Approved 29-0-0
11/17/11
#03
FACULTY SENATE
University Faculty Senate
October 27, 2011
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
SGA:
Guests:
S. Lamb, R. Baker, K. Bolinger, S. Buchanan, J. Buffington, P. Cochrane, J. Conant,
N. Corey, B. El Mansour, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, L. Hall, M. Haque, T. Hawkins, N. Hopkins,
Jim Hughes, L. Kahanov, B. Kilp, K. Kincade, J. Kuhlman, C. MacDonald, A. Morales,
T. Sawyer, G. Stachokas, B. Yousif, K. Yousif
Special Purpose Advocate: A. Solesky
C. Fisher, E. Glendening, D. Hantzis, T. McDaniel, T. Mgutshini, C. Olsen, R. Schneirov
President D. Bradley, Provost J. Maynard
K. Brauchle, J. Gatrell, N. Merritt, J. Murray B. Sims, C. Tillery, B. Williams
N. Utterback, President
C. Hoffman, R. Lotspeich
I.
Memorials: None.
II.
Administrative reports:
President Bradley:
a. Everyone here will be getting a letter on pay raises. It will include the 3% across-the-board
raise and a raise to 91% of CUPA-defined market peer group. It is my estimation that we are
done with wholesale equity adjustments. The Provost has 5% of pool to deal with
anomalies.
Provost Maynard: No report
III.
Chair report (S. Lamb):
Colleagues, I have identified a problem. Old handbook definition of regular faculty immediately
follows:
Regular Faculty, Initial appointments are made at the rank of assistant
professor/librarian, associate professor/librarian, or professor/librarian.
These ranks are for full-time faculty beginning a probationary period leading
to eligibility for tenure.
The new handbook definition of regular faculty immediately follows:
305.2.4 Regular Faculty. Regular Faculty shall include tenured
and tenure-track faculty, and shall also include instructors who
perform at least 15 hours of instruction, or equivalent, and who
work pursuant to a 2-5 year or a rolling contract. Initial appointments
are made at the rank of assistant professor/librarian, associate
professor/librarian, or professor/librarian. These ranks are for full-time
faculty beginning a probationary period leading to eligibility for tenure.
1
There are instances where the handbook refers to regular faculty, and this phrase when it was
designed referred to tenured and tenure track faculty. One follows:
350.5.4.1 Departmental Faculty Communication. After serving at least
one (1) academic year as chairperson, a chairperson may be relieved of
his/her administrative post provided at least 50 per cent of the full-time
regular faculty members of the department endorse a written communication
to the appropriate academic dean giving support of such action.
I would like to ask Bob Guell to quickly scour the handbook, and find all references to the term
regular faculty. Determine in which cases the new definition of regular faculty is now
appropriate and which cases the old definition remains appropriate. If the old definition remains
appropriate in a specific usage, then rather than use the term regular faculty we now will have
to substitute the phrase tenured and tenure track faculty. If the new definition is appropriate in
another instance, we can continue to use the phrase regular faculty. Robert, Bring this
information back to the Executive Committee. There may be instances in which there is
disagreement as to what phrase should be used.
Another Issue, much more serious: The executive committee officers have been in
communication with President Bradley, and Provost Maynard examining some of the forces
behind our dismal retention rate of our first-time Bachelor Degree Seeking Freshmen. As you
know, it has now slipped down to 58.1%. It was at 69.1 % in 2006, 73% in 2001.
We dismissed 322 freshman after one semester at the end of the fall 2010 (12 ½% of freshman)
and placed 422 (16.4%) on academic probation.
Another way of looking at it is as follows; Almost 30% of our freshmen are in serious trouble at
the end of their first semester, and of that 30% more than 43 percent have been dismissed. My
lord, it is the case that in 2006 only one freshman was dismissed after a semester's worth of
work. However, 23% of the freshmen were placed on probation. It was at that point in time
that we instituted the ‘below a GPA of 1.00, and you are dismissed’ rule.
During the first year of that rule, 132 were dismissed, second year, 184, third year, 204, and this
last go around, 322 were dismissed. My lord, again!
