MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
Nov. 21, 2005
Present: Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Kevin David, Gary McCall, Ben Bradley,
Houston Dougharty, Ken Clark, Andreas Madlung, Maria Sampen, Martins Linauts,
Bill Kupinse, Bob Matthews, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, John Finney, Brad Tomhave,
Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: Jackson noted that a final vote on point 4 of the W/WF policy proposal
had not taken place at the Nov. 7 meeting, and asked that the last sentence of the
“action” report be struck. With that amendment, the Nov. 7 minutes were approved.
2. Announcements:
December 5.
Jackson announced that there would be no ASC meeting on
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave reported that the PC acted on its
first foreign language graduation requirement petition, which it handled in the
manner outlined in the proposed policy the ASC will be considering this year. He also
reported the following actions:
Date
10/28/05
11/4/05
11/11/05
YTD
Approved
3 (1 PPT)
4 (2 PPT)
8 (6 PPT)
51 (5 R + 27 PPT)
Denied
1
1
1
17
No Action
0
0
0
0
Total
4
5
9
68
4. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson returned us to our discussion of his
proposed amendment of point 3 of the W/WF subcommittee motion (put forward by
Matthews) for modifying the current policy, following earlier approval of point 1,
rejection of point 2, approval of an amended version of point 3, and approval of point
4 at three previous meetings (see all four points below).
•
•
•
•
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
Jackson invoked an email he had sent to members on Friday offering three
approaches to specifying the workings of our amended proposal for point 3 (on which
we had yet to vote). Two of these options made explicit reference to the Emergency
Administrative Withdrawal (EAW) policy, which permits for “all or nothing”
withdrawals in cases of significant student emergencies. The third option, to which
our conversation immediately turned, and from which our action emerged, reads:
After the twelfth week of classes, the Academic Standards Committee may permit a
grade of W to be assigned. The student must withdraw from the course and submit a
petition to support a claim of exceptional/unusual circumstances. The petition must
include a statement by the course instructor on the quality of the student’s work in the
course. If the petition is approved, a grade of W is assigned. If the petition is denied, a
grade of WF is assigned.
David wondered why the EAW was an “all or nothing” policy. Dougharty responded
that the EAW had been created four or five years ago to address “catastrophic”
student emergencies that were not medical in nature (like a tsunami, or a house
burning down) but which justified non-punitive complete withdrawal parallel to the
Medical Withdrawal option. For an EAW to be approved, advisor support and support
from a student affairs officer (usually Dougharty) is required, and when approved, the
EAW guarantees grades of W in all classes. Students must withdraw from all classes
to receive an EAW (otherwise, the circumstances could not be characterized as
“catastrophic”). Finney added that the “all or nothing” nature of the policy has been
its strong point, and recommended against tying our proposed revision to the EAW.
He and David then voiced support for the Jackson approach noted above.
Clark wondered whether a petition under the above terms could be approved if the
instructor submitted a failing grade for the petitioning student. Matthews thought
the PC might approve or deny such a petition, depending on how it saw the “unusual
circumstances” playing into the student’s grade at the time of withdrawal. Dougharty
said he thought the important thing to convey to students in our policy was that only
“true emergencies” would legitimate a W after the 12th week. Jackson also wanted us
to be sure our students appreciated the risk of withdrawal after the 12th week, since
the WF would be the default grade, and they could not count on successful petitions.
He added that the EAW brought student affairs staff into the determination of true
“emergency,” and suggested that someone like Dougharty might be invited into the
withdrawal petition process in a similar way. He also reported that Dean Bartanen
had responded to his earlier email, noting that she was glad we were moving in the
direction of allowing late-term W grades in emergency cases, and that she was
comfortable with the current direction our discussion was taking.
Hamel said that he had assumed all three conditions required for a W grade between
the 7th and 12th weeks would also be required for the W after the 12th week, in the
“petitionable” phase (especially that the student be passing the course at the time of
withdrawal). But it appeared our discussion was tending elsewhere. Jackson replied
that the PC would determine whether a passing grade would be required for the W to
be awarded as it considered the full merits of the petition. David added that if the PC
were to determine that the “unusual circumstances” leading to withdrawal also led to
a failing grade, it could decide to permit a W upon withdrawal.
At the suggestion of Jackson and Moore, we next considered whether a form would be
used for faculty to note the grade at the time of withdrawal and any unusual
circumstances of which they were aware. Hamel added the question of whether a
second form, for withdrawals between the 7th and 12th weeks of term, would also be
needed. Jackson suggested that this question could be left to the W/WF
subcommittee. Noting the magnitude of our W/WF policy changes, Kupinse
wondered how we would be getting the word out to students and advisors of the new
rules. Matthews thought that the W/WF subcommittee ought to address this
question also.
