MINUTES
ACADEMIC STANDARDS COMMITTEE
March 1, 2006
Present: Jo Crane, Martin Jackson, Kathryn McMillan, Ben Bradley, Kevin David,
Alison Tracy-Hale, Gary McCall, Greta Austin, Houston Dougharty, Melissa Bass, Ken
Clark, Maria Sampen, Martins Linauts, Bill Kupinse, Fred Hamel, John Finney, Brad
Tomhave, Jack Roundy
1. Minutes: Roundy read a correction from Hamel for the February 1 minutes.
Hamel clarified his contribution to the schedule discussion as follows: “ . . . that in
listening to the discussion he [Hamel] was not clear whether we have a fundamental
problem with the current schedule, or whether it just conflicts with individual teaching
preferences which is likely to occur with any schedule. If there is a fundamental
problem, we need to articulate this as a rationale for change.” With this correction, the
February 1 minutes were approved.
2. Announcements: Jackson announced that ASC will have visitors from the
Interim Study Abroad Committee at our March 22 meeting to discuss a transcript
issue that is within our policy purview.
3. Petitions Committee (PC) Actions: Tomhave provided the following report of PC
actions since our last meeting, with the request that today’s meeting conclude a little
early to allow a decision on this week’s single committee petition [for medical
withdrawal]:
Date
2/15/06
2/22/06
YTD
Approved
3 (1PPT + 1R)
1 (1PPT)
125 (52 PPT + 24R)
Denied
0
0
26
No Action
0
0
1
Total
3
1
152
4. Re-evaluate the Class Schedule: Jackson renewed our conversation in the
context of an email he sent earlier in the day (attached). He proposed that we bring
our deliberations on the schedule together in a report to the Faculty Senate
summarizing information, concerns, and suggestions we have gathered.
Tomhave offered a document detailing classroom use by time slot for the current
spring schedule. He noted that these data reveal where relatively open times are, and
could help us decide what shifts are possible. He pointed out, for example, that
courses offered at 3 pm MWF could easily be shifted to TTH 8 am slots. Roundy
responded that further loading the TTH schedule could exacerbate issues for students
already heavily scheduled into those days. Crane asked if we should assess just how
much of a burden heavy TTH scheduling actually is. McMillan reported that several
friends have to wrestle with heavy TTH schedules. Crane wondered whether these
students found the heavy TTH load a burden or a convenience. Bradley said he knew
of students who appreciated three days off. McMillan said she agreed, but around
midterm (now), these students do find the TTH schedule a crunch. Sampen reported
that one of her students favors the heavy TTH schedule to permit room for a 3-dayper-week internship. Austin reported encountering students in religion courses who
found heavy TTH loads difficult to manage. Referencing Tomhave’s list of available 8
am TTH slots, Crane pointed out that three Thompson Hall classrooms noted in the
list will be going “offline” with next year’s ongoing renovations. She pointed out that
available teaching space in Thompson needs to be factored into our analysis of
scheduling options.
David reported that his colleagues in psychology have voiced strong sentiment for
adding 2 80-minute slots on MWF afternoons. He added that these colleagues also
advocate permitting one-day-per-week, 3-hour seminars earlier than 3 pm, on
Mondays, for example. He inquired whether even one morning per week could be
opened for these seminars. He indicated that his colleagues were pushing for 1) data
analysis to reveal what options are “possible,” and 2) review of sister institutions to
discover how they have integrated longer class sessions into their schedules. Jackson
replied that he wasn’t sure what data analysis of our own schedule would be useful in
this context, given that we have not permitted early seminars up to now, and cannot
therefore assess their impact on the rest of the schedule. David suggested that data
from other institutions might serve the purpose. McCall said he could see at a glance
that offering a 3-hour seminar on Monday mornings would “knock out” a significant
number of teaching spaces. Moore suggested that we might introduce two-day-perweek 80-minute blocks on MW mornings, then “double up” these blocks on Fridays
for seminars. Finney noted that there currently aren’t many seminars on offer, so
there is more room to squeeze them in, but acknowledged that opening up the option
might produce more.
Sampen reported that at her undergraduate institution, first- and second-year
courses tended to be offered in shorter time blocks, while third- and fourth-year
classes tended to be offered in longer blocks. She wondered if we might do that at
Puget Sound without producing scheduling difficulties for students. David affirmed
that the “longer” classes in psychology did fall in the upper division. Crane reported
that at an institution where she formerly taught a larger noon-hour time block was
used during which “staggered” starts were permitted. This plan originated in order to
send students through the dining hall in a more spaced-out fashion, but that model
might be adopted at Puget Sound to permit varying lengths of class sessions in a
larger noontime scheduling block. Finney suggested that we could review the
schedules of students currently taking psychology seminars to assess what effects a
change in offering times might have. Bass indicated that politics and government
would be interested in a similar analysis. David asked student members what effect
they thought such a scheduling change would have. McMillan answered that her
department (foreign languages) doesn’t offer one-day-per-week seminars, so she could
not judge from personal experience, but she speculated that students taking courses
across the curriculum might experience conflicts. Bradley said he thought students
faced with seminars running from 8-11 am might well balk at the offering time,
especially those averse to early classes. Bass wondered if 9-12 seminars might work
better. Bradley thought a greater number of conflicts would arise if a seminar blocked
the 9, 10, and 11 offering times.
Kupinse asked how evening seminars would work in students’ opinions. McMillan
thought evening might work fine for many students. Bradley said he knew many
students who would have conflicts with other evening commitments. McMillan said
she thought theatre students would be particularly affected. David thought careful
student planning might reduce conflicts. Dougharty remembered evening classes
from his student days, and said they were rather popular with students. Crane
reported Mott Greene’s review of sister institutions’ offerings, and his assessment that
more residential institutions (the direction in which we are moving) tend to offer more
evening classes. McCall wondered if we could develop a “mixed” option, offering
simultaneous MWF 50-minute, MW 80-minute, and M or W 3-hour classes. Jackson
suggested that this mix might be deployed successfully for faculty and within our
physical plant, but could make student scheduling very difficult. Bass worried
particularly about 3-hour seminars (offered in the spring term in her department)
blocking other required classes if scheduled during prime teaching hours, and
causing graduation problems for students. Finney said we could look at the notion of
offering varying upper division and lower division schedules, encouraging students to
dispose of lower division requirements in their first and second years, so as to
“graduate” to a schedule of longer block classes in the upper division. Roundy
speculated that this model would probably not work for transfer students or major
changers.
Jackson asked members what our next steps should be. David suggested forming a
subcommittee to work on scheduling options and models. He favored a plan to
complete the Jackson memo to the Faculty Senate, together with analysis of workable
possibilities. Jackson said he saw three options: 1) submit a report to the Faculty
Senate requesting a further charge if that was the Senate’s will; 2) form a
subcommittee immediately with directions to work on analysis of options; or 3)
continue our discussions in full committee. Bass proposed that we finish the Jackson
memo and forward it to the Senate. The Senate could then decide whether to charge
us with further analysis, at which point we could form a subcommittee. Jackson said
he thought that realistically, sending any report to the Senate, even one inviting a
further charge, would push continued schedule review into the next academic year.
Hamel thought that a basic question still requiring an answer is: “Who makes this
decision?” He favored summarizing our deliberations to this point and forwarding
them to the Senate, with a request for clarification on who will make the decision on
scheduling changes, and how. He thought another body, perhaps a more
representative body (department chairs, possibly?), could more appropriately address
the scheduling questions. Finney replied that Dean Bartanen has already said this
decision is hers to make. What she seeks is information and advice on options.
David then inquired whether the ASC is the appropriate body to serve in an advisory
capacity to the dean. Finney said that the schedule has historically been the purview
of the ASC. Jackson responded that it would be up to the Senate, not the ASC, to
contest the view that the schedule falls to the dean’s authority, if they were so
inclined. Finney didn’t believe there was a need to provoke a “constitutional crisis”
over the schedule. Jackson thought a schedule that was developed with faculty input
would earn the “buy in” of faculty, and would have support in all quarters. Finney
replied that he was sure Dean Bartanen would happily accept any solution that met
all our needs—it would not be hard to persuade her to accept a model that works
better than the one we are currently using.