It is also the case that in 2009 we added minus grades (A-, B- C-, and D-) to our possible grades,
and that appeared to have lowered GPA’s significantly and had an impact upon dismissal and
probation rates. We will have much discussion of that policy during the first part of today's
discussion period.
Maybe we have acted too fast. Maybe we should suspend/modify some of these policies for a
period of time and look aggressively for solutions.
Maybe Deans should be given the responsibility of looking at individuals on a case-by-case basis
using a body of information associated with the individual and make decisions that way, rather
than using only a formula approach based on one measurement.
Maybe the administration ought to provide more resources associated with challenging courses.
Maybe we should look at the impact of having large class sizes. IF we are to have large class
2
sizes, we should be given the resources to investigate alternative pedagogical approaches. We
need to investigate and implement best practices at other institutions that help troubled
students transition successfully from high school to college.
It seems to me that the troubled freshmen who remain here should have serious attention paid
to the construction of their individuals schedules. They should be allowed only in courses and
sections in which they have a reasonable chance of beginning their transformation from high
school to university lif. e That does not mean placing them in large sections of whatever course
is available. Much thought needs to go into their individual schedules.
Regardless, we are in a crisis. It approaches unethical behavior to admit a body of so-called
"qualified" freshmen and after just one semester, determine that 30% of them are failing to
meet the grade and then dismiss 43 % of that 30%. The impact that this can have on the campus
climate could be devastating.
It is my hope that we act quickly to attempt to address this situation. The three officers will
continue to meet with the President and Provost as well as a representative of Student Affairs ,
and discuss issues/methods to deal with the retention problem ISU is having. We must continue
to address this unpalatable situation and investigate alternatives to resolve the unacceptable
situation. What we are doing now is not working. That is a reality.
As you may know, at the Executive Committee this Tuesday, the Committee voted to suspend
the minus grade policy and revert to the policy in existence before its adoption. If we had
placed that item on the agenda for today at the last minute, you would not have had time to
adequately reflect on this issue. The decision was made to make room for discussion concerning
this item, however, during the beginning of the open discussion period.
After that topic has been reviewed/exhausted we will have a broader discussion over any
additional matter that senators wish to bring forward.
Again, at the beginning of the open discussion, I will act Jim to review the findings of the SGA
concerning the impact of the minus policy, which were presented to the Executive Committee. I
would like Robert to add his thoughts concerning the impact of this policy on our dismissal rate,
including the 1.0 GPA policy as well as upon our probationary status polices. And Dan has had
some analysis done as well that is very straightforward and revealing. John, if you would please
weigh in as well. This discussion will certainly be left wide open for input from all.
IV.
Support Staff Report—Kelly Hall (no report; not in attendance)
V.
SGA Report ( Nick Utterback):
Thank you Chair Person Lamb. Good afternoon President Bradley, Provost Maynard, Faculty
Senate, and all others in attendance today. The school year is continuing to fly by as we are
entering into the latter stages of the semester. All I ask is you continue to strive to distinguish
Indiana State as one of the premier public universities in the country. Thank you for all your hard
work and know that it does not go unnoticed.
SGA continues to stay active on campus and we wouldn’t have it any other way. Senate has held
two meetings since we have last met, and I can already tell it’s going to be a successful year with
3
their support. They are a studious group that wishes to excel in both leadership skills and
academics. I have all the faith in the world that both the Legislative branch and Executive branch
will continue to make important decisions with student interests in mind.
Blue Fridays are going well with the introduction of our official Blue Friday shirt. This has
rejuvenated interest in staying true to blue on Friday and it has also gotten students interested
in SGA, even though it might only be for a free shirt. Again, if you would like one please feel free
to contact me or stop by our office. Blue Crew is still looking for ways to increase student
population at sporting events this year. We have been very successful this year by increasing the
number of student participants at games by over 50% from last year, and we will continue to try
and increase that number as the year progresses. It was nice to receive thanks from many
individuals for the hard work that has already been put into this year. Be aware that SGA will
resume tailgating at our next home football game by serving chili for all students, faculty, and
staff. We hope to see you there. Lastly, I would like to express my concern for the +/- grading
system. I feel it is necessary and pertinent to revert back to the old system. This would also
eliminate the need to make changes to the Dean’s list GPA requirements. Please settle this
matter as quickly and efficiently as possible. Thank you for your continued support of SGA and
we will persist to meet the needs of all ISU students.