To clarify, David asked whether in our new formulation withdrawal between the 7th
and 12th weeks would operate as it does now. Matthews replied that it would, except
that the default withdrawal grade would be WF, pending a student request, in writing,
for a W. Sampen said she understood the request would be made only to the
instructor. Jackson said he thought we needed to decide whether the written request
would be 1) informal, to the instructor alone, or 2) formal, with a copy to the registrar.
Matthews said his preference was for an informal request only to the faculty member,
given the frequently delicate and personal nature of student reasons for withdrawal.
He thought the “paper trail” should involve as few people as possible.
David said he needed more than “personal reasons” to establish “unusual
circumstances beyond a student’s control.” He didn’t see the point of asking a
student to request a W in writing simply to the instructor. Clark said he thought a
written request would put the instructor in mind of the policy requirements of
withdrawal. Kupinse said he favored using a form for the written request. Madlung
concurred, saying that the requirement would oblige students to take some initiative
and give some thought to their withdrawal request. Finney said that if the written
request were to go only to the instructor, we would have no way of knowing the degree
to which the policy was being followed. If a form were used, and the form had to be
turned in to the registrar, however, we could ensure 100% compliance with policy. He
added that the registrar is expert at keeping records, and keeping those records
confidential, so student privacy would not be compromised. Sampen said she also
favored the use of a form, and suggested that the form itself would not have to reveal
confidential matters—it could simply indicate that the faculty member had accepted a
student’s explanation of “unusual circumstances.” McCall said that the paperwork
could be generated by the faculty member alone, following Sampen’s suggestion, and
sent directly to the registrar. David also favored a form that went to the registrar,
indicating that it supported faculty accountability as well.
Moore reminded us that we still need to generate examples of “unusual
circumstances” to guide faculty judgment as they implement withdrawal policy.
McCall thought that as we review and act on petitions submitted after the 12th week,
categories of qualifying “unusual circumstances” will emerge. Hamel was concerned
that there would be no administrative review of paperwork submitted to the registrar
from 7th to 12th week withdrawals. Finney thought that a requirement that
withdrawal forms come to the registrar would improve the thoughtfulness invested by
both students and faculty in withdrawal decisions in that period. Tomhave said forms
submitted to the registrar between the 7th and 12th weeks would be handled much as
incomplete grade forms are now. They would be recorded by date, including the grade
decision, and placed in a student’s permanent file. Finney said he thought the
system would work best if the form came directly from the instructor. Tomhave said
the withdrawal form could be initiated by the student or by the faculty member.
Hamel asked whether a faculty member would be able to assign the grade of W
without a form being submitted. Tomhave said he assumed that the W grade would
not be recorded until a form was received by the registrar. Finney said he assumed
that the default grade of WF would be recorded in the absence of a form. Jackson
noted that in this system, the instructor would not be able to assign a grade of W after
the 6th week, since between week 7 and week 12 a form would need to be submitted to
the registrar, which would record the grade, and thereafter grades of W would only be
recorded upon the approval of petitions.
Jackson then called a vote on his motion from the previous meeting, whose substance
follows: Jackson then M (David S) the proposal he circulated to the committee by
email, to wit, modifying the third paragraph of the policy statement: “During the
seventh through twelfth weeks of the fall and spring terms, a grade of W may be
awarded . . . [here follow the conditions for an approved W].” In addition, make
the assignment of a WF after the twelfth week a non-petitionable rule.
Matthews’ offered a friendly amendment to Jackson’s motion, to permit
irrevocable withdrawal after the twelfth week, with the option of a petition
presenting exceptional circumstances beyond the student’s control to receive a
W. Jackson accepted this friendly amendment. The motion P with one
abstention and one no vote.
Hamel then M (Sampen S) to require a written form to accompany a request to
an instructor for a W between the 7th and 12th weeks of term, and to require that
form to be submitted to the registrar, with details to be worked out by the W/WF
subcommittee. Matthews offered as a friendly amendment that if the required
form is not submitted in a timely manner, the grade of WF will be recorded. The
friendly amendment was accepted, and the motion P with one no vote and no
abstentions.
Our business now concluded on the W/WF policy revision, a W/WF “cleanup
subcommittee” was created to rewrite Logger language to reflect the new rules, with
the understanding that their editorial revisions would be brought back to the full
committee for its review. Matthews, Kupinse, Tomhave, and Finney were selected to
do the cleanup.
5. Appeals for Waivers of the FL Graduation Requirement: As the hour was late,
we had little time to discuss a Tomhave proposal for ASC management of waiver
requests of the foreign language graduation requirement. Roundy M (Matthews S)
that the PC be authorized to manage waiver requests in accordance with the
Tomhave proposal pending full committee consideration of the policy in the
spring term. Hearing no objection, Jackson so instructed the PC.
We adjourned at 8:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy