MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
October 10, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Kathryn Mcmillan, Kevin David, Pepa Lago, Gary Mccall,
Houston Dougharty, Alison Tracy Hale, Ken Clark, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Bob
Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, John Finney, Andreas Madlung, Jack Roundy
Guests: Lori Blake, Rusty Horton, Kathleen Campbell, Melanie Sullivan, Joy Kiefer
1. Minutes: Minutes of the September 26 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Finney announced that his colleagues from the Office of the
Registrar were present because of their interest in today’s agenda.
3. Petitions Committee Actions: Blake, standing in for Tomhave, reported PC
actions through September 23, as follows:
Date
9/23/05
YTD
Approved
8 (1 R + 5 PPT)
24 (5 R + 12 PPT)
Denied
2
5
No Action
0
0
Total
10
29
4. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson distributed counts of W/WF grades
from the past two terms by date, information culled from the data used by the W/WF
subcommittee in developing its proposed policy changes. Observing that there was no
motion on the table, he invited Matthews to make a motion on the subcommittee
proposal. MS (Matthews, Moore) to modify W/WF policy in the following four
ways:
•
•
•
•
Move the W/WF decision point to week 6
Provide a mechanism for faculty and students to extend that deadline to
week 10 upon written application by the student and agreement by the
instructor, with a written plan to address difficulties the student has
encountered
Clarify the conditions required for a W to be assigned past the W/WF
decision point
Modify the course repeat policy to include course attempts, including
courses which are dropped for any reason past the “drop without record”
decision point
Reviewing Jackson’s data counts, David asked whether all students receiving late
term W’s actually had to demonstrate “unusual circumstances beyond [their] control.”
He was surprised at the relative proportion of W’s and WF’s late in term. Jackson
replied that the reason ASC was addressing W/WF grading was the degree to which
the assignment of W and WF grades in practice departed from policy. David followed
by testing the idea that in practice, faculty allow themselves to be persuaded to award
late W’s without insisting on the three conditions of awarding those grades: 1) the
student is passing, 2) there are unusual circumstances beyond the student’s control,
and 3) the student follows proper withdrawal procedures. Madlung, agreeing with
David’s assessment, also said that in some cases faculty assign late W’s without
inquiring into unusual circumstances.
David then said he didn’t see how the proposed policy revision would change faculty
practice in assigning late W’s. Matthews said the subcommittee hoped its clarified
policy language would lead to more consistent and congruent grading practices.
Hamel said he wasn’t persuaded that the revised language would result in a change of
practice. He feared the default choice of the W grade would continue under the new
rules. Matthews pointed out that where current policy states the three required
conditions in the negative, proposed new language states them in the positive. New
language makes it clear that a W can only be awarded late in term when all three
conditions for doing so are met. Further, the “unusual circumstances” condition
must be demonstrated. Kupinse wondered whether a form would be needed for a
faculty member to award a W late in term. Matthews replied that the subcommittee’s
proposal didn’t specify that, but it might prove useful. Madlung said that he
understood the new proposal would make WF the default late-term grade. Finney
replied that he didn’t see anything in the revised policy that would deter faculty from
awarding W/WF grades as they do now. He said he thought what faculty really
wanted was exemption from student pressure to decide on what grade to award, and
clearer language, while helpful, would not achieve that fundamental change.
Moore said he had thought the proposal was moving us to eliminate W grades in
weeks 11-15, but the policy revision would apparently not do that. At the same time,
he understood and accepted Dean Bartanen’s position that “unusual circumstances”
(when really compelling) should still make it possible for a student to receive a W after
week 10.
Finney then MS (Clark) P to consider the policy revision proposal point by point,
rather than in aggregate. We had a “parliamentary moment” of indecision about
what to do with the motion already on the table, but Matthews accepted Finney’s
motion as a friendly amendment to his own, and all agreed to discuss and vote on
each of the four parts of the Matthews motion in turn. There was then some
discussion about which of the points to take up first, and in the end it was decided
that we would consider them in the order proposed.
We considered first the proposal to move the automatic W deadline from the fourth to
the sixth week of term. Matthews explained that this proposal had arisen in last
year’s ASC because faculty generally felt that neither they nor students had enough
grading information by the fourth week to make an informed withdrawal decision.
