Academic Senate - Sonoma State University

Academic Senate AGENDA

Report of the Chair of the Faculty – L. A. Watt Request for device Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes End of Year Reports: Scholarship (on team drive) Information Item: Library University Archives Policy updated Consent Items: Offsite Programs - Lake County partnership with Mendocino College (Lakeport); Woodland Community College (Lower Lake) = BUS; Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma = BUS; Solano Community College = BUS; and College of Marin = LIBS Special Report: SSU Budget Report – Laura Lupei – TC 3:15 Business 1. From EPC: Gerontology Discontinuances – Second Reading

– J. Lillig TC 3:35 2. From FSAC: Revision to the Emeritus Policy – Second

Reading – P. Lane 3. Memo to Statewide Senate re: Ethnic Studies Requirement Standing Reports 1. President of the University - (J. Sakaki) 2. Provost/Vice-President, Academic Affairs - (L. Vollendorf) 3. Vice Chair of the Senate - (M. Milligan) 4. Vice President/Admin & Finance - (J. Lopes) 5. Vice President for Student Affairs – (W. G. Sawyer) 6. Vice-President of Associated Students – (M. Kadar) 7. Statewide Senators - (C. Nelson, W. Ostroff) 8. Staff Representative – (A. Sandoval) 9. Chairs, Standing Committees:

Academic Planning, Assessment & Resources – (S. Place) Educational Policies – (J. Lillig) Faculty Standards & Affairs – (P. Lane) Student Affairs – (H. Smith)

10. CFA Chapter President – (E. Sims) Occasional Reports 1. Senate Diversity Subcommittee – (K. Altaker) 2. Lecturers Report – (C. Torres) Good of the Order

October 24, 2019 Student Center, Ballrooms C&D

3:00 – 5:00pm

Fall Meetings of the Academic Senate

8/29

9/12(Sonoma Valley) 9/26 (Sonoma Valley) 10/10 (Schulz 3001)

10/24 11/7

11/21 (Cooperage) 12/12

Senate Minutes 9/26/19 1

Academic Senate Minutes September 26, 2019

3:00 – 5:05, Sonoma Valley Room

Abstract

Chair Report. Agenda – Approved. Minutes of 9/12/19 – Approved. Consent Item: Minimal Revision to EMBA program – Approved. President Report. Provost Report. Stevenson Hall Remodel Update. Vice President of Administrative and Finance Report. Vice President for Student Affairs Report. From EPC: Gerontology minor and certificate discontinuance – First Reading completed. From EPC: Discontinuance of Minor in Physical Science – discontinuance recommended. Graduate Studies Report. Associated Students Report. Statewide Senators Report. Revision to the Emeritus Policy – First Reading. Good of the Order. Present: Laura Watt, Melinda Milligan, Hope Ortiz, Wendy Ostroff, Catherine Nelson, Sam Brannen, Melissa Garvin, Jim Robison, Carlos Torres, Jeffrey Reeder, Joshua Glasgow, Angelo Camillo, Florence Bouvet, Rita Primo, Izabela Kanaana, Mary Ellen Wilkosz, Adam Zagelbaum, Kevin Fang, Sally Hurtado Lopez, Cookie Garrett, Judy Sakaki, Lisa Vollendorf, Wm Gregory Sawyer, Melissa Kadar, Sean Place, Jenn Lillig, Paula Lane, Hillary Smith Proxies: Neil Markley for Joyce Lopes, Andre Bailey for Amal Munayer Absent: Arcelia Sandoval, Rajeev Virmani, Chiara Bacigalupa Guests: Krista Altaker, Christopher Dinno, Karen Moranski, Kara Rabbitt Chair Report – L. Watt

L. Watt reported that the Ex Com had a conversation about the resolution the Senate passed last time about FERP faculty serving on RTP committees. After that discussion, the Provost provided a written response. (This is available on the team drive and is linked to the resolution online: http://senate.sonoma.edu/resolutions/resolution-re-ferp-faculty-and-rtp-committees.)

Approval of Agenda – Approved. Approval of Minutes of 9/12/19 – Approved. End of Year Reports: The Chair announced that end of year reports for faculty governance committees are posted on the team drive. Consent Item: Minimal Revision to EMBA program – Approved.


President Report – J. Sakaki

a. President Sakaki just returned from Board of Trustees. She is proud of our student, Anthony Tercero, who won a Board of Trustees Outstanding Student Achievement Award this year. He won a $6,000 Wells Fargo scholarship.

b. SSU hosted the 6th Annual State of the Latino Community event on campus today. President Sakaki is proud that students, faculty, and staff came.

c. Dr. Sakaki also gave a keynote address at the EOP celebration in Long Beach last week.

Provost Report – L. Vollendorf

a. Provost Vollendorf gave a shout out to our Department of Nursing, Academic Programs, and the School of Science and Technology for the incredible accreditation efforts that culminated this week in a successful site visit.

b. School of Business and Economics dean candidates will be on campus next week. Provost Vollendorf encouraged people to attend open forum and other opportunities to give feedback.

c. The Academic Affairs Strategic Budgeting Report is now posted on the website. Provost Vollendorf thanked everyone who has given feedback about budget, need, and over the past two years - https://web.sonoma.edu/aa/documents/Strategic_Budgeting_AcademicAffairs_2019-2020.pdf

d. Provost Vollendorf fielded questions about her response to the resolution from

the last Senate meeting regarding FERP faculty serving on RTP. Senator Brannen asked whether any FERP faculty are now serving on committees. Provost Vollendorf stated that there are no FERP faculty serving. Two members asked about the sentence in the CBA that allows FERP to serve if designated by the president. That provision is not included in our policy, which is restrictive in terms of saying “only” tenured, full-time faculty may serve. Provost Vollendorf said she is looking forward to the campus having the conversation this year about what we believe is a good parameters for FERP serving, if we believe as a community that they should serve in certain circumstances. Provost Vollendorf also clarified that even though we had been electing FERP faculty to RTP committees, we had done so in error since they were included among the list of eligible faculty when in fact our policy precludes them from being eligible since they are not ‘full-time, tenured.’


Stevenson Hall Remodel Update – C. Dinno

C. Dinno reviewed the overall vision and goals of the remodel project for Stevenson Hall.


There will still be four entry points to Stevenson Hall. The South entry will move more towards the east to help drive pedestrian traffic through the South entry.


He described the design of the first floor which includes a variety of classrooms, a potential café, gender neutral bathrooms and collaborative learning spaces.

The Schools have been organized clearly. The blue area is B&E, the pink is Education and the green area is spillover from Social Sciences. There is an informal collaborative learning space in the center. They heard from students that they wanted informal spaces to be near their departments to have a sense of identity and community.


Social Sciences is on the third floor and conference rooms are strategically placed for easy access.

The current outside of Stevenson hall is very defensive building and fortress like.


Opening up the panels in glass instead of concrete helps open up the building and allow more light into the building.

The south entrance now.


The proposed south entrance. The windows allow people to see what’s going on in the building and helps the building look alive.

This design helps people know where they are in the building.


This is an idea about how a collaborative space might look. Students may want to stay longer in the building than they do now.

This is a design for the L5 classroom that allows case study activities. The chairs turn around so students can group.

He noted the website is being updated and there is listserv for more information that will be pushed out. If they get a lot of questions that are similar, they will post that


to the FAQs. He noted departments will be visited for more detail. There will be a furniture fair for faculty to look at what will be available. Questions: A member asked if there is a lactation room. C. Dinno said there is one on the second floor. It was clarified that L5 would be 220 seats. A member asked if there will be smaller lecture rooms. C. Dinno said there were varying sizes of lecture rooms. A member asked if any faculty offices were for multiple use. C. Dinno said no, all the faculty offices, even for lecturers are single use rooms. A member pointed out that in the color coded blueprints, Education was pink and B&E was blue which indicated to her gender bias. C. Dinno said he would let the architects know about that. A member asked about windows in faculty offices and expressed concern about SSU moving away from small classes. C. Dinno said the faculty offices do have windows, and that the design helps with sustainability efforts and bringing more light into the building. He noted there are many classrooms at 32 seats. The Chair noted the writing classes of 24 would have equal chance at the 32 seats classrooms due to concern being expressed about how schedule 25 schedules classes. A member asked how much personal space students have in the large lecture room rendering. C. Dinno said there was room on the tables for a laptop and a cup of coffee. A member requested that there be a variety of ways that faculty offices could be arranged in terms of furniture and desks. C. Dinno there will be options, but they may be narrowed down to two. A member asked if the faculty office would hold personal belongings and chairs for students to meet with the faculty member. C. Dinno responded yes, that is part of the options for faculty. It was noted that the chairs in the L5 would have padded seats. A member asked if there would be space for people with temporary disabilities, such as a broken leg beyond the wheelchair space. C. Dinno responded that the current code on access compliance drives how the rooms are laid out. The campus will provide accessibility for such cases. A member asked if all faculty will be asked to have the same office set up. C. Dinno said that is what they are working towards.

Continued questions for Provost

A member said they he thought having FERP faculty on RTP committees was a long standing practice even though it is out of compliance with our campus policy. The Provost said when it came to Academic Affairs attention this summer that FERP were on RTP committees, they had to start following campus policy. It was stated that the campus could be more restrictive in policy than the Collective Bargaining agreement of Unit 3. The Provost offered to discuss this with any Senate member. A member encouraged FSAC to look at the CBA Article 29, Section 19.

Vice President of Administrative and Finance Report – N. Markley for J. Lopes

a. AVP Markley reported that Administration and Finance has rolled out Questica, which is a budgeting software that brings the university budget to a website accessible to all.

b. Open Enrollment is underway.

c. Administration and Finance is continuing to work on strategic planning.


Vice President for Student Affairs Report – Wm G. Sawyer

a. Student Affairs has some units that are moving to the first floor of the Library in October. This is part of our effort to combine student support services into one physical location to the extent possible.

From EPC: Gerontology minor and certificate discontinuance – First Reading – J. Lillig

J. Lillig introduced the item. EPC is recommending discontinuance for both the minor and certificate. She reviewed the history of the Gerontology program. There was a difference of opinion about whether there was student interest in the program. No students are enrolled at this point, and it has no home currently. Most Gerontology programs are Master’s or Doctoral programs. First reading completed.

From EPC: Discontinuance of Minor in Physical Science – Second Reading – J. Lillig

J. Lillig noted this is just catalog clean up. No students have been in this program for 15 years. The Senate recommended discontinuance of the minor in Physical Science.

