MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
January 18, 2006
Present: Jo Crane, Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Kevin David, Alison TracyHale, Gary McCall, Ben Bradley, Houston Dougharty, Melissa Bass, Ken Clark, Maria
Sampen, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Fred Hamel, Dave Moore, John Finney, Brad
Tomhave, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: The minutes of the Nov. 21 meeting were approved as written.
2. Announcements: Fred Hamel announced that the Writing Excellence Awards
deadline was approaching (Feb. 8, 5 pm, CWLT). He encouraged colleagues to forward
worthy papers to the WEA committee. Finney reported that a Hearing Board will be
convened on February 3rd to hear a grade complaint. Another case that might have
resulted in a Hearing Board (concerning a student dispute of an academic dishonesty
sanction) has been resolved.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following reports of PC
actions since our last meeting:
Date
11/18/05
12/2/05
12/9/05
1/4/06
1/12/06
YTD
Approved
8 (5PPT)
11 (3PPT + 4R)
10 (4PPT + 3R)
3
8 (3PPT)
91 (42 PPT + 12R)
Denied
1
0
0
2
5
25
No Action
0
1
0
0
0
1
Total
9
12
10
5
13
117
4. Petitions Committee Organization for Spring: Tomhave announced the
following membership for the spring PC: Melissa Bass, Ben Bradley, Houston
Dougharty, John Finney, Alison Tracy Hale, Fred Hamel, Bill Kupinse, Bob Matthews,
Kathryn McMillan, David Moore, Maria Sampen. A standing meeting time for the PC
will be announced.
5. Discussion of W/WF Policy: Chair Jackson brought fresh wording for the
W/WF policy revisions worked out in committee in the fall, and M (Kupinse S)
approval of the revised language (approved language attached). Tomhave briefly
explained certain wrinkles in the application of withdrawal policy during summer
session. When asked, he did not recommend changes to the summer timetable for
withdrawal to enforce conformity with regular terms. Finney suggested that we might
seek conformity as regards “process” (submission of a form for withdrawal, etc.)
without timetable conformity. He suggested that the Registrar’s Office could act as
the “executive branch” of the university in implementing the will of the faculty, so that
summer session rules are congruent with those of the regular term without creating
unreasonable implementation arrangements.
Clark asked why separate written documentation seems to be called for in paragraphs
3 and 4 of the withdrawal policy statement. Jackson replied that the petition
expected in paragraph 4 would require a written statement to the Academic
Standards Committee, while in paragraph 3 a written statement is required for the
instructor, but formal documentation to the registrar will come on a form (to be
named later). Tomhave requested one additional “housekeeping” addition to the
language proposed under “Re-registration for the Same Course.” In paragraph 5,
which reads, “A student may ask to repeat a course at another institution by
submitting a Transfer Evaluation Request to the Office of the Registrar (Jones 013)
listing the Puget Sound course to be repeated,” he asked to add the words, “ . . . and
the proposed course at the other institution.” This change is intended to let students
know that they, not the credit evaluator, are responsible for identifying an appropriate
substituting course. This change was accepted by the author of the motion and
seconder as a friendly amendment. The revised W/WF and Re-Registration policy
language then P unanimously.
6. Appeals for Foreign Language Requirement Waivers:
Tomhave introduced proposed new language (attached) to set a framework for waivers
of the foreign language graduation requirement on the basis of learning disability.
