October 31, 2007
Academic Standards committee
Present
Debbie Chee, Robert Taylor, Brad Tomhave, Mike Spivey, Dolen Perkins-Valdez, Sarah
Moore, Jack Roundy, Gary McCall, Seth Weinberger, Carolyn Weisz, Ben Bradley,
Brady Evans, Kathie Hummel-Berry, Alison Tracy Hale
Order
Chair Spivey convened the meeting as the 9:00 bells tolled.
Approval of Minutes from last meeting. Minutes were unanimously approved.
Announcements
Chair Spivey thanked members of the committee for their attendance at the Full Faculty
meeting for the discussion of potential changes to the master schedule. He acknowledged
that having heard a variety of positions from the full faculty would help the ASC proceed
with discussions on this issue.
Petitions Report
For the period 10/10-10/16/07, the following actions were taken:
• The Registrar approved 1 registration for classes with a time conflict.
• The Petitions Subcommittee denied 1 registration for classes with a time conflict.
• The Petitions Subcommittee approved a petition for course repeat for second time
(or more).
For the period 10/17-10/30/07
• The Registrar approved a late-add petition
• The Petitions Subcommittee approved a petition for concurrent enrollment
Thus far this semester, 21 petitions have been considered, of which 14 have been
approved (2 by the Registrar, 3 by the Petitions Preview Team, and 9 by the Petitions
Subcommittee), and 7 denied.
Tomhave also reported that based on midterm grades, 5 students had received sanctions:
2 students received warning, 2 graduate students were dismissed after failing to complete
“incomplete” grades, and 1 student was placed on probation.
Committee Business
I.
University Honors
The committee returned to the issue of the number of graded units required for university
honors. Spivey provided a brief overview of information regarding our peer institutions,
which generally calculate honors based on a minimum of 1 ½-2 years’ work completed at
the honors-granting institution.
Weisz asked whether he had located information specific to the issue of AP credit;
Spivey stated that AP/IB credit is not specifically mentioned on the websites nor included
in their calculations. Roundy observed that Lewis and Clark’s requirement paralleled
those of UPS. Chee asked whether such a switch would result in more students getting
honors, to which Spivey said no. Moore said that basing honors on students’ last two
years’ work would focus in general on their better work, and thus represent a significant
departure, but would address Wimberger’s concern about identifying “honors-worthy”
students.
A distinction was made between two possible directions for the policy:
1. Count AP credits toward the required number of units, but not as graded units;
2. Reduce the number of graded units required for honors from 28 to, say, 26, allowing
more “wiggle room” for AP, P/F units.
Evans clarified that we would still be using a student’s overall GPA, not just 2 years’
worth, to calculate honors eligibility.
Moore asked how we would then calculate graded work from elsewhere. Weinberger said
that a new formula would count work in residence, and not count AP credits as “collegelevel work.”
Roundy noted that we would need to make the policy a “both-and,” requiring both a
certain minimum of graded units and a minimum of units in residence.
Tomhave stated that our existing policy meets the “both-and” criteria.
Kathie Hummel-Berry expressed concern that we not inhibit access, particularly among
community college and other transfer students. She asked whether students who were
forced by economics to attend 2 full years before coming to UPS potentially faced a
systematic denial of honors because of the work completed elsewhere.
Weisz asked whether it was possible to apply honors criteria only to courses taken at
UPS; for example, a GPA based on a minimum of 16 units would not include any other
graded units. Since AP units, in particular, are almost always awarded in place of
introductory level courses, such a calculation would emphasize the student’s later college
work.
Roundy expressed concern that such a change might extend honors to students upon
whom we might regret bestowing them, and asked if a retroactive study could be done to
see how the proposed change might affect the number of students, and the individuals,
who receive honors.
Tomhave agree that such a study could be done.
Evans noted that a transfer student who wanted honors would not be able to use any P/F
or activity credits.
Weinberger expressed comfort with the notion that students might have to choose
between pursuing honors and other desiderata, such as activity credits or P/F units.
Spivey reiterated the information the committee was requesting from Tomhave, to wit:
1. How many additional students would have received honors under the modified
criteria?