Graduate Studies Report – L. Watt

M. Milligan chaired this section of the meeting. L. Watt, who is also Chair of GSS. L. Watt noted that report was drafted by the Grad Studies committee with incredible work by the previous Chair, Laurel McCabe. About a year ago, L. McCabe presented the findings from a survey about grad studies at SSU and the Senate asked that GSS to work with the Provost’s office and report back with recommendations. This report is that response. There are four key recommendations. She noted that WASC recommended that SSU differentiate our graduate programs from our undergraduate programs.

1. Create an administrative and faculty governance infrastructure focusing

specifically on graduate education at SSU. Insure funding for this division with appropriate administrative leadership and operating expenses. Part of the purview of this office is to review state-support and self-support program policies and compensations to insure equitable use of resources. • The new half-time faculty position of Director of Graduate Studies, and the

full time Graduate Analyst position, are significant achievements toward this goal.

2. Create an integrated financial support system across state-supported and self-support programs that provides funding for graduate education, paid teaching and research positions, tuition fee waivers, scholarships and awards, and grant development for graduate students, so that an integrated funding package can be marketed and offered to incoming and continuing students. • The attention that Faculty Affairs is giving in 2017-18 and 2018-19 to insure

that graduate students are paid for their teaching and research work is noted.


• The review and revision of the campus' Tuition Fee Waiver policy and procedures, and the funding promised for them in 2019-20, is a positive step toward this goal. GSS recommends campus commitment to future funding so that programs can market this as an admissions incentive.

3. Create an integrated graduate program development strategy for fundraising and program-specific projects.

4. Create integrated support services across state-supported and self-support programs that meet the needs of graduate students which differ in important ways from undergraduates, including career services, professional development, IT support, and mental health. • Discussions are underway with the Faculty Center and Career Center to

provide services targeted specifically to graduate students. Associated Students Report – M. Kadar

M. Kadar said the AS will table for voter registration. They are working on a resolution regarding the President’s evaluation. She reported that JUMP moved Sonoma Serves to MLK Jr day to coordinate with a national day of service. She announced the Lobos pantry hours and the pop-up produce pantry dates. The pantry is seeking personal hygiene products. A member voiced concern that holding Sonoma Servers on MLK Jr day, would preclude faculty being able to include it in their classes. A member voiced concern about the pop ups being held in front of the Student Center due to student anxiety and wanting confidentially around food insecurity.

Statewide Senate Report – W. Ostroff, C. Nelson

W. Ostroff reported that the Statewide Senate Plenary started off with excellent workshop on interrupting racism. They approved a resolution on the Implementation of an Ethnic Studies Requirement which C. Nelson will talk more about. They had first readings on a few other resolutions - Notification of Tenure-Track Openings to Incumbent Contingent Faculty, Librarians, Coaches & Counselors; Developing a System-wide Understanding of CSU Actions and Plans Relating to the Ethnic Studies Task Force Report; Increasing Access and Success Through Additional Preparation in Quantitative Reasoning; Land Recognition Policy and Statements. They heard reports from Charles Toombs CFA President who spoke about the upcoming bargaining and why CFA affiliation with CTA was dropped. Loren Blanchard, EVC of Academic and Student Affairs also reported. He spoke about the 50th anniversary of EOP and he proposed additional QR admissions requirements which was a hot topic. The Senate also heard from the Chancellor, who spoke about the budget and he will likely advocate for 4-5% enrollment growth funding. He will be proposing $150-200m for compensation and a permanent increase of about $50-80m for deferred maintenance. The CSSA rep, Jacquelyn Acosta, said student priorities statewide were Title IX, impaction, and redirection in meetings with legislators. They are considering opposing the 4th year of quantitative reasoning proposed for the a-g admissions requirements. They are supporting the BASIC Act. Senator Nola Butler-Byrd reported on the work of the task force created to make recommendations for deploying the $1.2m allocated by


the legislature for a pilot program to provide ant-bias training for faculty, staff, administrators and student leaders at CSU and UC campuses.

C. Nelson provided this presentation on the proposed Ethnic Studies requirement in the CSU. This proposal has been controversial and she will be taking this to other CSU campuses to gather feedback. She stared by talking about the quantitative reasoning 4th year requirement noting the variety of courses that can be used to meet this requirement.


She noted the CSU argues there is a correlation between this 4th year of quantitative reasoning and improved graduation rates. The next slide shows the ASCSU resolutions on this matter. Generally, the ASCSU supports the requirement, but wants to see it implemented equitably.

She noted the Ethnic Studies Task Force group did recommend an Ethnic Studies requirement, but nothing happened so they went to CFA. CFA found Shirley Weber willing to author this bill through the legislature.


ASCSU opposes the bill for the following reasons.

The bill did not make it through the appropriates subcommittee. She was not sure why. The ASCSU received a lot of pressure from legislators and Ethnic Studies faculty. So, the ASCSU had taken up this idea and is requesting feedback from campuses about what a statewide Ethnic Studies requirement would look like – learning outcomes, etc.


She noted the timeline is fast. She wanted to get this drafted by this semester. They want feedback from campuses by November 1st.

The EPC Chair noted that in the GE implementation plan timeline, critical race studies would start being worked on in Spring of 2020. Was there discussion about campuses coming up with their own learning outcomes, etc.? C. Nelson said that if nothing is done, the legislature will do this for us. She argued that having systemwide parameters or guidance on this topic would be very helpful for many campuses. A member suggested that faculty at-large be asked for feedback and not just faculty who teach Ethnic Studies now. A member pointed out that Chairs of legislative committees can stop bills by not allowing them to be on the agenda of the committee which is what happened in this case with AB 1460. C. Nelson said they really didn’t know what happened in appropriations. K. Moranski asked for clarification that what the ASCSU wants is to hear what the campus thinks should be the systemwide requirement for Ethnic Studies and it would not implementated this year. C. Nelson agreed. K. Moranski noted that the Senate voted on the Critical Race Studies overlay last year. The EPC Chair said EPC and S&F are having this discussion already. There was some discussion about how SSU can respond to this request. Chair Watt suggested that the Chair of EPC, S&F and herself meet to figure out how to proceed. There was no objection this suggestion.

Revision to the Emeritus Policy – First Reading – P. Lane

P. Lane introduced the item. She noted that FSAC has been working on this policy for a year and was attempting to address concerns raised in the Senate in the past. She noted that the Senate Analyst provided the Emeritus policies of all the CSU’s for reference. She discussed the major changes – definition of what designated a person as “faculty” and years of service. There was discussion how about someone could share a concern about a faculty member gaining emeritus status. She noted the policy asked for concerns to be brought up in the Senate when the emeritus list is ready for approval. She discussed the variety of issues with reporting concerns – including workload, due process and confidentiality issues. A member expressed concern about the language in policy stating that concerns about the emeritus list be brought up at the Senate. P. Lane discussed how other campuses have dealt with this. There was some discussion about the public nature of voicing concerns at the Senate and how it could be done otherwise. The Senate Analyst noted that even though this doesn’t happen very often, it is a good idea to have procedures for these kinds of complaints. She proposed that faculty be vetted prior to being reported to the Senate by an office that has access to confidential information. Discussion continued about how concerns could be addressed in a confidential manner. The Provost noted that the policy currently states that it is time of employment that bestows Emeritus status only, so discussions of what is required for emeritus status is not in line with the current policy. The body needs to consider whether other criteria are required for Emeritus status. Motion to extend meeting by 5 minutes. Second. Approved.


A member noted that the issue of administrators with retreat rights and how that relates to years of service was not teased out in this current revision. A member suggested creating a list of what would preclude emeritus status and voiced concerned about the policy saying the President “shall” appoint faculty approved by the Senate, which didn’t seem to give her the leeway to not appoint someone. The Chair noted the confusion that Dean and Administrators have appointed letters designating them as faculty. It was clarified that emeritus does not appear in the CFA contract. First reading completed.

Good of the Order

The Chair reminded the members that the Senate will meet in Schulz 3001 next time and the CFA social was happening in Lobos.

Adjourned. Minutes prepared by L. Holmstrom-Keyes

Senate Consent Calendar 10/10/19

EPC Recommendation for SEIE Offsite Programs EPC unanimously recommends the following off-site programs be added to the consent calendar for the Academic Senate. These programs have no curricular changes and currently have off-site locations in operation at other partner community colleges. These programs were discussed following the off-site program policy instituted last spring (2019). In particular, there was much discussion of program viability and access in light of launching all four at the same time. It was noted that the business program is popular, yet requires more pre-requisite work which may be difficult for non-traditional students. Conversely, the liberal studies program should be easier to mount since fewer pre-requisite courses leads to a more achievable degree completion program. To that end, balancing the supply and demand will take careful thought and strong faculty leadership. Therefore, SEIE, Academic Programs, and the relevant home departments are working together to unite the various SSU off-site programs (including those not listed here) under committed and consistent faculty oversight of the curriculum with an overall cohort model to support these students. EPC unanimously supported moving forward with the approval of the curriculum pieces now so that the programs can then focus on the administrative legwork necessary to ensure the programs are viable and of quality. EPC will support this purpose and the planning of these programs and requests follow-up meetings with SEIE over the next year of implementation to discuss: 1) launch and functioning of the off-site programs, 2) progress towards developing a cohort model for off-site programs with committed and consistent faculty oversight of the curriculum (considering stateside and non-stateside offerings), and 3) progress in defining the roles of the SEIE and University Studies Curriculum Committees in these programs (in partnership with faculty governance). EPC looks forward to these discussions and supports these plans to provide student access.

• Lake County partnership with Mendocino College (Lakeport) and Woodland Community College (Lower Lake) = BUS;

• Santa Rosa Junior College, Petaluma BUS; • Solano Community College = BUS;

and • College of Marin = LIBS.