Jackson inquired whether current practice, as authorized by the ASC on November
21, 2005, conformed to this new language. Tomhave said it did, and reported that
one petition has been processed following these rules, resulting in a denial. He went
on to explain that the disability waiver foreseen by the faculty in setting the new
graduation requirements had heretofore been handled by our Disabilities Coordinator,
Ivey West. Technically, he said, sign-off on a graduation requirement does not fall
within the disability coordinator’s purview, nor was she comfortable bearing the
burden of that responsibility. For that reason, Tomhave’s proposal would return the
decision on a waiver to the ASC through the petition process, supported by the
disability coordinator’s recommendation. Also, given that it is the ASC’s usual
practice to permit substitutions rather than waivers when degree requirements are to
be met, the new language mandates “substitute courses” rather than a simple waiver
of the foreign language graduation requirement. Tomhave explained that the spirit of
the new language was in keeping with our usual petition philosophy, that students
should be expected to propose a “reasonable alternative” to the committee when
seeking a waiver. He was asked why “substitute courses” were explicitly named,
given that the foreign language graduation requirement did not require students to
take courses in all cases. He said he thought it likely that any “reasonable
alternative” accepted by the ASC would involve coursework. But he re-emphasized
that it would be the student’s responsibility to make a case for whatever “reasonable
alternative” was proposed. Roundy M (Sampen S) approval of the Tomhave
proposal.
Jackson asked Tomhave to speak about an earlier petition as an example of what
might constitute a reasonable alternative. Tomhave replied by describing how
coursework that embodied alternative cultures might make a satisfactory case.
Austin asked whether we should spell out in our language what we want in a foreign
language waiver petition: 1) documentation of disability, with the disability
coordinator’s recommendation, and 2) a proposed set of substitute courses. Moore
inquired whether a specialized petition form would be developed for this petition
process, and Tomhave replied that the Registrar is currently developing a suite of
more specialized petition forms, so he thought we would do so in this case. Hamel
asked how this waiver compares to others we may approve. Tomhave replied that we
currently do not permit waivers of any other graduation requirement. Though cases
have arisen where a mathematics waiver might have been needed, a sufficient variety
of course options for meeting the mathematics core have been developed that we have
not had to develop a mathematics waiver process. Jackson pointed out that the
faculty had explicitly addressed the need for a waiver option in the development of the
new graduation requirements, a waiver option that exists nowhere else in our
requirements.
Hamel went on to ask whether we are setting a dangerous precedent by using the
phrase, “a documented learning disability that inhibits the ability to process
language?” Might that disability construct not be used to seek a waiver of other
language-related requirements? Tomhave explained that the language used in this
specific situation was standard phrasing among disability specialists, and he didn’t
think it would be extrapolated out of this particular application. Hamel suggested
that we might expand the phrase used to be more explicit: “a documented learning
disability that inhibits the ability to process a second language.” Tomhave said he
would take this question back to Ivey West. Jackson asked whether this revised
waiver process would appear in the academic handbook. Tomhave replied that it
would appear on the Foreign Language Graduation Requirement Web page
maintained by the Center for Writing, Learning and Teaching and linked to the
academics section of the Puget Sound Web page. Jackson suggested that the
committee approve the procedure proposed by Tomhave and allow Tomhave and West
to work out the final disability language for the policy. David asked whether we
should continue to use the word “waiver” in this policy, given that its thrust is now to
require a “substitution.” Indeed, the “waiver” policy explicitly requires “substitute
courses” as written. Tomhave promised to iron out this difficulty as well, as he and
West polish the final language. The motion P unanimously.
7. Re-evaluate the Class Schedule: Jackson opened this discussion explaining that
the Faculty Senate has charged us to re-evaluate the class schedule implemented in
2001 to assess whether it is meeting the goals set for it. Of specific concern are the
time blocks designated for available teaching slots. So that the committee could
understand the current structure, he asked Finney to distribute his standard memo
sent to chairs with the schedule request describing options for class offerings. As
background, Jackson reported that the last time ASC was asked to review the
schedule, it concluded its work by sending forward several options without
recommending that a particular one be adopted. At that point, Dean Cooney asserted
that administration’s authority in setting the schedule, and selected the one currently
in place. Jackson said it was his view that the schedule remains the administration’s
prerogative.
As to what changes the Faculty Senate might be seeking, Jackson reported on
conversations with Faculty Senate chair Barry Anton and ASC liaison David Sousa.
He said that there was some interest in opening more twice weekly 80-minute slots in
the class schedule, as well as in creating a “protected hour” for faculty meetings.
