Academic Standards Committee
Monday, October 20th, 2003
Present were: Elizabeth Boretz, Sally Click, Penny Diebel, Stacy Heiney, Keith Koster, and Ashley Masterson
Elizabeth Boretz (2003-04 Chair) presented the Provost’s priority items for the coming year. Discussion ensued concerning (1) the current add/drop policy and possible motivation for change; (2) X and I grading policy (to be discussed further in next week’s meeting with John Miller and Dea Hoffman); (3) the recently implemented decision to calculate Summer term academic standing (no longer a “free” term); and (4) the division on campus concerning academic dishonesty/integrity issues in the classroom.
On our To Do list for the year: assessment of admissions policies and how the institutional researcher, Anji Duchi, can aid us in tracking some of these issues regarding students “in jeopardy.” Early spring, the President’s Scholar will be our focus.
As we carry out our duties as the committee on Academic Standards at EOU, we need to keep this question in mind: is this the type of policy that a selective liberal arts university would implement?
Academic Standards Committee
Monday, October 27th, 2003
Present were: Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz (Chair), Sally Click, Penny Diebel, Stacy Heiney, Dea Hoffman, Keith Koster, Ashley Masterson, and Brian Sather
Registrar Dea Hoffman and Provost John Miller (absent due to scheduling conflict) were invited to discuss at length the provost’s priority items for the coming year, especially: re-visitation of the add and drop policies, the X and I grading policies, and the pros and cons of the decision to include Academic Standing for summer term. Some highlights of ideas initiated:
Drop policy:
Add policy:
X and I grading policy:
Summer GPA/Academic Standing: how can we encourage summer term to be used as a tool for academic improvement and support our “open to all” motto?
Academic Standards Committee
October 28, 2003
Present were: Elizabeth Boretz, Brian Sather, Ashley Masterson, Stacy Heiney, Ron Herbison, and Sally Click
First item of business: a quick resolution to the New Gen Ed policy—which indicates that a course must be completed with a C- or better—as to whether or not the S/U option may be selected. The committee decided, in a unanimous vote, that yes, the S/U option should be included in the New Gen Ed policy because EOU has defined the grade of “S” as equivalent to a C- or better.
Second item of business: breaking into subcommittees to more effectively and efficiently set up our tasks for the coming term. Coordinators of each subcommittee will organize the group for a meeting time and will present a draft at our next committee meeting
1. Addressing the add/drop policy are Elizabeth, Ashley, and Keith
2. Addressing the X/I policy are Brian, Stacy, and Ron
3. Addressing the summer gpa issues are Penny, Peggy, and Sally
Final item of business: petition from student for a change of grading mode for the current term. Appeal denied.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 1/14/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Sally Click and Stacy Heiney took notes.
Introduction of person to fill in for Stacy’s replacement is Cheri Jimmy.
Sally Click gave us a report on data from query on Financial Aid compliance.
Dea Hoffman, Registrar, presented Dixie Lund’s request to review:
We decided more information was needed on why we need to review for DDE.
Penny Diebel asked the question – suspension what does Financial Aid want us to do? Discrepancy as far as our policy and FA requirements for reinstating students. It was determined to review at next meeting.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 1/21/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Sally Click and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
Sally – Financial Aid Compliance:
The committee decided to support the policy of financial aid. Sally will draft a memo for us to check to be forwarded to Financial Aid.
Elizabeth –
A. Planning how to proceed with the residency question,
B. Two policy changes requested by John Miller “Y” and grade change.
OSU doesn’t have a “Y”, they use a “R” for thesis problems.
1. OSU uses two different forms for grade change, one for removal of an “I” and one for grade change.
2. One possible way to improve grade change policy is to have them be approved by Dean
C. Other: update on fall’s policy proposals, and academic dishonesty policy – planning.
It was decided to continue this discussion at the next meeting of the committee.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 1/28/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Sally Click and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
Peggy Anderson and Brian Sather brought before the committee notes from the SEB.
Item #1 – Proposed ASC policy for Summer Session Academic Standings was moved and seconded to approve.
Item #2 – Add Policy Moved and seconded to approve – Failed 8-6
Some suggested changes in the policy – change to add only with faculty signature after class begins. It was requested that we get statistics comparing first week to second weeks add, how much paperwork is this going to create.
Item #3 – Drop policy Failed
The assembly would like to have to wording clearer on whether a student is responsible for a grade after week 3-5 and add that the forms must be turned into the registrar’s office within 48 hours or no longer acceptable. Brian was going to work on the wording and re-submit to assembly.