GERN Discontinuance (Minor and Certificate) EPC unanimously recommends discontinuance of the MINOR and CERTIFICATE in GERN. The committee held first and second readings on August 29 and Sept 12, 2019. We reviewed the discontinuance proposals and the 2015/2016 program review. The appendices of the program review were missing despite efforts to track them down. However, a hard-copy version was found on September 26, 2019. This provided one additional community support letter from (mentioned below). There was no evidence of an external review having been completed. In addition, we sought electronic input from the campus community and relevant community organizations (the Advisory Council Area Agency on Aging and the Council on Aging). We took electronic feedback from August 30 through Sept 11, 2019. According to the program review, these GERN programs were started in the 70’s by a volunteer faculty member and they have moved homes repeatedly. In 2014, the program began moving into limbo within the Department of Psychology. The program was then moved to the Department of Sociology after the Program Review and then into the Anthropology Department last year. There was some disagreement on EPC regarding student interest in these programs, particularly the minor. The program review appendix provided a single letter of support from the community (Sonoma County Human Services May 2015) supporting the importance of gerontology as a field. The body of the program review indicated that it was difficult to assess student interest. The reviewers indicated it was difficult to determine if the certificate itself was of use to students for career advancement in general; no students have been enrolled in it since 2011. It was also indicated that student interest overall was difficult to assess in part due to lack of program visibility. After the subsequent move to the Sociology Department, the enrollment data shows a small spike in enrollment after an attempt to revive the programs but those numbers decreased for reasons that are unclear. Melinda Milligan (past chair of Sociology) introduced testimony that there was some student interest in the minor specifically but political complexities of where to house and how to fund the program may have led to this reduced enrollment. Engagement in the minor at that time was unclear as there were disparities between the number of students enrolled in the minor vs. the number of students actually graduating. EPC received one e-mail of community feedback from a 1992 student alum at the Council on Aging who took GERN classes but did not complete the minor or certificate. Regardless, overall EPC recognized that while gerontology is an important field of study at this time there is no data supporting sustained student interest and the following are true: 1) there is only one student enrolled (in the minor) and they are now slated to graduate, 2) the programs

do not have a stable departmental home or faculty that are interested in nurturing the program (following recommendations from the program review), and 3) the majority of the coursework in the minor has either been discontinued by the offering departments or those departments have chosen not to open the coursework to GERN students resulting in a disjointed curriculum composed of multiple course substitutions. All departments with courses in this program have provided letters to support its discontinuance. Remaining coursework in aging-related topics will still exist on campus, likely through courses offered in our past GE program (unless those departments decide to remove them in the future). In addition, review of the field indicates that Gerontology appears to be more of a graduate program with MS and certificate programs in gerontology available in person and online at multiple universities, including sister CSUs, in the bay area and northern California.

** Restricted to Psychology Majors; *** Restricted to Sociology Majors/Minors Blue strikethrough: courses not reliably available to GERN minors because of intermittent offering; Red strikethrough: courses not available to GERN minors because they are either no longer offered or restricted to SOCI or PSY majors

Rationale for Proposed Discontinuance of the Gerontology Certificate By: Dr. Karin E. Jaffe, Interim Gerontology Program Coordinator

Introduction The Gerontology Program consists of a 28-unit certificate (offered by SEIE) and a 22-unit minor (housed in the Anthropology Department; please see attached Gerontology Minor discontinuance proposal for details). In this document I outline the reasons for discontinuing the Gerontology Certificate at the end of Spring 2020 and include statements from impacted stakeholders (Appendix A). No teach-out plan is included because there are no students currently enrolled in the certificate program, which has been inactive since Fall 2003.

Reasons for Discontinuing the Gerontology Certificate No enrollment: Despite the good intentions of Dr. Susan Hillier, the founder of the program, interest in the certificate has not materialized. Although the Gerontology Certificate appears in the 2018-2019 catalog, it is not currently advertised on the SEIE website. According to Julie Shell, the Gerontology Certificate Program “…was last active in Fall of 2003, however there were no enrollments in the final two semesters.” (Appendix B) Records prior to Fall 2003 are not in Peoplesoft, but the certificate has had no student enrollment for over 15 years.

Curriculum: The coursework options are the same for the certificate and minor (Table 1). The only differences are: 8 units of GERN 499 are required for the certificate vs. being a 4-unit option for the minor and 6, rather than 8, units of electives (Table 1; differences highlighted in bold italics). The curricular issues are the same as those outlined in the Gerontology Minor Discontinuance Proposal: lack of available courses now and in the future. For detailed discussion of the curricular issues, the reader is directed to the Gerontology Minor Discontinuance Proposal (attached). The issues are not outlined here because the complete lack of students enrolled in the certificate for the last 15+ years is the primary reason for proposed discontinuance.

Table 1: Comparison of 2018-2019 Gerontology Minor and Certificate Curriculum Minor Certificate

Minor Core Requirements (14 units) BIOL 318 Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 PSY**/GERN 421 Psychology of Aging 4 SOCI/GERN 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) OR GERN 499 Gerontology Practicum 4 (optional)

Certificate Core Requirements (22 units) BIOL 318 Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 PSY**/GERN 421 Psychology of Aging 4 SOCI/GERN 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) 4 GERN 499 Gerontology Practicum 8 (required)

Minor Electives Choose courses to total a minimum of 8 units BIOL 224 Human Physiology (GE B3, Lab) 3 KIN 410 Lifespan Motor Development 4 PSY 358 Health Psychology** 4 PSY**/GERN 408 Transitions in Adult Development 4 PSY**/GERN 422 Living and Dying 4 SOCI/GERN 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 SOCI***/ GERN 332 Death and American Culture 4 SOCI 347 Social Stratification *** 4 SOCI 365 Human Services Administration*** 4 SOCI 381 Population and Society*** 4 SOCI 417 Sociology of Mental Health and Illness*** 4 SOCI 452 Health Care, Illness, and Society*** 4 SOCI 460 Social Work in the Social World*** 4 SOCI 461 Social Welfare and Social Work*** 4

Certificate Electives Choose courses to total a minimum of 6 units BIOL 224 Human Physiology (GE B3, Lab) 3 KIN 410 Lifespan Motor Development 4 PSY 358 Health Psychology** 4 PSY**/GERN 408 Transitions in Adult Development 4 PSY**/GERN 422 Living and Dying 4 SOCI/GERN 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 SOCI***/ GERN 332 Death and American Culture 4 SOCI 347 Social Stratification *** 4 SOCI 365 Human Services Administration*** 4 SOCI 381 Population and Society*** 4 SOCI 417 Sociology of Mental Health and Illness*** 4 SOCI 452 Health Care, Illness, and Society*** 4 SOCI 460 Social Work in the Social World*** 4 SOCI 461 Social Welfare and Social Work*** 4

8/29/2019

Other Considerations Students who express an interest in obtaining a certificate in Gerontology can be directed to the following programs/resources:

• Master’s in Gerontology at San Francisco State: https://gerontology.sfsu.edu/ • Online Certificate in Gerontology at CSU San Marcos: https://www.ed2go.com/csusmel/online-

courses/gerontology-certificate?tab=detail • Online Certificate in End of Life Care at CSU San Marcos:

https://www.ed2go.com/csusmel/online-courses/end-of-life-care-certificate?tab=detail • Online Graduate Certificate in Gerontology at USC: https://online.usc.edu/programs/gerontology-

graduate-certificate/ • Certificate in Gerontology at Sacramento State: https://catalog.csus.edu/colleges/social-sciences-

interdisciplinary-studies/gerontology/certificate-in-gerontology/ • American Society on Aging Online Gerontology Courses: https://www.asaging.org/online-

gerontology-courses

Summary

The Gerontology Certificate suffers from lack of student interest and lack of available coursework. These problems persist despite the valiant efforts of faculty in several departments over several years. The certificate has not been active since 2003, during which time it had no enrolled students. SEIE does not advertise the certificate. Instead, the only mention of it is the curriculum listed in the catalog as part of the Gerontology Program. Keeping this certificate listed in the catalog is tantamount to false advertising since the certificate has been inactive for almost 15 years. The lack of student interest, combined with changes to the GE pattern that make the coursework availability even more tenuous (see Gerontology Minor discontinuance proposal for more details), and the proposed discontinuance of the Gerontology Minor (see attached proposal), make this the most opportune time to discontinue the Gerontology Certificate, effective the end of Spring 2020.

Rationale for Proposed Discontinuance of the Gerontology Minor By: Dr. Karin E. Jaffe, Interim Gerontology Program Coordinator

Introduction The Gerontology Program consists of a 22-unit minor (housed in the Anthropology Department) and a 28-unit certificate (offered by SEIE through self-support; please see attached Gerontology Certificate discontinuance proposal for details). This document provides the rationale for the discontinuance of the Gerontology Minor at the end of Spring 2020. In this document, I 1) discuss the reasons for discontinuing the Gerontology Minor, 2) address the plan for GERN 300, and 3) outline a teach-out plan to serve currently enrolled minors. Appendix A provides statements of support from impacted stakeholders and Appendix B includes supporting email correspondence.

Reasons for Discontinuing the Gerontology Minor Low enrollment: Despite the good intentions of Dr. Susan Hillier, the founder of the program, and other affiliated faculty, student interest in the minor has not materialized. Over the last 12 years a total of 179 students formally declared Gerontology as their minor, an average of 7.5 enrolled minors/semester (range: 3-16 students/semester; Table 1). Although a high of 16 students were declared Gerontology minors each semester during the 2015-2016 academic year, only 6 of those students graduated with the minor during this time. In fact, the number of students graduating with a Gerontology Minor is a fraction of the number of students enrolled. Over the past 12 years, 37 students (20% of those declared) graduated with the minor, an average of 1.5 students/semester (range: 0-5 students/semester; Table 1). The low enrollments in the minor persist despite the efforts of Dr. Brian Gillespie (Sociology) and Dr. Andriana Foiles Sifuentes (Anthropology) to grow the minor in recent years. Dr. Gillespie’s efforts coincide with the spike in minors during the 2015-2016 academic year but the increase in enrollments was not maintained. Dr. Foiles Sifuentes also attempted to recruit students into the minor during the 2017-2018 academic year, but was only able to get three students to declare. Low enrollment in the minor is not due to attempts by faculty to recruit students, but rather because there simply is not enough interest in gerontology on the part of SSU students to sustain a minor.