Hamel recommended sending an interim report based on the Jackson memo to the
Faculty Senate proposing the subcommittee approach and requesting them to advise
us. Finney, concurring with Jackson, said he thought the discussion arising from the
visit of the Interim Study Abroad Committee would probably take us the remainder of
this academic year, so Hamel’s proposal would probably conclude this year’s work on
the schedule. He therefore suggested that Jackson send our thoughts to the Senate
as a part of the end-of-the-year report. The Senate could then charge us again next
year, if they are so inclined. Hearing no objection, then, Jackson said he would follow
the Hamel and Finney suggestions, and ended this year’s deliberations on the
schedule.
We adjourned at 3:50, with a petitions subcommittee contingent remaining to handle
the week’s single petition.
Respectfully submitted by the ASC amanuensis,
Jack Roundy
Report on Course Scheduling
Academic Standards Committee
Draft, February 25, 2006
For AY 2005-06, the Senate charged the ASC to “re-evaluate the class schedule
with respect to the goals for which it was implemented and consider a protected time
for faculty meetings.” As its response to this charge, the ASC gathered relevant
information and suggestions in several forums. Individual ASC members solicited
comments from colleagues. John Finney and Martin Jackson lead a discussion of
scheduling issues at the February 3, 2006 meeting of department chairs, school directors, and program heads. Further comments from chairs, directors, and heads were
solicited by e-mail. Over the course of x meetings, the ASC identified issues of concern with the current schedule system and weighed the benefits and costs of suggested
modifications. This report summarizes our findings. Our goal here is to represent all
of the ideas we have heard. More detail on our discussions can be found in the ASC
meeting minutes of January 18, February 1, February 15, and March 1, 2006.
Background
A previous round of discussions on the course schedule system took place in the
period 1998-2001. The discussions began with the ASC during the spring of 1998 in
response to concerns brought by a faculty member. In its annual report for 199899, the ASC recommended that it be charged with further examining the course
schedule system. In September 1998, the Senate charged the ASC to “re-examine
issues of class scheduling, with attention to creation of a common hour or hours
during which students and faculty would be free, and with concern for providing
time for co-curricular activities.” The ASC took up this charge in Fall 1998 with
discussions that resulted in a report to the Senate proposing three possible times for
a common hour.
In February 1999, the Senate issued a more detailed charge, summarized as “The
Faculty Senate therefore charges the Academic Standards Committee with studying
the question of course scheduling in depth and with bringing back to the Senate a
proposal or proposals for a course scheduling framework that might reduce conflicts,
allow a common meeting time, and permit an effective use of classroom resources.
The Senate requests an interim report as part of the committee’s year-end report in
May and a final report by fall semester 1999.” The full text of the charge was given in
memo drafted by then Academic Vice President Terry Cooney. (A copy is attached
here.)
The ASC took up the new charge during Spring 1999 and Fall 1999. These
discussions resulted in a report, drafted by Associate Dean and University Registrar
John Finney, comparing three models relative to the considerations and possibilities
given in the detailed Senate charge. (This document is attached.) The report was
forwarded to the Senate. The Senate did not explicitly address the report. It was
discussed at chairs meeting held December 6, 2000.
In a memo dated April 3, 2001, Terry Cooney announced changes to the course
schedule system that were to take effect for the 2002-03 academic year. (A copy is
attached here.) In response, the Senate held discussions in its meetings of April 2,
April 16, and April 30, 2001. The Senate passed a motion urging “Acting President
Cooney to suspend any and all changes in the schedule for classes, including but not
limited to changes in the hours at which classes may start, end, and/or be offered,
until such changes shall have been vetted by administrators, faculty, and students and
the opinion of the faculty on the changes shall have been expressed in the Faculty
Senate or in a vote at a faculty meeting or both, and the feedback from students shall
have been expressed by the ASUPS Senate or by the general student body.”
Implementation of a new schedule system continued with some minor changes to
the announced system in the Cooney memo. (In particular, Tuesday/Thursday time
slots were changed from 75 minutes to 80 minutes following a suggestion raised in
Senate discussions.) Since that time, a few other modifications have been made.