Item #4 – Removal of “Y” grade – SEB voted to retain the “Y”
It was suggested that we reword the proposal, give more information about the consequences with financial aid and try again.
Item #5 – Removal of the “X”
Committee recommends that we limit the classes that can use the “X” for a grade, determined by the Dean’s for classes such as thesis, capstone, practicum, etc. – limit choice on Webster. It was requested that I ask Dea if this is possible on Webster.
Item #6 – “I”
SEB voted to retain “I” and wanted it to be an option on Webster.
The remaining items on the agenda will be covered next week
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 2/04/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Keith Koster and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
Item
#1. Finalize add policy.
#2. Grade change policy –
#3. Plan how to address the residency requirement.
#4. Academic dishonesty Policy or other subject.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 2/11/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Keith Koster and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
Student suspension appeal –
The committee decided to deny the request for reinstatement from a student. A letter would be completed by Elizabeth to go out to the student as soon as possible.
Update on policies – through School of A & S.
It was reported to the committee all policy recommendations were accepted by the School of A & S except for the policy on dropping a class; which will be submitted to the EPCC next week by Peggy Anderson, for further review.
Residency policy
Elizabeth met with Dea and all was agreed – acceptations to the policy possible but not for public knowledge. Share this information only with the Deans, Provost, Dixie and Dea.
Colleen Cascio to discuss academic dishonesty policy & procedures.
Colleen informed the committee that she is in the process of putting the information on the web page, so the students and faculty will have a place to go for the current policy and procedure on dishonesty. She would like any input we would have that make the process flow smoothly and be easier for all to understand. A standard “Complaint form” was submitted to the committee for review.
The current process is the faculty will file a report with the Dean of Academic Affairs and a copy will be kept in the student’s conduct file. Action is started with the submission of the first report to the Dean, only after the report is filed officially with the Dean can action be taken by that office. A letter is then sent to the student stating exactly what has happened and what decision, by the faculty with support from the Dean of their School and the Dean of Academic Affairs, has been made about consequences of this action and what the student is required to do to keep from being suspended.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 2/18/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brain Sather, Ashley Masterson, Keith Koster, Sally Click and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
1. New Business–
A. Wait List - This agenda item was tabled by the committee. Elizabeth was going to meet with some people and get more information before we proceed.
B. Mary Koza brought before the committee a request from the advising committee about changing the requirements for obtaining a 2nd Bachelor degree from EOU.
C. Drop policy – This was to be tabled until it went before the EPCC.
2. Academic Dishonesty
A. Colleen informed the committee that before any changes can be made in the wording or the process it must be published and approved by many committees, because it is a change in the Oregon Administrative Rules. At this time she wants suggestions to take to her committee as recommendations of changes.
B. It was decided that we need to first work on the definition of Academic Dishonesty and them work on the procedure to follow.
C. Penny was going to research some other university systems and bring examples or send us web sites to check out for examples to follow.
3. No meeting next week – February 25th, 2004.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Meeting 3/03/04
Attending: Mary Koza, Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Brian Sather, Ashley Masterson, Keith Koster, Sally Click and Cheri Jimmy took notes.
I. Post-Baccalaureate Proposal – Mary Koza
A. The committee suggested the we need to make some changes in the wording about the Gen Ed requirements, but make sure there are no loop holes.
B. The committee would like to make the WPE a program requirement, not a university requirement.
C. Partner program specifics need to be added.
D. Mary will make changes to her draft.
II. Academic Dishonesty document – Keith Koster
A. The committee suggested that we revisit the misconduct policies first, and have a clear definition of cheating, fabrication and Plagiarism for the Honor Pledge, then work on the form from there.
B. Keith brought a rough draft of the form and the committee made a few suggestions.
1. Grade of 0 on assignments is too harsh for first offense, needs to be “possibility” of learning opportunity for the first offense.
2. Form needs to state what faculty options are.
III. Dea Hoffman has requested a meeting with the committee on a Policy change. She will present her suggestions at the next meeting.
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
April 5, 2004 Meeting Minutes
Present: Elizabeth Boretz (Chair), Peggy Anderson, Penny Diebel, Dawna Flanagan, Keith Koster, Mary Koza, Brian Sather, and Sam Eggert (Guest)
Elizabeth Boretz called the meeting to order.