Table 1: Gerontology enrollments and degrees conferred by term (see also Appendix B) Semester Actively

enrolled Degrees

conferred Semester Actively

enrolled Degrees

conferred Fall 2007 5 1 Spring 2014 7 0 Spring 2008 7 3 Fall 2014 8 0 Fall 2008 8 1 Spring 2015 12 1 Spring 2009 9 2 Summer 2015 -- 1 Fall 2009 7 2 Fall 2015 16 1 Spring 2010 6 2 Spring 2016 16 5 Fall 2010 3 1 Fall 2016 8 1 Spring 2011 5 1 Spring 2017 7 3 Fall 2011 7 1 Summer 2017 -- 2 Spring 2012 7 2 Fall 2017 4 1 Fall 2012 10 1 Spring 2018 5 0 Spring 2013 7 2 Fall 2018 5 2 Fall 2013 7 1 Spring 2019 3 2* Total 179 37 Ave/semester 7.5 1.5

-- indicates no students declared the minor because Program Coordinator does not work during summer * 2 of the 3 current minors are completing all minor requirements and have applied to graduate in May 2019

8/29/2019 Curriculum: There are several curricular issues contributing to the need to discontinue the Gerontology Minor. These issues, along with plans for GERN 300, are discussed below.

Lack of currently available coursework: The Gerontology Minor as it appears in the SSU catalog consists of 22 units (Table 2; column A). Only two courses are offered uniquely as “GERN”, the code for Gerontology. These are GERN 300 (The Journey of Adulthood) and GERN 499 (Gerontology Practicum). Because GERN 499 is a contract course and not required for the minor, only one academic course in the Gerontology Minor curriculum is offered by the Gerontology Program. The other 19 units are offered by Biology, Kinesiology, Psychology and Sociology (see Table 2, column A). Six of these courses are labeled “GERN” but are cross-listed with either a PSY or SOCI course, and thus dependent on the other department to offer them. Although the catalog lists multiple elective courses available for students pursuing the minor the reality is far different (Table 2, column A vs. column B). Psychology has deleted PSY 421 and PSY 422 and restricts PSY 358 to Psychology majors only, so these courses are no longer available to Gerontology Minors (see Psychology statement, Appendix A). Because these courses, along with SOCI 347, SOCI 365, SOCI 381, SOCI 417, SOCI 452, SOCI 460 and SOCI 461 (which are restricted to Sociology majors only) are not available to the minor, they appear in red strikethrough. Psychology has also had to reduce the offering of PSY 408 to “intermittent” due to low enrollment over the past two years. SOCI 332 has not been offered Fall 2016. These two courses cannot be viewed as reliable parts of the minor curriculum and appear in Table 2, column B in blue strikethrough because they would not be included in the curriculum if the minor were retained. It is false advertising to list any of these 12 courses (48 units) as part of the minor when the students cannot expect to be able to take them, either because they are not offered regularly, are no longer offered by the home department, or they are restricted. With these 12 courses removed, the minor would consist of 20 units.

Table 2: Comparison of Gerontology Minor Curriculum A. 2018-2019 Catalog B. Actual/Likely Availability

Minor Core Requirements BIOL 318 Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 PSY**/GERN 421 Psychology of Aging 4 SOCI/GERN 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) or GERN 499 Gerontology Practicum 4

Minor Core Requirements ‡BIOL 318 Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 ‡GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 PSY**/GERN 421 Psychology of Aging 4 ‡SOCI/GERN 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) or GERN 499 Gerontology Practicum 4

Minor Electives Choose courses to total a minimum of 8 units BIOL 224 Human Physiology (GE B3, Lab) 3 KIN 410 Lifespan Motor Development 4 PSY 358 Health Psychology** 4 PSY**/GERN 408 Transitions in Adult Development 4 PSY**/GERN 422 Living and Dying 4 SOCI/GERN 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 SOCI***/ GERN 332 Death and American Culture 4 SOCI 347 Social Stratification *** 4 SOCI 365 Human Services Administration*** 4 SOCI 381 Population and Society*** 4 SOCI 417 Sociology of Mental Health and Illness*** 4 SOCI 452 Health Care, Illness, and Society*** 4 SOCI 460 Social Work in the Social World*** 4 SOCI 461 Social Welfare and Social Work*** 4

Minor Electives Choose courses to total a minimum of 8 units ‡BIOL 224 Human Physiology (GE B3, Lab) 3 KIN 410 Lifespan Motor Development 3 PSY 358 Health Psychology** 4 PSY**/GERN 408 Transitions in Adult Development 4 PSY**/GERN 422 Living and Dying 4 ‡SOCI/GERN 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 SOCI***/ GERN 332 Death and American Culture 4 SOCI 347 Social Stratification *** 4 SOCI 365 Human Services Administration*** 4 SOCI 381 Population and Society*** 4 SOCI 417 Sociology of Mental Health and Illness*** 4 SOCI 452 Health Care, Illness, and Society*** 4 SOCI 460 Social Work in the Social World*** 4 SOCI 461 Social Welfare and Social Work*** 4

** Restricted to Psychology Majors; *** Restricted to Sociology Majors/Minors ‡ GE course open to all students who meet the prerequisites Blue strikethrough: courses not reliably available to GERN minors because their last offering was 2 or more years ago Red strikethrough: courses not available to GERN minors because they are either no longer offered or restricted to SOCI or PSY majors

8/29/2019 All of the courses that would remain in the minor (Table 2, column B) would be GE courses except KIN 410. Considering KIN 410 a reliably component of the Gerontology minor is also problematic. Kinesiology currently allows non-majors to enroll in KIN 410 (space permitting), but the course is technically restricted to Kinesiology Majors (in Spring 2019, non-KIN majors needed department permission to enroll in KIN 410). There is no guarantee that KIN 410 will always allow non-majors to enroll (as evidenced by past practice where the restriction was enforced). If the Kinesiology Department decides to stop allowing non-majors to take KIN 410, as is their right as an impacted program, the minor curriculum would lose an additional 3 units, leaving available coursework at 17 units. The lack of units is further exacerbated by the fact that BIOL 224 has significant prerequisite requirements (BIOL 110 or BIOL 115 or BIOL 130 and 131 and CHEM 115A/B or CHEM 125A/B or CHEM 110 or CHEM 105 required). Requiring both Biology and Chemistry prerequisites makes it unlikely that Gerontology Minors who are Social Science majors will be able to take the course.

GE revision: The bulk of the courses currently available to Gerontology Minors are GE courses, and the majority of these (4/5) are upper-division GE courses (Table 2, column B). Given the revisions to SSU’s GE pattern currently taking place, this is potentially problematic for the minor. I plan to work with the instructor of GERN 300 to revise it and keep it in the GE pattern (see below), but whether it will remain upper division or change to lower division is unknown. The Biology Department confirmed its plan to continue to offer BIOL 318 (see Biology statement, Appendix A). It is likely, but unconfirmed, that SOCI 317 and SOCI 319 will also remain in the GE pattern, so there is no guarantee of this. The GE revision further highlights a problem with the Gerontology Minor: it relies almost exclusively on other departments to offer its curriculum (except for GERN 300). While departments will fight to continue to offer courses that meet their own curricular/target needs, they will not continue to offer courses simply to meet the needs of a small minor. It is impossible to assure students that enough units will be available in the minor even in the near future.

Lack of unique coursework moving forward: The Anthropology Department’s new hire, Dr. Andriana Foiles Sifuentes, has taught several sociocultural anthropology topics (ANTH 358) courses appropriate for the Gerontology Minor (see Table 3). These courses could potentially increase the units available to the minor by 12. However, a closer look at these and the other courses available to the minor reveal another problem: significant overlap with the Anthropology and Human Development majors (Table 3). Of the nine courses listed in Table 3, eight meet requirements in either one or both majors. This means that students can obtain much of this curriculum by majoring in one of these other two programs. Courses that Anthropology Majors do not get in the major could be taken to meet some of their GE requirements (depending on what occurs with GE revision). In fact, since ANTH 358 is open to all majors, and all other courses except KIN 410 are GE courses, eight of the nine courses in Table 3 could be taken by students who are majoring in any discipline. There simply is not a sound curricular justification for retaining the minor.

Table 3: Gerontology Coursework Overlap with Human Development and Anthropology Majors* Course ANTH or HD Major? ANTH 358 Culture and Aging 4 ANTH 358 Women and Aging 4 ANTH 358 Medical Anthropology 4 BIOL 224 Human Physiology (GE B3, Lab) 3 BIOL 318 Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 KIN 410 Lifespan Motor Development 3 SOCI/GERN 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 SOCI/GERN 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) 4

Both Both Anthropology Neither Human Development Human Development Human Development Human Development Human Development

* GERN 499 (Practicum) not included as it is not an academic course and is currently listed as ‘or’ with PSY/GERN 408; ** Restricted to Psychology Majors

8/29/2019 Plan for Gerontology 300 The only stand-alone Gerontology course is GERN 300 (The Journey of Adulthood; GE-E; 3 units). Karin Jaffe & the GERN 300 instructor (Pamela Abbott-Enz) have submitted a proposal to turn GERN 300 into HD 200 (Introduction to Human Aging). HD 200 is currently under review by the GE Subcommittee for placement in the new GE area E. Since GERN 300 is the only course Dr. Abbott-Enz teaches, discontinuance of the minor will not affect her employment because she will teach HD 200. Teach-Out Plan No teach-out plan is required for the Gerontology minor because the last remaining student in minor is completing the minor requirements this semester (Fall 2019) (see Table 4 and Figure 1).

Table 4: Currently Enrolled Gerontology Minors (as of August 29, 2019)

Student Status of Gerontology Minor Coursework as of Fall 2019 Overall Status of Student

1 All courses complete or in progress (see Figure 1). Will complete GERN minor at the end of Fall 2019.

Is senior status (116 units complete); has completed the writing requirement, all lower division GE, is completing upper division GE requirement. Appears to be on-track to complete their major in Spring 2020, given the units remaining.

Figure 1: Screen shot of the status of the only student currently enrolled in the Gerontology Minor (effective August 29, 2019). The student is on track to complete the minor by the end of Fall 2019.

8/29/2019 Other Considerations Students who express an interest in obtaining a minor in Gerontology can be directed to the following programs/resources:

• General Education courses that focus on aging (note that the status of these courses may change as the new GE pattern is implemented, this list is current as of August 29, 2019): o BIOL 318 The Biology of Aging (GE E) 3 units o GERN 300 The Journey of Adulthood (GE E) 3 units o SOCI 317 Emotions and Adult Life (GE E) 4 units o SOCI 319 Aging and Society (GE D1) 4 units *The above courses, if they remain in the new GE pattern, could form the basis of a GE SeaLane in the future.