VI
Special Purpose Advocate Report, Amanda Solesky
a.
May I be added to the Faculty Blackboard site?
R. Guell: yes
VII.
Approval of the Faculty Senate Minutes of September 29, 2011. (Vote: 26-0-0)
VIII.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a. J. Buffington’s report: Student Affairs Committee (SAC) is responsible for most of the
Plus/Minus Grading Scale handouts distributed at this meeting.
Explanation of graph/handouts:
 The first graph I would like to address has two graphs at the top and dated at the
bottom. The title of the first graph Fall Undergrad GPA’s - the Plus/Minus Policy in the
fall of 2010. The fall data extends back to fall of 1998. We had to separate fall GPA’s
from spring GPAs because there is a consistent difference between the two: spring
GPAs are always higher than the fall.
On the first graph there are two lines; the straight line is linear regression- it takes the
GPA data we had - starting in 1998 - and going through fall 2008 projects the
forecasted GPA (all things being equal). In both fall and spring there a rising trend
which on the surface indicates grade inflation, but there may be other factors at
work.
 The second lineon the graph shows the actual fall GPAs.
It is clear that actual GPAS in fall 2009 and fall 2010, when the new plus/minus policy
was introduced, and then spring 2010 and spring 2011 in the case of the spring
undergrad GPAs, are lower than GPAs prior to the policy, and much lower than the
projected GPAs. As R. Guell recently pointed out, the change to the plus/minus policy
wiped out 15 years of grade inflation.
b. J. Buffngton: Ok . The second is the two page handout – the first page has eight (8) graphs on
it that shows more granularities – it separates undergrads by class (freshman-senior). In
4
seven of the eight cases the forecasted GPAs reveal an increasing trend. The sole exception is
that fall freshman GPAs have been declining.
Once again, the other line, which reflects the actual data, will show that for freshmen,
sophomores and juniors the change in the Plus/Minus Policy had the noticeable effect of
lowering GPA’s in these classes.
c. The third (and final) handout is simply a table because I did not have time to generate the
graphs. Again there is a consistent trend: in some colleges, GPAs have declined 0.1 percent,
and in others the decline has been much steeper.
S. Lamb: Questions? Before we get into formal discussion, I would like to get data questions
out of the way and then we’ll address further comments.
Questions: +/- Grading Scale
a. K. Kincade: Referring to the two- page graph (freshmen, sophomores, juniors and seniors particularly, the junior GPAs looks completely dramatic – its 298 to 286 which is a little over a
point drop.
Buffington: You always have to be aware of the scale. If this were on a graph, a range of 0-4,
is the .1 significant? Both R. Guell and President Bradley undertook some analysis of that
independently. I think they both came to the conclusion that the change in Plus/Minus may
have reduced GPA’s by .1 or .5 or perhaps a little bit more, but even the small hit in GPAs (as
you have heard S. Lamb mention) have had a fairly dramatic impact. (R. Guell will have more
to say about this matter later in the meeting, as well as the President.) It is not only dismissal
and probation that we are discussing here; it is also college requirements…must have a 2.5 to
graduate. I believe all the colleges have their own rules about GPAs and graduation. So it
seems like this has a disproportionate effect on all the policies we have about dismissal,
probation, and graduation.
b. C. MacDonald: In the context of natural variability, it is quite a large change.
c. A. Morales: Minus grades are now just an option, we do not have to use them.
d. K. Yousif: Is a .1 GPA really that much?
e. N. Hopkins: This is not the only change that has occurred at this time. It cannot be said that
the entire drop in average grades is solely the result of the +/- grade system change.