2. Will any students be dropped from the honors pool; e.g., because they have used
P/F units as part of the 16?
Tomhave noted that he could run the analysis by eliminating the 28 graded units
requirement.
Perkins-Valdez asked how the requirement of 28 units had been established?
Tomhave replied that the faculty had established that number. Moore expanded on
Tomhave’s answer, noting that 28 units reflected the amount of “fluff” or less substantive
work—AP, P/F, activity credits—faculty felt comfortable allowing toward a UPS degree.
Weinberger noted that eliminating the 28-unit rule solved the disparity between how AP
and transfer units were counted. Evans noted that the change would still show the
student’s overall work. Tomhave reiterated that he would supply the requested
information. Moore reminded the committee that we need to consider how much “fluff”
to allow toward a degree; i.e., how many units of less academically substantial work—the
equivalent of one year? Less?
Perkins-Valdez reiterated that she did not see a shift from 28 to 26 units as a huge
change. Moore noted that shifting to 26 units was certainly less of a departure from
current policy than relying on just 16 units. Evans noted that students generally didn’t
plan to fill up their schedules with less substantive courses in the hopes of achieving
honors.
The discussion was tabled until Tomhave makes the data available.
II.
Substitution of the Foreign Language requirement; “Guidelines for course
substitutions due to a learning disability” Document
The committee moved on to a discussion of a document created to accompany the student
petition to substitute courses for the Foreign Language requirement. Moore distributed a
copy of the document, drafted by Moore, Roundy, Tomhave, and Ivey West. Weinberger
asked whether the document represented a significant change from Petitions Committee
practice or a codification of existing practice. Moore stated that the document represented
an effort to “codify and clean up” the information and to address the difficulty
encountered by the committee in evaluating whether a student with a documented
learning disability is best served by creating an alternative to the foreign language
requirement. She noted that it was hard for the committee to judge the effect of the
disability and the suitability of the proposed alternatives. She noted that the document
was a draft of a version that would be appended to the form a student would use to
request the waiver.
She outlined the goals of the new form:
1. To state the requirements (which are the same as they were) under which a
student may petition for a waiver
2. To ensure that students developed a plan with the Disability Coordinator before
submitting the petition, not so that the Disability Coordinator would approve or
deny the plan, but to provide input regarding the suitability of the student’s
choices. She noted that the expectations for the student’s plan are based on
Petitions Committee practice.
Moore pointed out that Item 5 asks students to provide a strong rationale for their
proposed courses. She noted that the onus was still on the student to explain the value of
the courses and how they would meet the spirit of the Foreign Language requirement.
Roundy noted that the document represented a step forward in that students would now
have to talk to “the right people in the right order” and not waste everyone’s time with a
petition that was inappropriate.
Weinberger expressed some concern that scholarship on language learning disabilities
suggested that such students were better served by being required to attempt to learn the
language. He asked whether by assuming the disability prevented them from learning a
language, we were doing the student a disservice? He asked whether we ought to request
that students make a genuine attempt to learn the language.
Moore stated that the disability in such a case must be specific to learning a foreign
language.
Weinberger noted that the Petitions Committee often has to decide why, given a broad or
unfamiliar disability diagnosis, a foreign language presents a particular or unique
problem.
Moore stated that the new form indicated that documentation would have to be in place
before a student could petition for a waiver. She also observed that while there is merit in
trying, asking students to “prove their failure” was an expensive and counterproductive
proposition.
Hummel-Berry suggested that the committee require that the documentation come
through the disability coordinator. She noted that in reality, students are only screened for
a disability because they have already failed at something.
Roundy noted that our admissions standards require that students have foreign language
experience in high school, and wondered what happened to applicants who lacked that
experience because of a documented disability?
Hummel-Berry noted that the difference between high school and college foreign
language instruction meant that a student might find ways to complete a high school
foreign language course without actually processing the language, but would fail at the
college level.
Weisz expressed an editorial question regarding item 6 having to do with the requirement
that the substituted courses construct a “sequence.”
Weinberger asked whether there were similar issues relevant to other Learning
disabilities; say, a student who received a math waiver?