• Other gerontology programs offered locally or online: o Master’s in Gerontology at San Francisco State: https://gerontology.sfsu.edu/ o Online Certificate in Gerontology at CSU San Marcos:

https://www.ed2go.com/csusmel/online-courses/gerontology-certificate?tab=detail o Online Certificate in End of Life Care at CSU San Marcos:

https://www.ed2go.com/csusmel/online-courses/end-of-life-care-certificate?tab=detail o Online Graduate Certificate in Gerontology at USC:

https://online.usc.edu/programs/gerontology-graduate-certificate/ o Certificate in Gerontology at Sacramento State: https://catalog.csus.edu/colleges/social-

sciences-interdisciplinary-studies/gerontology/certificate-in-gerontology/

• Other gerontology resources: o American Society on Aging Online Gerontology Courses:

https://www.asaging.org/online-gerontology-courses

Summary The Gerontology Minor suffers from lack of student interest and lack of unique and available coursework. These problems persist despite the valiant efforts of faculty in multiple departments over several years. The minor currently has one student enrolled, and this student will complete the coursework for the minor at the end of Fall 2019. This, combined with changes to the GE pattern that make the coursework availability in the minor even more tenuous than it currently is, make this the most opportune time to discontinue the Gerontology Minor, effective the end of Spring 2020.

9/11/2019 Sonoma State University Mail - Notice of proposal to discontinue SSU Gerontology Program

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5ff66cad2f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar-2519411301460697744&simpl=msg-a%3Ar-251941130… 1/1

Karin Jaffe <[email protected]>

Notice of proposal to discontinue SSU Gerontology ProgramKarin Jaffe <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:11 PMTo: [email protected], [email protected]: Jennifer Lillig <[email protected]>

Dear Tracy and Victoria,

My name is Karin Jaffe, and I am writing to you in my capacity as the interim coordinator of the Gerontology Program atSonoma State University.

I am currently in the process of proposing that SSU discontinue the Gerontology Program, which consists of a minor anda certificate. As part of this process, I am reaching out to the Advisory Council to Area Agency on Aging and give you anopportunity to comment.

The proposals are attached, but in short, both the minor and the certificate suffer from lack of student interest and lack ofavailable courses to meet the curriculum.

I encourage you to share the proposals with members of the AAA Advisory Council, and let them know they can sendcomments to me ([email protected]) or Jennifer Lillig ([email protected]). The deadline to receive commentsis 5pm on Wednesday, September 11.

Please let me or Jennifer know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Karin Enstam Jaffe, Ph.D.Professor of AnthropologyFaculty Associate Dean for the School of Social SciencesCoordinator, Human Development Program Director, Sonoma State University Primate Ethology Research LabDepartment of AnthropologySonoma State University1801 East Cotati AvenueRohnert Park, CA 94928Phone: (707)664-2944Fax: (707)664-3920www.sonoma.edu/users/e/enstamhttps://anthropology.sonoma.edu/https://hd.sonoma.edu/

2 attachments

GERN Certificate Discontinuance Complete Proposal.08.29.19.pdf1201K

GERN Minor Discontinuance Complete Proposal.08.29.19.pdf1418K

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sonoma.edu/users/e/enstam

https://anthropology.sonoma.edu/

https://hd.sonoma.edu/

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=5ff66cad2f&view=att&th=16ce45eaad4d3064&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_jzylsc940&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=5ff66cad2f&view=att&th=16ce45eaad4d3064&attid=0.2&disp=attd&realattid=f_jzylsc9w1&safe=1&zw

9/11/2019 Sonoma State University Mail - Notice of proposal to discontinue SSU Gerontology Program

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5ff66cad2f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-a%3Ar7535066944357016987&simpl=msg-a%3Ar7535066944… 1/1


Notice of proposal to discontinue SSU Gerontology ProgramKarin Jaffe <[email protected]> Fri, Aug 30, 2019 at 2:19 PMTo: [email protected]: Jennifer Lillig <[email protected]>

Dear Ms. McBride,

My name is Karin Jaffe, and I am writing to you in my capacity as the interim coordinator of the Gerontology Program atSonoma State University.

I am currently in the process of proposing that SSU discontinue the Gerontology Program, which consists of a minor anda certificate. As part of this process, I am reaching out to the Council on Aging to give you an opportunity to comment.

The proposals are attached, but in short, both the minor and the certificate suffer from lack of student interest and lack ofavailable courses to meet the curriculum.

I encourage you to share the proposals with the Board Members and others involved with the Council on Aging, and letthem know they can send comments to me ([email protected]) or Jennifer Lillig ([email protected]). Thedeadline to receive comments is 5pm on Wednesday, September 11.

Please let me or Jennifer know if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Karin Enstam Jaffe, Ph.D.Professor of AnthropologyFaculty Associate Dean for the School of Social SciencesCoordinator, Human Development Program Director, Sonoma State University Primate Ethology Research LabDepartment of AnthropologySonoma State University1801 East Cotati AvenueRohnert Park, CA 94928Phone: (707)664-2944Fax: (707)664-3920www.sonoma.edu/users/e/enstamhttps://anthropology.sonoma.edu/https://hd.sonoma.edu/

2 attachments

GERN Certificate Discontinuance Complete Proposal.08.29.19.pdf1201K

GERN Minor Discontinuance Complete Proposal.08.29.19.pdf1418K



http://www.sonoma.edu/users/e/enstam

https://anthropology.sonoma.edu/

https://hd.sonoma.edu/

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=5ff66cad2f&view=att&th=16ce465dd9c8884e&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_jzylsc940&safe=1&zw

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ui=2&ik=5ff66cad2f&view=att&th=16ce465dd9c8884e&attid=0.2&disp=attd&realattid=f_jzylsc9w1&safe=1&zw

9/11/2019 Sonoma State University Mail - Gerontology Certificate and Minor

https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0?ik=5ff66cad2f&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1643587424039849086&simpl=msg-f%3A164358742403… 1/1


Gerontology Certificate and MinorConnie Aust <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 2, 2019 at 10:58 AMTo: [email protected], [email protected]

It is with great sadness that I am addressing the proposal to discontinue the minor in gerontology and the certificate inGerontology. I was a student at SSU (class of 1992) and attended gerontology classes with Dr. Susan Hillier. I havealways wished I could have continued on to earn the certificate but children and work took precedence. With our agingcommunity, 30% of the population by 2021, it is hard to believe there is a lack of interest in gerontology course work.Perhaps with the loss of this program Sonoma State University could consider a Masters in Social Work program toreplace it which may have a broader appeal. MSW students are either forced to attend classes out of town inSacramento, San Francisco or on-line which does not appeal to everyone.

-- Kind Regards, Connie Aust, Licensed Fiduciary Financial ServicesProgram Director707-525-0143 Ext. 108

30 Kawana Springs Road, Santa Rosa, CA 95404http://www.councilonaging.comMain: 707-525-0143Fax: 707-525-0454

https://www.google.com/maps/search/30+Kawana+Springs+Road,+Santa+Rosa,+CA+95404?entry=gmail&source=g

http://www.councilonaging.com/

Academic Program Assessment Gerontology Program

2015-2016

2

Academic Program Assessment Gerontology Program

2015-2016

Submitted by:

Sonoma State University, School of Social Sciences Brian Joseph Gillespie (Assessment Coordinator)

3

Gerontology Program Review and Assessment

Sonoma State University School of Social Sciences

Spring 2015

Table of Contents Introduction and Program History ............................................................................................... 4 Gerontology Program Overview ................................................................................................. 5

Degree Options ....................................................................................................................... 5 Student Enrollment ................................................................................................................. 5

Resource Allocation Evaluation .................................................................................................. 7 Instructor Evaluation ................................................................................................................... 7 Curriculum Evaluation ................................................................................................................ 7

Comparison with AGHE Standards for Competency ............................................................... 7 Comparison with Comparable Gerontology Programs ........................................................... 10 National and Local Need ....................................................................................................... 11 Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 13 Appendices to the Report .......................................................................................................... 17

Acknowledgments

Vivian Diaz, Student Assistant Pamela Abbott-Enz, Gerontology Instructor Chelsea Kilat, Institutional Research Analyst Professor Gerryann Olson Professor Kathy Charmaz Professor Madeleine Rose Ariana Diaz De Leon, Faculty Affairs SSU Departments of Biology, Psychology and Sociology Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging Association for Gerontology in Higher Education

4

Introduction and Program History Gerontology is the study of the aging process and individuals as they grow from middle age through later life. It includes (a) the study of physical, mental, and social changes in older people as they age; (b) the investigation of the changes in society resulting from our aging population; and (c) the application of this knowledge to policies and programs. Biology, sociology, and psychology are the “core” areas within the field, along with content from many other areas of study such as public policy and economics. The Gerontology program was designed and coordinated in the mid-1970s by retired Grinnell Professor George Robertson (Biology), a volunteer at SSU. At that time, Professor Kathy Charmaz (Sociology) acted as faculty supervisor for the program. In the early-1980s, Professor Charmaz became the coordinator and instituted a number of curriculum changes in the program, requiring core courses (Biology of Aging, Psychology of Aging, and a basic course on gerontology) and integrating a number of interdisciplinary electives. The program became especially appealing to students who had already graduated with a Bachelor’s degree and were returning for a graduate degree focus on gerontology. At this time, there was faculty and administrative support for the program, including an interdisciplinary advisory board that provided consultation and support. Since its inception, the gerontology program has maintained this interdisciplinary nature and draws upon faculty expertise from different departments within the University.

In the early-1990s, Professor Susan Hillier became coordinator of the program and Professor Charmaz’s involvement in the program was limited to a single-year contract to teach a gerontology course and advise some of the graduate students. As a result of departmental conflicts, campus political issues, and budget cuts, the advisory board became inactive and student and administrative interest in the program began to decline. Since then, the program has suffered from lack of resources and lack of space for faculty and students.

In 2006, School of Social Science programs were incorporated into the academic department of their closest identity. The gerontology budget was then folded into the psychology budget. Previously the budgets had been administered de facto as a program in the psychology department for administrative efficiency. Most of the records prior to 2007 have been lost and Professor Susan Hillier, a long-time coordinator of the SSU Gerontology Program (early 1990s-Spring 2014), was unavailable to contribute to the history of the department after multiple attempts to get in contact. This program assessment, the first since 1981, will provide a broad evaluation of the GERN program’s current state, highlight areas in need of improvement, and provide recommendations to improve the program to help meet the needs of students in light of limited resources at the departmental and school level. In recent years, the Psychology Department has shown decreased interest in devoting resources to the program. Since Professor Hillier’s recent retirement in 2014, Professor Geri Olson (Psychology) has been coordinator of the program. The program is currently in limbo, with final decisions pending the outcome of this evaluation/assessment.