Sam Eggert asked for input on the waiting list policy drafted by the Academic Advising Council. The Committee gave the following comments.
- Find out if it would apply to both on and off campus students.
- See if Webster will automatically enroll students from the waiting list until the first day of class.
- Add a bulleted rationale before taking it to the Schools.
- Ask Computer Center first if it is possible to achieve this with Webster.
- The final decision to let a student into class is always up to the instructor.
- Determine when the “add” function and “waiting list” function will be turned off.
- Give examples of scenarios when presenting to the Schools.
Elizabeth Boretz gave a brief recap of last year’s Scholar. She handed out copies of the letter that Dixie will send to prospective students. The Committee would like to add that the President’s Scholar is the only speaker at commencement and that the speech should last 10 minutes. Dawna will get a list run which shows only students with a GPA of 3.6 or better. There will be an Infoline announcement which asks faculty to nominate students to Dawna.
John Miller is asking the Committee to look at our Bachelor degrees. Typically more students take the BS degree because the BA requires two years of language. He would like us to take a look at this. Rosemary Powers will be invited to the next meeting because she has some experience and research in this area. Committee members will do a little research of COPLAC and small private universities.
The issue of academic integrity is not completely resolved. Our Committee will take recommendations to the Student Affairs Committee. Peggy would like to see Student Government give suggestions. Our Committee would like to look at the policy after everyone’s input.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, April 14, location tba.
Academic Standards Committee Meeting
Minutes of April 14, 2004
3:00 pm, Inlow 115
Present: Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz (Chair), Penny Diebel, Dawna Flanagan, Mary Koza, Ashley Masterson, Brian Sather, Colleen Cascio (guest) and Rosemary Powers (guest)
Elizabeth gave us an update on the waiting list issue that Sam Eggert brought forward our last meeting. The technology of Banner will not allow the first person on the waiting list to be automatically registered if someone drops. This changes the purpose of the waiting list in the first place.
Elizabeth also gave us an update of John Miller’s recommendation for the next suspension hearings and irate students. He suggests notifying security about our time and location so that they will be able to assist if someone gets volatile. Penny suggested specifically asking people to leave. Brian suggested the committee should ask for very specific, compelling letters if they are suspended.
This discussion led into the topic which Colleen brought to the committee for input. The Grievance Policy for the Academic Standards Committee is quite old and needs updating. She would like the committee to forward written changes to her with a rationale.
The universities that we researched are very similar to us in their requirements for a BA and BS. So the question is what would a selective undergraduate university require? There are three options to share with faculty in a forum discussion.
1) Leave everything as is.
2) Add a cultural component to the B.S.
3) Add more math requirements to the B.S.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:00 pm.
Academic Standards Committee
Meeting Minutes, April 21, 2004
Present: Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Penny Diebel, Dawna Flanagan, Keith Koster, Ashley Masterson, Brian Sather
Penny made revisions to the grievance procedures. Elizabeth will ask Colleen to add the specific OAR number to the draft. We decided to add some additional clarifying language so that students are clear that they must follow policy before filing a grievance. Penny will make the changes and get them to us.
Brian & Peggy will forward to the SEB the 2nd degree proposal for their next school meeting. She shared Dan Mielke’s comments with the committee.
The deadline for applicants is May 3. The committee will meet on May 12 to choose the three candidates to forward to Dixie. Hopefully, Dixie will announce the winner that Friday. Committee members who would like to can meet with the winner to discuss the speech. Elizabeth will invite the Speech professor.
The files will be kept in Dawna’s office. Please take only the files you will read at one time. And if they are taken at 5pm, they must be returned by 8am. When we meet on the 12th, have your top 5 candidates ready.
Dawna will have the GPAs for each candidate in their file. Extra scoring sheets will be available.
Elizabeth will arrange a lunch hour forum and give the topic points to those faculty attending. SEB may discuss the topic points in a school meeting, if the agenda allows.
Academic Standards Committee
Meeting Minutes
May 19, 2004 – 3:00 pm – Inlow Hall 115
Present: Peggy Anderson, Elizabeth Boretz, Dawna Flanagan, Keith Koster, Mary Koza
The policy changes “cheat sheet” were discussed and editorial suggestions were made. Committee members who were not present had sent their suggestions to Elizabeth.
The committee discussed a suspended student’s advisor’s request to allow him to take one course via distance through EOU. It was decided that the student be allowed the one course, but it is a one-time only exception to our policy. By no means should students or advisors think that it will happen again.