Finney briefly pointed out some of the complexities of the 80-minute blocks already in
our schedule, specifically addressing conflicts around the four o’clock hour between
classes and co-curricular activities. Having been involved in many schedule reframings over the years, Finney said, “It’s always a compromise.”
As the hour was late, Jackson invited a motion to adjourn, which was quickly
supplied.
We adjourned at 3:55.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Proposed revision as of January 18, 2006
Withdrawal Grades
Withdrawal without record on the permanent academic record is permissible through the
first two weeks of the fall and spring terms when a student completes official withdrawal
procedures.
Withdrawal Passing (W) is granted during the third through sixth week of the fall and
spring terms when a student completes official withdrawal procedures. After the sixth
week of term, Withdrawal Failing (WF) is given except as noted below.
During the seventh through twelfth weeks of the fall and spring terms, a grade of W may
be granted by the instructor only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) a student
completes official withdrawal procedures and (2) there have been exceptional
circumstances beyond the student's control, in which case the student must demonstrate
in writing to the satisfaction of the instructor that exceptional circumstances exist, and (3)
either the student's work has been of passing quality or the exceptional circumstances
have prevented the student from completing work of passing quality. For a W to be
assigned during this period, the course instructor must submit the “Form to be Named
Later” form available in the Office of the Registrar.
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 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.
Completing official withdrawal procedures after the last day of regularly scheduled
classes is not allowed.
A withdrawal at any point past the date for withdrawal without record counts as a 'course
attempt' if the student re-registers for the course.
Withdrawal deadlines for summer and in-service courses are published in class schedule
brochures.
When a student abandons a course without completing official withdrawal procedures,
the instructor assigns an appropriate grade, normally the WF. If the instructor does not
assign a grade, a grade of WF will be entered by the Registrar.
Proposed revision as of January 18, 2006
Re-registration for the Same Course
A student may repeat a course one time. This policy allows students to take a course
again to improve a grade or to complete a course for which the student previously
received a W or WF grade. Both courses and grades remain on the student’s permanent
academic record. The course with the higher grade is included in unit and grade point
average calculations. If one of the assigned grades is a W, then the other assigned grade
is used in unit and grade point average calculations. If a student attempting to improve a
grade earns the same grade again, then the more recent grade is included in the
appropriate calculations.
An attempt of a course occurs when a student enrolls for a course and withdraws after the
date for withdrawal without record.
Exceptions to this policy are independent study, cooperative education, physical
education activity, and varsity sports courses, COMM 292, music performing groups, and
other courses that the catalog states may be repeated for credit.
Students should note, however, that only one English 101 course and only one course
from the series Philosophy 101 through 110 may be counted toward the degree
(paragraph deleted).
A student may ask to repeat a course at another institution by submitting a Transfer
Evaluation Request to the Office of the Registrar (Jones 013) listing the Puget Sound
course to be repeated. Permission may be granted subject to the student’s status and with
the specific approval of the appropriate academic department. (Some departments do not
allow Puget Sound courses in which the student earned a low grade to be repeated at
another institution). If a Puget Sound course is then repeated at another institution, and if
the grade earned elsewhere is the higher of the two, the Puget Sound grade will be
removed from the grade average, but the transfer grade will not be computed in the grade
average. Credit for the Puget Sound course will be removed and replaced by the transfer
credit, even if there is a difference between the two. (See section on Transfer
Information for other policies governing transfer credit.)
Proposed Procedures for Considering Appeals for Waiver of
The Foreign Language Graduation Requirement
A student with a documented learning disability that inhibits the ability to process
language may petition the Academic Standards Committee to use substitute courses to
complete the Foreign Language Graduation Requirement. The petition form is available
from the Office of the Registrar (Jones Hall, Room 13). In addition to providing the
personal statement and advisor’s statement required for any petition, the student must
also include the written recommendation of the Disability Services Coordinator (Center
for Writing, Learning, and Teaching, Howarth Hall, Room 105). To request that
recommendation, the student must submit documentation of the learning disability, in
accordance with the guidelines for requesting disability support services, to the Disability
Services Coordinator.
October 2005