5

Gerontology Program Overview The mission of the Gerontology Program is to provide students with multidisciplinary perspectives on the aging process to supplement their major department’s academic degree with an emphasis in the field of gerontology. In addition to a multidisciplinary theoretical and methodological approach, the program includes a practical internship experience to foster an appreciation for the field and support student career goals. The program currently consists of an interdisciplinary minor and a certificate. Gerontology Minor The 22-unit gerontology minor requires a series of gerontology-based core courses and electives to accompany the traditional discipline majors and professions (e.g., sociology, psychology, and nursing). The minor prepares students for beginning careers in the aging field. The current curriculum requires 4 core courses/14 units: (1) BIOL 318, Biology of Aging, (2) GERN 300, The Journey of Adulthood, (3) PSY 421, Psychology of Aging, and (4) an option between SOCI 319, Aging & Society, or GERN 499, Gerontology Practicum. In addition to the core courses, students are required to take an additional 8 units from a range of courses. This corresponds with the number of units for other SSU minors (see Table A). All program requirements for the minor are listed in Appendix A.

Table A: Units for Minor in Gerontology-Related Programs Biology 24 Psychology 23 Kinesiology 22 Sociology 20

Gerontology Certificate The 28-unit certificate program is a post-baccalaureate focus in aging. The interdisciplinary program provides a background in aging, including physical, mental, and social changes in later-life. Students are able to complete the certificate as they work toward their bachelor’s degree—the program is also available to students who have a bachelor’s degree that would like to focus their career on gerontological processes. The core curriculum requires 5 courses/22 units and includes all of the core courses for the minor with a requirement for both SOCI 319 and 8 units of GERN 499. Students then select 6 units from the same electives offered for the minor. Program requirements for the certificate are in Appendix A. Interdisciplinary Studies Master’s Degree In the past, M.A. students in the Interdisciplinary Studies program (ITDS) could complete their graduate degree with a GERN focus. The degree focus was student/advisor designed based on available graduate courses in existing programs at SSU. The degree program was vetted by

6

existing programs in the CSU system to assure system-wide consistency and program quality. Susan Hillier noted that prior to her retirement, “the largest single focus at the ITDS master’s level was gerontology.” However, the Gerontology ITDS M.A. degree is no longer accepting students and has essentially been discontinued.

Program Graduates and Student Enrollment It has been difficult to pinpoint an exact number of students enrolled in the certificate program and/or minor at any given time because students are able to declare the status when filing for graduation. Pamela Abbott-Enz, a long-time instructor of GERN 300, indicated that she has been contacted by several students who were not officially enrolled but were expecting courses to be offered to complete the program prior to graduation. Susan Hillier noted that before her retirement (in 2014), she advised 10-15 students per semester with interests in gerontology. In her brief to the psychology department, she noted that it was her understanding that the School of Social Sciences dean was phasing out GERN minors. At this point, the program is in transition and enrollment is low—there are only eight students officially enrolled as GERN minors and no students are enrolled in the certificate program (See Table B). Table B: Current Gerontology Enrollment by Major Major Program #

Minors Human Development 1 Kinesiology 1 Psychology 1 Sociology 3 Undeclared 1 Women's and Gender Studies 1

Data from SSU’s Institutional Research also show very small numbers of GERN minor graduates from 2008-2014: between 3 and 5 in any given year and none in 2014 (see Table C). There have been even fewer certificate graduates—one to two through 2010 and none since. Each of those 4 students completed the GERN certificate concurrently with their BA, indicating that returning students have not been enrolling in the certificate program. Currently, Geri Olson is working with several students who were already in the ITDS program to help them graduate but there are no plans to revive the gerontology focus in the ITDS program. Table C: Gerontology Program Graduates (2008-2014) Degree 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Minor 4 4 3 3 3 3 0 Certificate 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 ITDS M.A. Focus1 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

1 There are no records of ITDS M.A. students with a focus in GERN because Institutional Research is unable to query concentrations for the M.A. degrees.

7

Resource Allocation Evaluation Given space limitations because of the large number of faculty in the Psychology Department, there has never been a designated area on campus for the Gerontology Program. In the past, Professor Hillier used her assigned office in Psychology, which was shared with Pamela Abbott-Enz, an adjunct who has taught GERN 300 for many years. Currently, the Gerontology Program is located in the departmental office of the current director, Professor Geri Olson. The current GERN program website (https://www.sonoma.edu/gerontology/) contains links to the most important information on the program but is not maintained. Many of the gerontology-related resources (e.g., books and videos) were lost after Professor Hillier’s retirement. Additionally, GERN teaching and other promotional resources (e.g., books and videos) are profoundly limited by budgetary constraints.

Instructor Evaluation Most of the GERN courses are cross-listed with courses in other departments, primarily sociology and psychology. A single standalone gerontology course (GERN 300: Journey to Adulthood) has been taught by long-time adjunct Pamela Abbott-Enz. Copies of aggregate SETEs from Fall 2014 for GERN 300 in 2014 can be found in Appendix B. Students rated the course and instructor very high (> 4.5) on all measures.

Curriculum Evaluation Evaluation Criteria The program currently consists of a minor and a certificate. There have been no explicit learning goals or curriculum objectives designed for the GERN program. In order to evaluate the GERN curriculum, we (1) compared GERN core requirements to the standards for competency set forth by the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education (AGHE), the national professional organization in the field (2) reviewed and compared GERN program requirements and courses to other comparable CSU programs, and (3) compared the core and elective courses in the GERN program with the national and local need for aging-related study, research, and practice, particularly in Sonoma County. (1) Professional Standards: Association for Gerontology in Higher Education

Without a standard for evaluation, we compared the current GERN curriculum with the AGHE standards for content competency for gerontology programs (Appendix C). These standards aim to develop a unified approach to the discipline of gerontology and rely on a robust definition of a gerontologist: “Gerontologists improve the quality of life and promote the well-being of persons as they age within their families, communities and societies through research, education and

8

application of interdisciplinary knowledge of the aging process and aging populations.” (AGHE 2014: 8). Curriculum: The AGHE does not identify curriculum requirements for the minor. For certification above and beyond the minor, the AGHE requires 24 units that include courses in Psychology of Aging, Sociology of Aging, Biology of Aging, and fieldwork, plus any combination of electives as determined by the institution. Content: AGHE recommends that any degree-granting program, including minors and certificates, incorporate a competency-based gerontology education. These standards for gerontological competency are organized into three categories: foundational, interactional, and contextual. These criteria were used as the basis for comparison with core GERN courses based on the GERN catalog course descriptions (Appendix D) and course syllabi (Appendix E).2 A description of course alignment with these content areas is listed within each competency category below.

Category I: FOUNDATIONAL COMPETENCIES 1.1 Frameworks for Understanding Human Aging: Utilize gerontological frameworks to examine human development and aging.

Gerontology 300 employs a life course perspective to examine aging and age-related transitions with an introduction to concepts and theories related to aging. Sociology 319 (an upper division GE) examines aging in the context of gender, race, and SES within different social environments. Both courses interpret gerontological frameworks in relationship to aspects and problems of aging persons, their families, their environments and communities.

1.2 Biological Aspects of Aging: Relate biological theory and science to understanding senescence, longevity and variation in aging.

Gerontology 300 and Biology 318 help students recognize common late-life syndromes and diseases and their related bio-psycho-social risk and protective factors. Both Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 promote an understanding of biological aging in the context of other ways of understanding human aging (i.e., psychological and social).

1.3 Psychological Aspects of Aging: Relate psychological theories and science to understanding adaptation, stability and change in aging.

Gerontology 300, Psychology 421, and Sociology 319 describe psychological well-being and related late-life outcomes such as life satisfaction, coping, and adaptation.

1.4 Social Aspects of Aging: Relate social theories and science of aging to understanding heterogeneity, inequality and context of aging.

2 Only core courses for the GERN minor and certificate were used for this analysis because syllabi for many elective courses no longer exist as many of the elective courses listed in the current catalog have been discontinued.

9

Sociology 319 and Gerontology 300 help students acquire a diverse approach to aging based on age, gender, culture, socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation, and other factors. Sociology 319 helps students assess the impact of inequality on life opportunities throughout the life course and how this impacts later life outcomes. This course also introduces demographic concepts, such as fertility mortality, and immigration into the study of aging.

1.5 The Humanities and Aging: Develop comprehensive and meaningful concepts, definitions and measures for well-being of older adults and their families, grounded in Humanities and Arts.

Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 acknowledge, discuss, and promote unique contributions older adults can make to the social environment.

1.6 Research and Critical Thinking: Distinguish factors related to aging outcomes, both intrinsic and contextual, through critical thinking and empirical research.

Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 explain research methodologies and applications used by researchers to study aging. Both courses promote the use of critical thinking to evaluate information and sources (popular media v. research publications).

Category II: INTERACTIONAL COMPETENCIES

2.1. Attitudes and Perspectives: Develop a gerontological perspective through knowledge and self-reflection.

Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 teach students to critically analyze myths, assumptions, and stereotypes about aging individuals that lead to prejudice and discrimination.

2.2 Ethics and Professional Standards: Adhere to ethical principles to guide work with and on behalf of older persons.

Gerontology 300 and Gerontology 499 highlight the importance of a person’s individuality, independence, and autonomy. This course stresses the importance of respecting individuals of all ages, abilities, and cultures. Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 discuss the problem of elder abuse and programs and policies that address this issue.

2.3 Communication with and on Behalf of Older Persons: Engage, through effective communication older persons, their families and the community, in personal and public issues in aging.

Gerontology 300 and Gerontology 499 address issues with establishing working relationships and communicating effectively with older adults, their families, and caregivers. Sociology 319 promotes analysis of how older individuals are portrayed in the media and how this influences societal perspectives on aging.

10

2.4 Interdisciplinary and Community Collaboration: Engage collaboratively with others to promote integrated approaches to aging.

Gerontology 300 and Sociology 319 instruct students on the roles of gerontologists. Gerontology 499 focuses on collaborative work on behalf of older adults. These courses also teach students to integrate knowledge from different disciplines to provide comprehensive care to older adults and their families.

Category III: CONTEXTUAL COMPETENCIES (FOCUS ON 2 OF 8) 3.1 Well-Being, Health, and Mental Health: Promote older persons’ strengths and adaptations to maximize well-being, health and mental health.

Gerontology 499 gives students an opportunity to build relationships with older adults that are respectful, engaging, and meaningful. This course also promotes the importance of social networks for social and psychological well-being later in life.

3.2 Social Health: Promote quality of life and positive social environment for older persons.

Gerontology 499 allows students to learn about and support adaptation to later-life transitions, including retirement, family changes, and loss and bereavement. Students are better able to recognize the importance of social isolation in morbidity and mortality risk. The practicum also provides opportunities for intergenerational exchange.

3.3-3.8 Program/Service Development, Education, Arts and Humanities, Business & Finance, Policy, Research, Application, and Evaluation: Additional

Overall Evaluation The core requirements for the GERN program are mostly consistent with the AGHE’s content competency standards. The course content for two of the core courses in particular, SOCI 319 and GERN 300, contain course content that is covered within each of the competencies in Categories I and II. However, Gerontology 499 (Gerontology Practicum) is especially important in meeting the standards for Category III: Contextual Competencies, indicating a need for GERN 499 as a core course for the minor.

(2) Comparison with Comparable CSU Gerontology Programs In order to assess the structure of the program, we compared SSU Gerontology with comparable CSU programs. Detailed information about each program can be found in Appendix F. A description of this comparison is offered below. Graduate Certificate Of the universities used for comparison, the average number of core courses for a graduate certificate in GERN is 5—the same average for undergraduate certificates. Sonoma State

11

University currently requires 5 courses—the practicum is 8 units, with an additional 6 units to choose from 13 possible electives across 4 departments (Biology, Kinesiology, Psychology, and Sociology). Many of these electives, particularly in Psychology, have been removed from the course catalog because there are no qualified faculty to teach the courses. Minor On average, there are 4 core courses across the different GERN programs used for comparison. Two important differences should be highlighted. (1) Internships are required for all programs except CSULA’s program in social gerontology and the program at SSU. (2) SSU requires BIOL 318, Biology of Aging, as a core course in the curriculum but this does not match the curricula elsewhere. While the CSUF Gerontology Program lists Biology of Aging as an option for core courses but it is not a required course—no other program offers Biology of Aging course in their core or elective courses. Overall Assessment Using data from comparable institutions, there are two primary differences with existing programs: (1) most programs require a practicum for the minor, and (2) Biology of Aging is not a common core requirement for the minor in gerontology. Additionally, a number of programs also allow flexibility in selecting from different options among core courses.

(3) National and Local Need for Gerontology-Related Studies The third set of criteria used to evaluate the structure of SSU Gerontology Program draws on statistics at the national and local level to assess the need for aging-related programs. The Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging (SCAAA) has adopted a number of goals in their four-year plan to promote the well-being of older adults in Sonoma County (Appendix G). The current GERN curriculum is considered in light of these goals to help match program requirements with the goals of local agencies. The U.S. Aging Population People over 60 make up a larger proportion of the population of the country, state, and county than ever before in history. Through 2050, the number of older people is projected to increase by 135%. Moreover, the population aged 85 and over, which is the group most likely to need health and long-term care services, is projected to increase by 350%.3 This growth will create an increased demand for specialized training in gerontology in nearly every field. In the coming years, the senior population will continue to grow and change, requiring communities to develop new approaches and solutions to address their needs. Demand for long-term services and supports will increase dramatically as seniors live longer. The Aging Population of Sonoma County 3 Wiener, Joshua M. and Jane Tilly. 2002. “Population Aging in the United States of America: Implications for Public Programs.” International Journal of Epidemiology 31:776-781.

12

The senior age group is growing quickly in Sonoma County. Three basic factors spur the growth of Sonoma County’s 60+ population: increased longevity, the baby boom “age wave” caused by the high birth rates of the 1946-1964 period, and—to a lesser extent—an in-migration of seniors seeking retirement in wine country. The over-60 age group in Sonoma County currently accounts for 21% of all residents, higher than the national figure of 18%.4 This number is projected to grow to almost 25% by 2030.5 Moreover, the number of Sonoma County seniors 85+ is projected to triple by 2050.6 In other words, like the rest of California, Sonoma County communities have formidable challenges to face as the population ages. As the population of aging and frail seniors continues to grow, so will the need for interdisciplinary gerontology-related services and research (e.g., assessment for outreach, education, health programs, health insurance counseling, elder abuse prevention, behavioral health services, and transportation demands). According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Occupational Outlook Handbook,7 “Employment of social and human service assistants is projected to grow 22 percent from 2012 to 2022, much faster than the average for all occupations.” In Sonoma County, Adult Protective Service caseloads increased 145% between 1999 and 2011. The field needs people with a broad range of skills that will improve people’s lives. Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging Goals The Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging (SCAAA) emphasizes that Sonoma County is in need of “planners at every level to help create a community that affords seniors the opportunity to live independently as long as possible to and to obtain the services and supports they need to maintain independence and optimal health and well-being.”8 Goal 1: Expand awareness of available services and supports for seniors, their families and caregivers. Assessment: Reinvigorating GERN program is, in itself, important in expanding awareness of aging in Sonoma County and beyond. Additionally, the curriculum is designed such that various needs, services, and supports that are specific to the aging population are targeted. Requiring a practical component (e.g., internship) as part of the minor would enhance this awareness. 4 Werner, Carrie. 2011. “The Older Population: 2010.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5 California Department of Finance Projections. 2014. “State and County Population Projections by Major Age Groups, 2010-2060 (By Decade).” Retrieved March 4, 2015 from: http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/projections/P-1/ 6 West, Loraine A., Samantha Cole, Daniel Goodkind, Wan He. 2014. “65+ in the United States: 2010.” Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 7 Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2014. Occupational Outlook Handbook, 2014-15 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor. 8 Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging. 2012. “Aging and Living Well in Sonoma County.” Santa Rosa, CA: Adult & Aging Services.

13

Goal 2: Enhance the safety, health and well-being of seniors of all ages with an emphasis on prevention of chronic disease, injury and disability. Assessment: The interdisciplinary nature of the GERN program allows for core instruction on aging health and health care, the biological and psychological well-being of the aging population, and social determinants of health in later life (GERN 300, BIO 318, PSYCH 421, and SOCI 319). Additionally, the GERN Practicum (option) gives students an opportunity to draw on a strong network of partnerships to obtain practical experience to learn about the realities of aging. Goal 3: Strengthen the community’s capacity to assess, plan for, and respond to the changing needs of Sonoma County’s senior populations. Assessment: Core and elective courses in the GERN program, such as GERN 300 and SOCI 319, highlight the rapidly changing needs of the local aging population. Coupled with courses taken in the major department (i.e, on methods of data collection and analysis), the minor and certificate can help prepare students for jobs in the collection and analysis of data on senior populations, including their changing needs and the utilization of public services. Assessment Outcome: There is an overwhelming local and national need for gerontology-focused interdisciplinary studies. A gerontology emphasis may be of special interest to students preparing for careers in such fields as social work, public policy, and community and regional planning. Viability of the GERN Certificate: The Gerontology Certificate once provided an opportunity for students to shore up an area of experience, increase employability, and/or advance in a career. The certification entails more practice and professional development than the minor (required practicum) and is geared toward the returning student market. While some research indicates that professional certification in gerontology is useful for career advancement and/or maintaining a competitive edge when looking for aging-related work,9 whether the professional certificate would suit the needs of SSU students is unknown. Importantly, there is a “Health Navigator” Certificate Program in Extended Education that has some overlap with the GERN program.

Recommendations Faculty Advisory Group We recommend establishing a Faculty Advisory Group consisting of faculty an instructors in aging-related fields across campus. This advisory council could help define the curricular requirements for the minor and also discuss the viability of the professional certificate. Ongoing Assessment There should be clearly developed and articulated student learning outcomes and they should align with the AGHE standards and the goals and mission of the SCAAA. We recommend that the program develop an evaluation instrument related to assessment outcomes and keep faculty teaching core courses informed of these standards. Additionally, there should be ongoing 9 Adler, Geri. 2008. “Employment Outcomes of Gerontology Certificate Graduates.” Educational Gerontology 34: 136-147.

14

assessment of the GERN program, including surveying alumni of the program. To date, no data have been collected in the traditional manner on student success and satisfaction with GERN. Assessment of student perspectives would help target problems in the program and avoid issues with student enrollment, retention, and success. Increase Visibility The program has not engaged in any specific efforts to recruit students. In light of the small number of students enrolled in the Gerontology Program, it is critical to have sufficient visibility in order to educate the community (on-campus and locally within Sonoma County) of the existence and importance of the program. Students who transfer from other academic institutions (e.g., Santa Rosa Junior College) will benefit from promotion at recruitment functions and brochures about the program and possible career outcomes. Without knowledge of the program’s existence, students are not aware of the professional and academic opportunities available and the need for personnel in the field. In other words, there is an untapped pool of potential students who may benefit from an aging focus. Discussion of the program in aging courses (e.g., SOCI 319) and career-related courses (e.g., SOCI 306) would increase visibility for the program. The GERN director should have an ongoing dialogue with the campus career center and the advising center to inform counselors and advisors of the GERN program. Curricular Flexibility We recommend that the program open dialogue with other departments (e.g., public administration, business, environmental design) for the potential of additional courses with a gerontological focus which would allow for a greater breadth of multidisciplinary electives, possibly in online or hybrid format. The curriculum should be revised to allow students to choose among several options for one of the core courses so that high enrollment and limited access to courses does not hinder student progress in the minor. For example, allowing students the option to choose between KIN 410 (Lifespan Motor Development) and BIOL 318 (Biology of Aging) to satisfy the core requirement would allow for more possibilities to complete the required courses for the minor/certificate. This would not compromise program consistency with other GERN programs since courses in biology are not commonly required for CSU GERN programs. Such a curricular change would align with AGHE standards because GERN 300 and SOCI 319 meet the current standards for Categories I and II, which emphasize student familiarity with the biological component of aging. Curricular Revisions Because the AGHE does not differentiate between an undergraduate and a graduate certificate, we recommend that the program more closely align the certificate requirements with those for the minor—students can then potentially acquire the certificate while concurrently minoring in gerontology (with one or two additional electives and additional fieldwork hours).