Roundy observed that when the course substitution option was first approved by the
faculty, the term “waiver” had been used. He asked whether as a matter of policy we
would need the full faculty’s blessing to use the term “substitution” instead? Moore
replied that the terms had been used relatively interchangeably and that the faculty had
never really intended a “waiver,” so that the committee could simply send the document
on to the Senate if the ASC approved it.
Spivey asked where the document would reside.
Roundy noted that the form would be attached to the Petition, and that there would be
copies available from the Registrar, Advising, and the Disability Coordinator.
McCall asked why we couldn’t simply create a list of approved alternatives to simplify
the process.
Tomhave noted that listing alternatives was a “slippery slope”; that by not creating a
template of alternatives, we were expressing the value involved in the student’s effort to
construct an individual alternative and to consider the rationale for the foreign language
requirement in terms of his/her own program.
Moore noted that if there were such a list, it would be more difficult to ensure that
students found alternatives that were the best for them.
Several committee members proposed minor editorial changes, all of which are reflected
in the appended document. Tomhave M/Perkins-Valdez S/P to approve the document
with the changes discussed.
Chair Spivey concluded the meeting at approximately 9:51 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Alison Tracy Hale
FOREIGN LANGUAGE GRADUATION REQUIREMENT
GUIDELINES FOR COURSE SUBSTITUTIONS DUE TO A LEARNING DISABILITY
If you are considering a petition to the Academic Standards Committee regarding the completion
of the Foreign Language Graduation Requirement with courses other than foreign language
courses, you should be aware of the requirements and expectations listed below. When the
Committee considers your petition, they first determine if you have provided sufficient evidence
to establish a learning disability that should be accommodated by allowing substitute courses.
The Committee then determines if the courses you are proposing are reasonable substitutes.
Requirements:
1. You are required to provide current documentation from a qualified diagnostic
professional of a learning disability which affects your ability to process language. The
university’s disability coordinator, Ivey West, must also review this documentation.
2. You are also required to meet with Ivey West to make sure that the courses you propose
to substitute for the foreign language requirement will not present problems or obstacles
similar to, or worse than, the ones you would encounter by taking a foreign language
course.
Expectations *:
In order to evaluate the suitability of the student’s request for the substitution, the Academic
Standards Committee also expects to see discussion of the following points in the petition.
1. You are expected to propose a two-course sequence as substitutes for the 101/102-level
foreign language courses.
2. You are expected to complete the proposed sequence over two semesters such that the
first course provides some preparation for, or is somehow related to, the second course.
Although the content sequence may not be as specific as it is for the progression from a
101 language course to a 102 language course, there is an expectation that you will
outline a comparable relationship for the courses you propose.
3. You are expected to justify the courses you have selected as reasonable alternatives to
foreign language courses. As you work on your justification keep in mind that, among
their other benefits, language courses introduce students to another culture, they
introduce students to another way of thinking as expressed in the foreign language, and
they provide students with insight to their native language and grammar by contrasting it
with a foreign language. Courses which contain some or all of these elements may be
appropriate substitutions.
Please note that there are no specific courses the Committee recommends for students in
your situation. Instead, the Committee wants you to argue rationally for the courses you
have selected based on your interpretation of the Foreign Language Graduation
Requirement and your program of study.
4. If you completed your high school foreign language courses despite your learning
disability, you are expected to explain why you are now not able to meet a college-level
foreign language requirement.
5. The Committee will not normally grant approval for courses already taken. If a student
seeks to meet the foreign language requirement using a course or courses already
completed, the committee will expect a particularly strong argument that addresses (a)
why the student did not seek approval for the course as meeting the requirement before
completing it, and (b) how and why the course should be accepted as satisfying the
foreign language requirement.
6. The Committee expects the courses you propose to have no application other than to the
Foreign Language Graduation Requirement. That is, your proposed courses may not also
fulfill one of your core, major, or minor requirements.
*An “expectation” is not necessarily a requirement. If your petition does not meet each of these
expectations, the Committee may still consider your petition provided you convince the Committee that
mitigating circumstances excuse you from the expectation in question and the Committee is otherwise
convinced of the validity of your proposal.
Approved by ASC 10/31/07