Academic Standards Committee
Meeting Notes
November 15, 2013
In Attendance: Keith Ward, Brad Tomhave, Drew Anderson, Kristin Johnson, Jill Nealey-Moore, Lori
Ricigliano, Jim Jasinski, Ken Clark, Gary McCall, Danny Laesch, Sunil Kukreja, Martins Linauts, Karl Fields,
and Debbie Chee. Visitors: John Hanson, Leslie Saucedo (Faculty/Senate Liaison)
1. Approval of Minutes
The November 1, 2013 minutes were approved.
2. Petitions for the Period 10/30/13 – 11/12/13
During the dates covered by this report, the following actions were taken on petitions submitted to the
Academic Standards Committee:
2
1
3
2
1
9
Approved Late Adds
Approved Reinstatement
Approved Re-enrollments from a Medical Withdrawal
Approved Medical Withdrawals
Approved Independent Study for a Regularly Offered Course
Total Petitions
Registrar Approved:
Preview Team Approved:
Sub-Committee Approved:
Total Approved:
0
6
3
9
Sub-Committee Denied:
Total Petitions:
0
9
Note that one of the two approved late add petitions was for the 2nd session of PE 188 Aerobics and the
other late add petition was for a research project approved at the beginning of the semester and for
which the student forgot to register.
For the year to date, 59 petitions have been acted upon with 55 approved and 4 denied. For
comparison, at this time last year, 50 petitions had been acted upon. For further comparison, this year,
28 of the 59 petitions involve late registration whereas last year, 16 of the 50 petitions involved late
registration. Additionally, this year, we have had only 8 schedule conflict petitions so far whereas last
year, 20 such petitions were considered.
3 - 4. Continued Discussion of the Withdrawal policy with a guest presentation from John Hanson
John Hanson attended ASC and presented his thoughts about the current withdrawal policy (Appendix
A). His presentation was well timed as the ASC has been discussing components of the withdrawal
policy. John commented that timing of the policy was difficult. In particular, he felt the end of the
automatic W period at the end of the 6th week was too soon in the semester. In his experience, students
may not have enough graded material to make an informed decision. He recommended changing the
deadline to a week after students receive their midterm grades. By the midterm break, students and
faculty will have a better assessment about how students are doing. John felt that giving a student a WF
would be punitive. This could possibly be week nine.
John continued to comment that he tries to encourage students to keep trying in the class even when
they are struggling. Although at some point, there needs to be a deadline. He feels the 12th week seems
logical. Referring to our current policy, John does not feel comfortable or well suited to make a
judgment about exceptional circumstance when a student withdraws between the 6th and 12th weeks.
He would like to remove that decision from his responsibility.
Jill Nealey-Moore commented that John’s concern about making decisions about exceptional
circumstances seems consistent with the resent discussion in the ASC. Martins Linauts agreed and
reminded us of the charge from the senate.
Drew Anderson asked if faculty would be upset about taking the “decision making” away in this case.
Some faculty said “No”. Debbie Chee commented that there is a difference between an unmotivated
student and those who are trying or those who do experience a serious situation that impacts their
ability to be successful. Brad Tomhave commented that a student is committed to a class at a certain
point and the only reason to withdraw is because of an exceptional circumstance.
Gary McCall commented that around the same time, the second-repeat policy was established, the
instructor still had ultimate grading decisions. Keith Ward added this should assist students who may
have issues with transitions to college. They should be given another opportunity.
Karl Fields asked about the frequency a WF grade is given during the 6th week to the 12th week. Brad did
not have the answer, but the WF grades increased after the current policy was put into practice. He
continued to offer some background. He commented, by the sixth week, a student knows what the class
is about, versus how you are doing in the class. The student may need more feedback to help them
make a decision. It is still a difficult decision to withdraw from a class.
The conversation continued and it was recognized that there is no easy solution. Many faculty members
are not experts and feel uncomfortable making decisions about if a circumstance is exceptional. How is a
students’ privacy protected? It is agreed that the policy and procedures should be as simple as possible.
If the ASC saw all of the requests to change grades from an automatic WF to W, there would be an
increase in petitions. There is much more to discuss including getting the larger sentiment of faculty.
The discussion was tabled to move to the next agenda item.
5. ASC letter about the PeopleSoft Transition
Martins Linauts, Sunil Kukreja, and Keith Ward drafted the letter expressing concern about the
PeopleSoft transition on behalf of ASC. Leslie Saucedo, Senate Liaison, joined the conversation. Martins,
Sunil and Keith decided to write a concise letter without examples, not to lose the point. Don Share
added some examples and Keith sent some examples plus input from a music student advisory group.