15

Assess and update the acceptable electives for the minor and certificate. For example, Psychology recently removed GERN 304, 305, and 312 from the course catalog because there are no qualified faculty available to teach the courses. We recommend that the program reduce the number of certificate electives units from six to four in order to correspond with the 4-unit upper-division courses offered at SSU. Additionally, we recommend that certificate practicum be reduced to 6-units from 8. Neither of the proposed changes would compromise the principal AGHE certification criteria of 24-units. Both changes would simplify student progress through the program. We recommend that the program director require students to meet for advisement in order to officially enroll in the program—this will help get an actual count of enrolled students in the program at any given time. GERN should more strongly support volunteerism in real-life situations. In order to better meet the AGHE standards for competency and reflect the curriculum at other CSU programs, we recommend that GERN require the practicum as a core course for the minor—it is already required for the certificate. This revision enables students to more effectively compete in the workforce while also increasing community visibility to the program. As an alternative to the practicum, an annual service learning course would help students put into practice what they are learning in the classroom and develop their own personal thoughts on aging and the care of the aging. A recently discontinued course, SOCI 432, Group Work with Older Adults, would enhance student connections and facilitate interaction with the Sonoma County senior population. The popular service learning course at SSU was described in a book chapter (Rose 2010).10 Build Partnerships Consistent with the above recommendation to include the GERN Practicum as a core course, we recommend that the program director work to enhance partnerships with local aging-based organizations and institutions—possibly through the Center for Community Engagement—to provide career networking possibilities, expand student awareness of aging in Sonoma County, and increase the visibility of the program. In the past, the program has worked with a number of service providers (see Appendix H) but, more recently, students in the practicum have been directed to complete an internship in their major department for GERN practicum credit. As a result, many of these partnerships have deteriorated. The formation of a Community Advisory Council would demonstrate the support of community partnerships and would be helpful with advocacy, connections for internships, identifying knowledge and skills for those entering the field, and a gerontology lecture series. Resource Allocation

10 Rose, Madeleine. 2010. “Connections across Generations: Dialogue Groups Bridge the Generation Gap.” Chapter 2 in A. Pelham and E. Sills (eds.), Promoting Health and Wellness in Underserved Communities: Multidisciplinary Perspectives through Service Learning. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing.

16

Resources for cross-campus course development are important to develop elective courses in GERN and increase the appreciation and importance of aging studies in other departments (e.g., business, art, anthropology). We recommend that the program maintain membership in the Association for Gerontology in Higher Education (http://www.aghe.org/) to help inform student learning outcomes and standards of evaluation. We also recommend maintaining subscription to the Gerontological Society of America publication, The Gerontologist, and the American Society on Aging publication, Generations. The program would benefit from a dedicated office space, which would help legitimize the program as an entity within its home department. In order to reinvigorate the program it is necessary to have a regularly-updated website to promote the program and expand on requirements, career options, and field study requirements and possible placements. Students would benefit from additional financial support for professional development (e.g., conferences, career guidance, and other professional development) and other student activities (e.g., forming a Gerontology Club, Sigma Phi Omega membership—the GERN honors society, engaging in research projects with faculty, and/or a university-wide lecture series). Program students would benefit from the ability to utilize on-campus aging-related resources, including OLLI (Osher Lifelong Learning Institute). Relocate to Sociology Given that the Psychology Department is no longer interested in housing GERN, we recommend relocating the revised program to the Sociology Department, provided there is departmental interest in doing so. A standalone program would be vulnerable to budgetary constraints and disbandment. A gerontology emphasis may be of special interest to sociology students, especially those preparing for careers in such fields as social work, public policy, and community and regional planning—common career outcomes for sociology majors. If the program is relocated to Sociology, the department should consider renaming the program “Applied Gerontology,” reflecting the Sociology Department’s growing interest in an applied focus. The current core and elective requirements align with existing Applied Gerontology programs. The requirements for two such programs (Ball State University and University of North Carolina Pembroke) are detailed in Appendix F.

17

Appendices to the Report Appendix A: Program Requirements for Minor and Certificate (2014-2015 Catalog Copy) Appendix B: Aggregate Student Evaluations for Gerontology (Fall 2014) Appendix C: Gerontology Competencies for Undergraduate and Graduate Education Appendix D: Gerontology Program Course Descriptions (2013-2014) Appendix E: Gerontology Program Core Course Syllabi (2014-2015) Appendix F: CSU Gerontology Program Comparison Appendix G: Sonoma County Area Agency on Aging Four-Year Plan Goals Appendix H: List of Previous SSU Gerontology-Community Partnerships Appendix I: Letters of Support Recommendations for Potential External Reviewers: Roseann Giarrusso ([email protected]) Edie Krampe ([email protected])

FSAC Suggested Revisions to the Emeritus Faculty Policy (1993-1) September 2019

Summary FSAC was asked in Spring 2018 to consider revisions to the Emeritus Faculty Policy, which was most recently updated in 2004. The overarching goal was to update language and procedures and make clear certain policies and process, in particular those related to obtaining feedback from departments and individuals. The edits made and the reasoning are listed below. Additional details requested of FSAC by Executive Committee on 10/03/19:

• Concerns about how to evaluate the recommendation for emeritus status of any faculty member, by any faculty member, raise issues of legality, privacy, and fair treatment of our peers.

• In researching facts about past practices and practices of sister institutions, it appears very few cases exist wherein a problem of evaluation was an issue, and though these may be significant in and of themselves, they are, none the less, rare.

• The designation of a faculty member is determined by their official appointment that states said designation, no other definition is possible based on the CBA.

• The honor of emeritus status is not taken lightly and is determined, generally, by years served. Creating other processes (department recommendation) or bringing in other personnel to judge the faculty member (recommendations to a chair and department committees to decide quality of years served, or URTP determining qualifications) adds a layer of work to others and underscores the evaluative component not pertinent to the definition of a faculty members’ qualifications in the first place.

Detailed Changes • Lines 4-7: Administrative updates • Lines 14-15: Bringing up text about service completion from deleted portion.

• Line 20: Class of emeritus faculty added to include Counselor faculty who are eligible.

• Lines 21-22: Phrase added to identify the Student Services Professionals with faculty status.

• Lines 26-32: Language was changed to define faculty per the California State

University/California Faculty Association collective bargaining agreement rather than the Constitution of the Faculty of SSU. Also, text changed to include faculty whose service as faculty might have been at other institutions.

• Lines 34-38: Definition of “years of service” added for clarification.

• Line 41: Phrase added to reiterate the 10-year service requirement.

• Lines 47-49: Text edited to reflect current processes.

• Lines 51-54: Text edited to avoid passive voice and to identify where in the process faculty

and staff input may be provided.

• Lines 67-68: Text deleted based on suggestion that it is unnecessary and possibly limiting. • Line 69: Administrative updates

1

Emeritus Faculty 1 2Recommended By: Academic Senate 3Approved: Ruben Armiñana, Judy K. Sakaki, President 4Issue Date: Tuesday, June 1, 1993 5Current Issue Date: Thursday, October 7, 2004 6Effective Date: Thursday, October 7, 2004 7Contact Office: Office of Vice President for Academic Affairs 8Policy number: 1993-1 9 10I. Preamble 11Emeritus(a) is a designated honorary status in the faculty. Primarily, this status is 12reserved for individuals who have completed at least 10 years of service appointed as 13faculty at Sonoma State. Service is completed upon retirement or conclusion of service 14in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP). This award is reserved to the four 15classes of faculty defined in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the Faculty of 16Sonoma State University with at least ten years' service upon retirement or conclusion 17of service in the Faculty Early Retirement Program (FERP), who have served the 18University with distinction. The following terms shall denote Emeritus status of the 19aforementioned classes of faculty: Athletic Coach Emeritus, Counselor Emeritus, 20Librarian Emeritus, Professor Emeritus, and Student Services Professional-Academically 21Related Emeritus. Since emeritus(a) is a faculty status (i.e., membership in the faculty), it 22is recommended by the faculty and appointed by the President. 23 24Definitions 25Faculty: Faculty appointments are defined by the California State University and in the 26Collective Bargaining Agreement Between the California Faculty Association and the 27Board of Trustees of the California State University. Additionally, at the request of the 28individual, the Senate could consider SSU faculty whose 10 years of service as appointed 29faculty included time at other academic institutions, or who retired from another 30academic institution but who served at least 10 years of service as appointed faculty at 31SSU prior to retirement. 32 33Year of Service: For faculty with academic-year appointments, 1 semester equals .5 34years of service, and 2 semesters equal 1 year of service. For temporary faculty 35(lecturers), 20 semesters—not necessarily consecutive—qualify as 10 years of service. 36For faculty with 10- or 12-month appointments, employment of a minimum of 10 37months within the July 1-June 30 year equals 1 year of service. 38 39II. Qualifications for Emeritus(a) Status 40A. Any retired faculty with at least 10 years’ service may qualify for emeritus (a) status. 41B. Any faculty retired prior to approval of this policy who has not previously been 42

awarded emeritus(a) status may be appointed to such status retroactively to the 43date of their retirement. 44

2

45III. Procedures 46A. At the beginning of each semester, the Associate Vice President for Faculty Affairs 47

and the Vice President for Student Affairs shall publish to the campus community 48Faculty Affairs web site and present to the Academic Senate the current list of 49faculty retired since the beginning of the previous semester. 50

B. The Academic Senate shall consider and then recommend retired faculty members 51for appointment to emeritus(a) status, unless asked not to by the affected faculty 52member asks otherwise. Objections to recommendations may be made when the 53Academic Senate considers the list. 54

C. The President shall appoint retired faculty to emeritus(a) status at the rank held at 55the time of retirement and shall publish their appointment to the campus 56community. 57

58IV. Privileges and Honors Attendant to Emeritus(a) Status 59A. Emeriti(ae) shall continue to enjoy, as statutory regulation and institutional 60

resources permit, the professional privileges of faculty (e.g., assigned office space; 61access to University services, facilities, equipment, materials, activities, and listings). 62In addition, they shall have access gratis to University events, performances, and 63parking as circumstances permit. 64

B. Emeriti(ae) at the time of their appointment shall be publicly and privately honored 65as feasible and deemed appropriate by the Executive Committee of the Academic 66Senate. (e.g., public announcements on and off campus, a commemorative plaque 67or other memento, a dinner or other celebration). 68

Updated December 8, 2003 by [email protected] 6970

Academic Senate - Sonoma State University

Documents