R. Guell’s statement:
In the handout that I have provided I have given you the cumulative probability function for all
grades before and after the grade system change. You can see that below a 2.0 GPA, there is a .1
GPA point difference between the + only grades and the +/- grades, and a similarly sized impact
above 3.75. Between 2.0 and 3.75 there is a .15 GPA point difference.
In studying my own grading patterns, for a course I taught before and after the change, using
identical tests and quizzes, there was a .15 grade point change that is only attributable to the
system change. I applied the letter grade assignment scale I used to the combined data of final
percentages for the two falls prior and after the change. The same understanding resulted in
5
lower grades.
Using a different method, Institutional Research produced a .1 GPA point change. The impact on
students is felt all over the grade distribution. Students who consistently do A- work used to
qualify for the Dean’s list and no longer do. Students who used to qualify for admission to the
College of Business majors and College of Education majors while doing consistent C+ work, no
longer qualify. The result of the change on dismissal and probation is also dramatic. Students
were dismissed when they otherwise would not have been. I estimate that 34 2009 students
and 42 2010 students were dismissed as a result of the 1.0 rule when they would not have been.
Even more were placed on probation, 52 and 87, when they would not have been and some of
those were dismissed in the subsequent spring when they would not have been.
I estimate that that about half of the 10 percentage point aggregate increase in probation +
dismissal rates of freshman is attributable to this rule. Though Institutional Research’s (IR)
method estimates this effect to be less, it is still important that we not allow a change that was
not motivated by a perception of grade inflation to affect so many students by reducing
aggregate GPAs.
I would also suggest that those who assert that there is grade inflation and may use the pre-2008
data from Dr. Buffington to back up that view are mistaken. The aggregate GPA of
undergraduates rose, the average GPA of Freshmen fell, but the average GPA of sophomores and
juniors during that time was constant. The aggregate result undergraduate GPA increase is likely
the result of a change in the mix of undergraduates during that time from more to fewer
freshmen.
We made a mistake, and we need to fix it.
President Bradley’s statement (regarding the analysis):
R. Guell assumption of this was that basically everyone or a large portion of faculty took the base
grade (the B, the C, and the A) and made minus grades out of the lower end of that range. If you
look at the total number of A’s B’s, C’s pluses/minuses there is some evidence to back up that
assumption. What I asked Patty and Linda to do (Institutional Research) is to go back and review
all the freshmen for the last two (2) falls, and in their analysis if they got a minus, to convert that
to the full grade…so if they received a C- change it to a 2; if they got a C+, change it from a 2.3 to a
2.5.
(R. Guell: To be clear – the President didn’t’ actually instruct to change the grades – this is a
hypothetical.
(Laughter)
Part of the answer to this is (Bob alluded to it) – ISU has called a 2.5 a C+ when in fact, it is not a
C+ it is halfway between a C and a B. And, for the rest of the world a 2.3 is a C+. Making those
changes results in the average GPA (grade) for freshmen going up 0.11. The total number of
students put on probation and suspension drops by about 3 percentage points on average for
the two years. The change in the grading scale therefore appears to be responsible for about a
third of the increase in the number of students suspended. This analysis I think that provides a
fair amount of support for R. Guell’s analysis, and it does it in a way that is independent.
6
T. Hawkins’s statement:
Colleagues:
You are being presented today with a motion to rescind the policy that established minus grades
at ISU two years ago. This effort is being undertaken largely to address the dramatic drop in
cumulative GPAs experienced across the university over the same time and to find a viable
solution to the dismal retention rates we have been experiencing.
In my opinion, the solution advanced here—returning ISU to the pre-minus days—is misguided. I
do not question the link between the new policy and the decline in GPAs. Nor do I question the
motivation behind the motion. I wish to find a solution to retention problems, as well. However,
while there is a clear relationship between the minus policy and lower GPAs, the solution is not to
eliminate an option that provides faculty with more precision during grading, was implemented
after extensive review, and has since been received (at least anecdotally) quite well.
The problem is not the minus grade. The problem in my view is the disconnect between the
minus grade and the 4.0 scale used at ISU to calculate GPAs.
Professors calculate grades in their courses based on ranges, usually on a 100-point scale, where
the A range is (generally) somewhere from 90 to 100, a B is 80 to 89, etc. Therefore, within each
range a minus grade is near the bottom and a plus grade near the top with the “whole grade” (i.e.
a true A) being in the middle of the range.
A 4-point grade scale, however, functions differently. Although there is a range of sorts, it is not
the same in that the “whole grade” (again, a true A, B, etc.) is at the bottom of each range. To
give an example, the C range is 2.0 to 2.9, yet a “C” final grade is a 2.0 (at the bottom of the C
range, not in the middle). Therefore, a student with a final course grade would be given a 2.0
grade, but a student with a C- would have to be given less than 2.0—which is technically in the D
range. This is inherently unfair to the student and not reflective of his or her actual achievement.
Many faculty members embrace the minus grade with the intention of using it to reward students
who fall on the borderline between, for example, a C and a D (e.g. a 69%). Faculty who perceive a
C as a 75% might not be able to justify the equivalent of a six-point increase in a grade (69 to 75).
But, they might (as I do quite often) view the C- (or B-) as a reasonable and positive alternative.
The solution is not to eliminate minus grades simply because they seem inconvenient. That is just
grade inflation, and it leaves us open to the charge that we are manipulating our grade policy to
solve our retention problem. Instead we should make the two scales more compatible. One
option might be to go to a 5-point scale, where the A-range is 4.0 to 5.0 (with a true A being a 4.5,
an A+ being a 5.0 and an A- being a 4.0). Another might be to retain our 4-point scale but revise
the minimum GPA required to avoid academic probation so that it aligns more closely to the
grading intentions of our faculty. Or, we could eliminate plus and minus grades for all
Foundational Studies courses as a way to address grade deflation and its impact on retention.
Regardless of the final decision, we must give this issue and its implications more careful study
before rushing headlong into a precipitous reversal of the current policy.
Questions/Comments
7
a. R. Goldbort: My understanding is that IU uses +/-. Is it really a fault in the system?
We should also note that student performance is dropping in their ability to write, read, and
listen.
S.Lamb: These must be examined. Our students are often ill-prepared.
b. K. Kincaid: There are also issues of performance surrounding attendance. This data is merely
a symptom or poor performance. I would also add that bad advising plays a part. I have more
than 15 freshmen in my 300 level Foundational Studies literature course.
c. A. Morales: If the scale is the problem, then the system is not the answer. It is in mapping the
grades to the scale that is the problem. Why can’t we revert to the pre-minus dates, rather
than the scale itself? I don’t understand; it seems like this would be a more logical solution.
d. B. Yousif: The reasons provided in the past to justify the move to a +/- system were good
ones. Moreover, will changing back to a + only system undo the effect? Should we not simply
ask faculty to re-calibrate honestly and openly?
e. J. Conant: We understand that the causality here is complex and needs to be looked at
carefully. However, we need to treat first year students this year differently in order for them
to be successful. While there is value in discussing a long term solution, we have a present
problem in which freshmen lives will depend on what we do now. I would hope that we not
look past the current crisis because this crisis affects real people and there is serious work we
need to do in fixing the problem.
f. N. Hopkins: Can’t we simply invite students adversely affect to return? Under the 1.0 rule
couldn’t the dean invite these students to return if they developed a plan for them to be
more successful - is that no longer the case?
R. Guell: They do but that does not deal with the issue of College of Business or College of
Education programmatic retention standards. If they also have discretion we do not have to
change anything. It is always the case that deans have the discretion to waive almost any rule
that exists. The last time there was a blanket waiver of the 1.0 rule was a completed total
honest effort that clearly failed. So it may not have been a perfect effort; it may not have
been the best effort that one could contrive, but there is no way of saying that four people
succeeding out of the 100 we let through is in any way other than a failure. If you look at the
data, you will see that there is a smattering in the last two years of cases. I believe that in
order to deal with the structural system of the Plus/Minus system, we either have to
suspended it immediately (not completely forever) and then have a real discussion about how
it should be implemented. Or, what we have to do is let the Plus/Minus system go and have a
blanket understanding that what used to be a 1…is now a 0.8 something, and what used to
be a 2.5 is now a 2.9 (or whatever) because deans have an extraordinary level of discretion. It
may be harder for accredited programs to do that. But we need to do one thing or another
because doing nothing is not an option.