Often the first exam has not even been administered by that time. Kupinse added
that in “paper courses,” the same is true; often the first major graded work isn’t in the
books by the fourth week. So he said the subcommittee reached a “compromise,” a
consensus that moving the automatic W deadline to week 6 made sense. Jackson
said he had reservations about such a move when thinking about students whose
problems arose because they were unprepared or weren’t doing the work in the
course, but agreed that other students would benefit by the greater understanding of
how they were doing a later deadline would afford. He was also hopeful that moving
the deadline to week 6 would reduce faculty’s feeling of pressure to award W’s later.
Hamel wasn’t sure that moving the automatic W deadline addressed our basic
problem, which was inconsistent grading (especially W’s under pressure) after the
automatic W deadline. Mcmillan said she thought a 6th week deadline would be
helpful for students who do not have enough information earlier upon which to make
a withdrawal decision. Hamel and Roundy both pointed out that few students
currently receive WF grades anyway, particularly in the period between weeks 4 and
6. Madlung expressed the hope that clarifying language about when to award W and
WF grades would clear up some of this mess. Finney remembered that the 4th week
deadline currently in our policy had been a compromise of an earlier generation of
faculty who were struggling with two points of view: 1) that how a student was doing
in a course should have nothing to do with a withdrawal decision, and that a student
should be encouraged by our deadline to make an early “commitment to the course,”
and 2) that the grade a student was earning did have a bearing on the withdrawal
decision, and so some time should be allowed for the student to find out whether she
could be successful in the course. Finney did not see how moving the automatic W
deadline would deal with the underlying problem of inconsistent application of
withdrawal grading policy. P (by voice vote, with two nays) to move the automatic
W deadline from the end of the fourth week to the end of the sixth week of term.
We next considered the proposal to offer an extension of the automatic W deadline to
the 10th week upon written application by the student and agreement by the
instructor. Mcmillan asked whether the extension had to be requested before the end
of the 6th week. Matthews replied that though that was not explicitly stated, it was
his belief that that was the subcommittee’s intent, and accepted that condition as a
friendly amendment to the subcommittee’s proposal. David asked if the
subcommittee imagined the use of a standard “form” for requesting an extension, and
Kupinse confirmed that it did. Tracy Hale wondered what purpose an extension
would serve. Matthews replied that in last year’s ASC, there was some faculty
sentiment for giving students and instructors additional time to work out problems
students might be having with the course material. Jackson thought the use of a
form might be to put structure around the informal negotiations faculty and students
currently engage in.
Jackson then registered his opposition to the extension idea, both because it added
complexity to our current arrangements and because informal extensions he has
given students in the past have not gone well. Roundy also opposed the proposal,
saying that the students he works with typically struggle in multiple classes, and are
best served making a withdrawal decision in a timely way in one course in order to
focus better in others. F (by voice vote, with two ayes) to offer an extension of the
automatic W deadline to the 10th week.
The discussion then moved forward to clarifying the language on the conditions under
which a W may be granted after the automatic W deadline. David asked if we could
find a way to take this decision out of the faculty’s hands. He was particularly
concerned about who might most appropriately decide when students face “unusual
circumstances beyond their control.” Clark said he was not in favor of a policy that
took grading decisions out of faculty hands. Hamel also remembered that faculty
grading autonomy was a significant concern to last year’s ASC, but he agreed that
until we deal with the pressure students place on faculty to award W’s late in term
(perhaps through policy), grading outcomes are likely to remain inconsistent, and
predominantly contrary to policy. Kupinse thought that in this instance, again, we
might use a form for documenting grading decisions. He reported that if he had had
to document the three conditions for a W on a form in the past, he might have
assigned more WF grades (contrary to the cultural standard he absorbed from senior
faculty when he arrived on campus). Matthews wondered to whom a completed form
might go, and Kupinse replied that it should go to the Registrar. Finney asked how
the information on the form might be used, and what the Registrar would be expected
to do if the form were not submitted. Kupinse replied that if a form were not
submitted, the student would receive a WF. Moore said that there are occasions
when a W is actually useful to a faculty member, as in the case of a student who is
bored, irresponsible, or disruptive and wants to withdraw, but would stay if the
consequence of withdrawing was a WF. Finney reminded us that the WF grade is not
a special penalty arising from our policy, but rather simply a way of being more
specific about how a failing grade is earned. When a student abandons a course late
in term without unusual circumstances beyond his control, the appropriate outcome
is to fail it. The WF grade simply indicates the sort of failure it is.
At this juncture chair Jackson invited a motion for adjournment, which was supplied
by the secretary at 8:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy