and are less than quorum. Kat will connect with these members to get feedback on the current course design mock-up, which can be brought back to the full committee for further discussion. The hope is to retire the original OCDP by the end of the term.

8. Good of the Order/ Information

1. Kat shared upcoming workshops; instructors can if desired, as new sessions are added throughout the year.

9. Adjournment

1. Kali moved to adjourn; Angel seconded. Meeting adjourned at 11:27 AM.

10. Next Regular Meeting

1. November 20, 2026, 9:30 - 11:30 AM, Room 2410 + Zoom