N. Hopkins: What J. Conant is saying is that we have to act immediately. If the deans have
discretion to readmit people who were kicked out under either the 1.0 rule or 1.7 rule –
there is absolutely no reason we have to address this matter this semester.
g. A. Morales: I want to ask again why isn’t the scale being addressed in this situation? Is there
a reason this is not being considered?
President Bradley: I think 1) it is an effort of trying to get some agreement on what is a plus
and what is a minus solid grade. Probably three years ago when this was passed I don’t know
if you could have had this discussion and gotten consensus quickly. I do agree with T.
Hawkins that if half the minus grades came from a 2.5 and half came from the 3.0, we
probably would not be here. But if we go back to a period of time to what we had before,
there is no harm done really. And, it does give time to further discuss it.
8
A. Morales: I disagree the harm is being done.
President Bradley: But what I am saying is that we can change the scale back to where it was
and then have the discussion to the way it was three years ago in a way that is neutral to the
overall GPA. Clearly it does not apply to every student, but I don’t think the goal of passing
the Plus/Minus was to put an additional 3% of the students on probation or suspension. That
is the net of what has happened.
h. J. Hughes: However you characterize it – we have grade inflation. We have to acknowledge
that whether or not there was grade inflation in the years leading up to the change we have
massive grade inflation because we know that we have low SATs relative to our peers and still
have an overall average GPA of 2.8. In addition, some of the fall in GPAs is not a result of the
change in grading systems.
S.Lamb: Lack of successful efforts. I do agree this is only a partial solution. I believe that some
of these solutions have been presented – about how we treat our students; how we must
prepare them more successfully for the transition from high school to college – I think that a
lack of successful efforts have a….
i. J. Hughes: Just for retention
j. J. Conant: Those who kept the same performance lost points. From the people I talked to, my
point of view was not different (from the old/new system.) Just because of the change in the
grading scale lots of students lost points and that has to be reflected in grade point rules that
we enforce.
k. K. Bolinger: Retention; generational characteristics; We should re-engineer the freshman
experience. Students are often thrown into these large classes where they have no
opportunity to learn. We need to re-engineer this to this new type …students need to see a
return on the investment.
Provost Maynard:
All points made are valid. This is a complex crisis. Some of the relevant factors are the change in
the grading systems, the demographics of the students, and the teaching methodology. There
does, however, exist a crisis in retention. These are our students. We must work together to find a
solution. The grading system is only a small piece of the problem.
The provost pledged support by administrators and deans.
R. Guell - Announcement: An Open Forum on this issue on November 10 at 4:00 p.m. in HMSU,
Dede III will be created. Please encourage your colleagues, on whatever side of this issue they
may find themselves, to attend.
N. Hopkins: SCH targets: Whatever way they are used at other state universities is what we
should do. J.C. $; formula to compare us to faculty at other institutions (we will look bad)
DB formula We report to IPEDS what they ask for. Strangeness in how IPEDS calculates FTE
faculty; Head count; fraction of classes taught by FT faculty; workload calculation must make local
sense. SP 15=1; Chair releases =.5; High adjuncts diff than low adjuncts used IPEDs.
IX.
Graduate Council Items: S. Buchanan, J. Gatrell
 Motion to Approve Academic Renewal Policy (Ex Committee vote 5-2-0)
(N. Hopkins/C. MacDonald Vote: Unanimous)
Policy on Academic Renewal
9
Indiana State University provides Academic Renewal as an option to returning student applicants who have been out of school
for a significant period of time and whose previous academic performance may not be indicative of the academic work of which
they are now capable.
Academic Renewal recognizes that such students are often hampered by a previous, low grade point average, and it offers
them the opportunity to complete a graduate degree program.
While a student who has successfully petitioned the dean of the College of Graduate and Professional Studies for academic
renewal may be permitted to graduate as an exception to the existing grade point average guidelines, the overall grade point
average and transcript will remain unchanged. The following conditions apply:
1.
One or more years must have passed between the student’s previous enrollment in an ISU graduate program and the
current term of readmission to the student’s initial program of application; OR one or more years have passed
between the student’s previous enrollment in an ISU graduate program and the current term of readmission to a new
program. Departmental review is required.
Academic Renewal can occur only once, and it is irreversible.
All academic requirements in place at the time of readmission must be met.
Students who have completed all degree requirements, met the minimum grade point average, and earned no grades
lower than a “B” (3.0) following readmission will be graduated as an exception by a memorandum from the dean of
the College of Graduate and Professional Studies to the Provost.
2.
3.
4.
To apply for Academic Renewal, students should consult with the assistant dean in the College of Graduate and Professional
Studies.
Related Discussion:
a. S. Buchanan: The original proposal was amended to allow students to apply for renewal after
one or more years between previous enrollment and the term of re-admission for their initial
program; or after one or more years between previous enrollment and term of re-admission
in a new program. The original document proposed five years and two years,
b. J. Gatrell: The policy about exceptions does require support of department. The integrity of
the transcript will be preserved.

Motion to Approve Course Approval Procedures (N. Hopkins/C. MacDonald Vote:
unanimous)
Policy on Procedures for Graduate Course Approval
The Graduate Council moves to adopt the same procedures and process for course approval as used at the undergraduate level.
The procedure is outlined below:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Approval of department/unit and department/unit chair.
Dean’s office approval.
Consultation with appropriate departments/units.
Consultation and review by the Office for Degree Audit and Transfer and the Office of Registration and Records.
(Department sends to Office for Degree Audit and Transfer; Office of Registration and Records returns proposal to
the dean’s office, or forwards to the Office of Academic Affairs.)
If professional education or key course (in which attainment of a standard is demonstrated) that is part of educator
preparation program, consultation with the Dean’s Office, College of Education. (Department obtains signature.)
Consultation with appropriate subject specialist in the Library. (Department obtains completed Library Report.)
College review. (Review occurs consistent with college policies and procedures and the results are submitted to the
dean’s office. Dean’s office sends proposal to the Office of Academic Affairs.)
Office of Academic Affairs review. If a course is accepted, proposal is published in Academic Notes.
If a department/unit that would logically have an interest in the course was not informed about the proposed
change and has a concern, then the chairs meet to discuss and resolve concerns. If the concern is not resolved
within two weeks, then the appropriate deans will participate in the discussion to resolve the issue. If a resolution
10
is not reached, the proposal is submitted to the college committee or, in the event that the department(s)/units
are in different colleges, to Graduate Council. The review body would obtain information, deliberate, and render a
decision about the proposal.
10. The course is published as approved in Academic Notes.
Related Discussion:
a. S. Buchanan: This is parallel to the undergraduate process
b. J. Gatrell: streamlined-parallel processes
c. N. Hopkins: #9 logically interest 2-weeks in academic notes after published (U.C. to add 2wks
notice) - Change to EEO
X.
Proposed change to the University’s EEO and Non-Discrimination Policy Statement
Below you will find a portion of the current statement with the proposed addition of gender identity
or expression.
Indiana State University does not discriminate on the basis of sex, race, age, national origin, sexual
orientation, including gender identity or expression, religion, disability, or veteran status. In line with
its commitment to equal opportunity, the University will recruit, hire, promote, educate, and provide
services to persons based upon their individual qualifications meeting established criteria.
Discussion:
a. Provost Maynard: Diversity Council and Affirmative Action looked at our policy relative to
other schools.
b. J. Hughes: The way it reads makes no sense. By unanimous consent strike “including” and
“or”)(This change was unanimously accepted)
c. N. Hopkins: Will it cost money to implement?
Provost Maynard/President Bradley: There are no direct costs.