Rather than creating and sending a list of concerns with the letter, ASC may request a meeting with the
Optimize Team based on the response to the letter from Kris Bartanen.
Minutes taken by Debbie Chee
Appendix A
Suggested Changes to Withdrawal Grades
John Hanson (11/15/13)
Proposal 1: The automatic Withdrawal Passing (W) deadline should be moved to one week after midterm grades are announced.
Under the current guidelines the Withdrawal Passing deadline is the sixth week of class.
1. In my experience, both as an advisor and a teacher, the sixth week is too early for many students to
be pressured into making a decision about withdrawing from a course. For example, at this time in my
courses students typically have completed only one of four midterm exams. Thus, there is still plenty of
time (and assignments) for them to be successful. At this point in the semester I am typically working
with weaker students to improve their study strategies and level of understanding. But it takes time for
students to implement these changes and see their effects. It is the students who initially struggle, but
then are able to improve, that are the most rewarding to work with and who, in one sense, learn the
most in our classes. Under the current system they are encouraged to leave before they can overcome
their initial deficiencies.
2. The arrival of midterm grades is the point in the semester when students and advisors get a clear
signal about a student's academic performance for that semester, not just for an individual course, but
across their whole schedule. There is, often for the first time, a significant body of completed and
assessed work to determine if the student is likely to be successful in a particular class. Trends in
performance and behavior over the semester can also be assessed. It is a logical point to make decisions
about whether or not it is necessary to do some academic triage by withdrawing from a class. As both an
advisor and a teacher, it seems punitive to penalize a student (in the form of a WF) if, after getting this
feedback, they decide to withdraw from a class.
Proposal 2: For the period from the end of the automatic W period until the end of week 12,
instructors have discretion to assign a W or WF. The instructor will assign a W if the student has been
making a serious effort to improve their performance in the class as evidenced by regular attendance
in class, completion of assignments, and seeking academic assistance. The instructor may also assign
a W if exceptional circumstances, beyond the student’s control, have interfered with the student’s
ability to complete the course as determined by a medical or counseling professional.
1. I continue to want to give students the chance to overcome initial deficiencies. I do not believe in
punishing students with a WF if they have indeed been trying. But at some point it is necessary to make
a decision about whether it makes sense to continue; I think week 12 is about the right point.
2. Under the current system I must make a determination as to whether a student has had “exceptional
circumstances”, and only if they have such circumstances am I supposed to assign a W. This puts me in a
very awkward position, forcing me to inquire about personal matters that I, it seems to me, really have
little right to know and even less training to judge.
3. I realize that some students simply stop doing the work, are showing up intermittently, and generally
have checked out. In that case, it is completely appropriate to assign a WF.
Appendix B
December 3, 2013
From: Academic Standards Committee
To:
Kris Bartanen, Academic Vice President
Re:
Statement of concern regarding the PeopleSoft system
Dear Kris,
At a recent meeting of the Academic Standards Committee, profound concern was expressed by various
members about the current functional status of PeopleSoft and the negative impact it is having on the
university community as a whole, but in particular as it relates to the academic division’s ability to do its
work. Advisors and department chairs do not have access to some of the information they need to
undertake their work efficiently and effectively. Additionally, the interfaces are clumsy and
cumbersome, increasing the time and effort expended by faculty, students, and administrative staff in
recording midterm grades, advising students, and registering for classes. Not only is there an impact on
academic standards as reflected through the advising role of faculty, the situation also potentially
affects retention in terms of student frustration with a system whose user interface has so far proven far
inferior to that in Cascade. Furthermore, faculty expressed deep concern about serious issues that are
compromising the work of staff in the Registrar’s Office and the Academic Advising Office, wherein its
staff members must direct far too much time and effort to a myriad of PeopleSoft issues, taking away
from their ability to carry out more important responsibilities to students and faculty.
Members of the ASC are aware that regular meetings are held by administrators and Optimize team
members to address the problematic issues. The complexity and challenge of the change from one
system to another is recognized. However, the faculty on this committee feel compelled to bring these
concerns to the attention of the Optimize team. When faculty members no longer want to use their
computer during advising sessions, for example, and rely on students to verbally report their progress,
there is a serious problem.
It is important that the Optimize team understand that the frustration with the system on the part of
faculty involves serious concerns regarding our ability to carry out our duties as advisors and teachers,
rather than just impatience with having to learn a new system. We would welcome the opportunity to
meet with the leadership of the Optimize team if it would be useful to them.
Your support and assistance in impressing on the leadership in Technology Services the concerns we
have with the workings of PeopleSoft within the academic division would be appreciated.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the Academic Standards Committee, (policy subcommittee)
Martins Linauts, chair