Courses scheduled for MW 3:00-4:20 are not included in the time slots described
in the annual class schedule memo from John Finney to department chairs and school
directors. However, scheduling of MW 3:00-4:20 courses has been allowed since the
current system was implemented. The 2005-06 academic year brought a substantial
increase in the number of courses scheduled for this time slot. In response, Dean
Finney’s memo on the 2006-07 course schedule included the statement “The use of
3:00 MW courses meeting longer than fifty minutes has become excessive, affecting
late-afternoon cocurricular events in a manner contrary to the goals of faculty when
they created the current class schedule. The university operates on a MWF/TT
course schedule. Please use these options.”
Some faculty members had strong reactions to this statement. One department
was concerned that this represented the unilateral termination of an informal agreement with the deans to allow MW 3:00-4:20 courses. Others resented the implication
that the current schedule system had been approved by the faculty. To be more accurate, the statement in Dean Finney’s memo could be rephrased as “in a manner
contrary to the goals adopted by the faculty” to distinguish between the faculty goals
expressed in the February 1999 Senate charge and the current course schedule system
implemented by the academic deans.
Concerns with current schedule system
The concern that has received most attention in ASC discussions relates to the number
of options for teaching courses that meet twice a week in 80-minute blocks. Some
faculty have a pedagogical preference to teach their courses this way. (Departments
that have expressed some preference for this model include Business, Communication
Studies, Politics & Government, and Religion.) The only official options currently
available for this are Tuesday/Thursday courses. A faculty member who uses only
TT faces a very heavy teaching load two days a week. In departments where this
model is favored, major students may end up with a heavy class load on these two
days of the week. For a faculty member, the alternative is a mix of MWF and TT
courses. This leaves no day free of teaching to devote to scholarship. Those who are
asking for more options would like to spread teaching over four days and reserve one
day free of teaching for faculty scholarship.
Others have expressed concern about the options available for teaching seminar
courses that meet once a week for two hours or more. Under current guidelines, a
seminar course should be scheduled to begin no earlier than 3:00. Some faculty would
like options to teach seminar courses that begin earlier in the day.
Use of the MW 3:00-4:20 slot raises various concerns. Courses scheduled in this
period conflict with Music ensemble rehearsals, athletic practices, and faculty meetings. MW courses weight the weekly schedule away from Friday, resulting in greater
potential for students beginning their weekend activities earlier than Friday afternoon/evening. Some – including colleagues in Student Affairs – are concerned about
the possible negative consequences of this effect.
Suggestions
The ASC has received and discussed various suggestions. Any change to the current
schedule system includes benefits and costs. Among the factors to consider are
• the number of conflicts between classes for students
• the number of desirable class blocks
• the number of conflicts with rehearsals, athletic practices, and other co-curricular
activities
• the preservation of a common meeting time for committee meetings, department
meetings, student meetings, and the like
• classroom resource limitations
The main suggestions we have considered are summarized here.
1. Make no changes.
2. Allow courses scheduled for MW 3:00-4:20. This might include a limit on the
number of courses in this time slot (in addition to the natural limit imposed by
available classroom resources.) Imposing a limit would require a mechanism for
handling cases in which demand exceeds the limit.
3. Create new 80-minute blocks for MW, WF, and MF. Manage classroom resources by maintaining a balance in the number of MW, WF, and MF courses.
(In any one 80-minute block, three courses can be scheduled using two classrooms in the following way: Course 1 meets in Classroom A on MW, Course
2 meets in Classroom B on WF, Course 3 meets in Classroom B on M and in
Classroom A on F.) There are many variations on how new 80-minute blocks
can be created. Examples include
(a) Add MW, WF, MF 8:30-9:50.
Comments: This increases conflicts for students and competition for classroom resources with courses scheduled for MWF 8:00-8:50 and 9:00-9:50.
(b) Replace MWF 1:00-1:50, 2:00-2:50, 3:00-3:50 by MW, WF, MF 1:00-2:20,
2:30-3:50. Allow MWF 50-minute courses that stay within 1:00-2:20 and
2:30-3:50.
Comments: This effectively reduces the number of MWF 50-minute slots
to seven from the current eight. Some departments currently use all eight
available MWF slots.
(c) Add MW, WF, MF 1:00-2:20, 2:30-3:50 and continue MWF 1:00-1:50, 2:002:50, 3:00-3:50.
Comments: This has more competition for students and classroom resources than the previous option.
4. Build a new course schedule system from scratch.
Where to from here