J. Hughes: We have unisex restrooms.
XI.
AAC Report Analysis of ISU Staffing Data, by R. Lotspeich – Informational Item (also located on
website)
S. Lamb: Expressed his appreciation to R. Lotspeich for a well done report.
Background:
Since 1992 the Senate Executive Committee (SEC) has charged the Standing Committee for
Administrative Affairs with examining trends in human resources at the University. This used to
be called the faculty count, because the main emphasis was a comparison of the number of
faculty positions against the number of administrative positions. In recent years the work has
been more comprehensive and so renamed the Staffing Study.
The purpose is to inform the SEC and the Senate about the trends in order to assist the faculty in
its shared responsibility for managing the University. Managers need good information about the
organization they are managing – and this is our way of providing quantitative information about
human resources to the faculty in their role as managers.
Structure:
11
In October of each year we receive a comprehensive accounting of all ISU personnel in terms of
FTE’s employed and the salaries paid to them. In each year, we update a table with the new
information presented in aggregated form, with aggregates based on broad personnel categories.
The three broadest categories are: Faculty, EAP (executives, administrators and professionals)
and Support Staff. These broad categories are also broken down to less comprehensive
categories, such the elements of the EAP category and Tenured & Tenure Track faculty v.
Contingent faculty.
The data in this report end with October 2010 – last year. Next spring there will be a new report
based on data through October 2011.
Table 1 in the reports presents the basic data and calculates rates of change from year to year for
both FTEs and for salaries. It also shows rates of change across multi-year time spans.
Table 2 reports on shares of the total salary pool going to the main classes of personnel.
Particular Points of Concern from the 2011 Staffing Study:
A trend noted in previous years was a decline in faculty positions relative to EAP positions. In this
most recent study that trend is not present. If that trend was a concern to faculty as managers, it
is less of a concern in these recent data.
However, with respect to salaries, the trend of increased salaries for executives as a group
relative to other classes of personnel is still present in the most recent data. This is shown clearly
in Table 2, which shows the executive share increased from 6.7% to 7.1% of the total salary pool
We think that the continuing increase in aggregate salary share going to executives is an issue
that should be raised in discussions between the faculty leadership and the University executives.
Another trend noted in previous years was an increase in contingent faculty positions relative to
Tenured & Tenure Track positions. This trend continued in the recent data and even accelerated.
It must be noted that last year was unusual in this regard because of accelerated retirements of
Tenured & Tenure Track faculty. The Committee raises a cautionary note here.
The Committee cautions that this accelerated trend of replacing full-time professional faculty with
part-time and temporary teaching staff may be degrading the overall quality of students’
academic experience at ISU.
Moreover, there is a clause in the ISU Handbook that limits the use of contingent faculty for
teaching. The limit is 35% of student instructional hours. There is no limit on the faculty
structure, in this regard, but the share of contingent faculty in the total FTEs of faculty does
influence the share in instructional hours that they teach. The translation depends on the
practices of teaching loads assigned. If we assume a campus wide practice of four courses
assigned to a contingent FTE and three courses assigned to a Tenured & Tenure Track FTE, then
ISU was out of compliance with the Handbook requirement. A practice of five courses assigned to
a contingent FTE and four courses assigned to a Tenured & Tenure Track FTE would also result in
non-compliance. But such conclusions are based on these assumptions of teaching loads. The
Committee does not know what actual practices were followed. We have recommended to this
year’s Administrative Affairs Committee that this issue be investigated in some detail.
12
A third trend was a decline in support staff positions relative to both EAP and Faculty. This trend
has also continued. The Committee raises a cautionary note here as well. There is potential that
this continued decline may lead to an inappropriate balance of human resources. But to know
this there must be a more detailed examination of this class of personnel, their contributions to
university operations and the potential of their replacement through technical innovation. It may
be that a smaller size of support staff is appropriate.
We suggest that a careful review be undertaken to assess the impacts of reductions in support
staff on the variety of services that they provide to the University.
Meeting adjourned. 5:11 p.m.
13