Approved 28-0-0
01/24/12
FS #05
UNIVERSITY FACULTY SENATE
December 8, 2011
HMSU Dede III, 3:30 p.m.
Present:
Absent:
Ex officio:
Deans:
SGA:
Guests:
S. Lamb, R. Baker, K. Bolinger, S. Buchanan, J. Buffington, P. Cochrane, J. Conant,
B. El Mansour, C. Fischer, E. Glendening, R. Goldbort, R. Guell, L. Hall, D. Hantzis,
M. Haque, T. Hawkins, N. Hopkins, J. Hughes, B. Klip, K. Kincade, J. Kuhlman,
C. MacDonald, T. McDaniel, A. Morales, C. Olsen, R. Schneirov, G. Stachokas, L. Walton,
B. Yousif, K. Yousif
N. Corey, K. Leamor, R. Osborn, T. Sawyer, A. Solesky (P.T. Advocate)
President Bradley
A. Comer, K. Brauchle, J. Gatrell, N. Merritt, J. Murray, B. Sims, C. Tillery, B. Williams
N. Utterback, SGA President, R. Florek, J. Hampton, T. Lewis
L. Behrendt, E. Bermudez, P. Bro, B. Coldren, K. Fowler, A. Hay, C. Hoffman, C. Klarner,
R. Lotspeich, L. Maule, R. Oberste-Vorth, Y. Peterson, S. Powers, M. Sacopulos
I.
Memorial Resolutions: No reports.
II.
Administrative reports
President Bradley: Happy Holidays
a.
The Board of Trustees Agenda is posted.
b.
Commencement is December 17th . D. Hirsch will be the commencement speaker. He is a
Distinguished Alum and former President of Worldvision International, an anti-poverty
organization.
c.
The Commission on Higher Education will be meeting tomorrow to approve new
performance funding metrics. We understand that dual credit will not be a part of those
metrics. We will be presenting our Kokomo offering of the doctoral program in education
leadership. They will also be looking at our engineering technology program.
d.
In terms of recruiting, while the number of applications are flat, the admits are up.
Starting January 1, we will transition from recruiting applications to yield. There will be a
large role for faculty. Admissions can get students admitted, but it is really the faculty,
the Housing people (Residential Life) and others outside of Admissions that take students
and turn them into matriculated students by making sure that they know we can meet
their needs and are interested in helping achieve their objections. If you want to be
involved in that yield effort, make sure that you let J. Beacon (VP, Enrollment
Management, Marketing and Communications), his staff or me know, and we will get you
plugged in.
e.
I would encourage your vote for item 11 (that which changes the grading system and
1
changes the 1.0 rule) on today’s agenda. I think it is very important that we not only care
about our students, but we are viewed as caring about our students.
Basically all we are talking about is process. Where we define one as a member of Indiana
State University is when a student is given a degree. We want to be an institution of
opportunity; that is the role we should be playing, and we have played for the last one
hundred plus years; it is not likely to change.
III.
Chair report, S. Lamb:
a.
Colleagues:
I have just a few comments. Actually, I am going to read two notes, first from
Jennifer Schriver then from Linda Maule.
First the note from Dr. Schriver
She states:
“I wanted to provide an update on the development of a program for probation students
in the spring. As you may know, we have historically not offered a comprehensive
program for probation students across the University. Some Colleges and Units have
attempted programs, but there have been no large-scale efforts in many years. I am
working with the Associate Deans to develop such a program for spring. The details of
the program will be forthcoming soon and those will be shared with you.
We know at this point that an intensive conversation will take place with each
probation student at the onset of the spring term and their course schedules will
be reviewed and modified as appropriate. Advisors will have routine contact with
the students throughout the term, and referrals for additional services will take place
(e.g., tutoring, counseling).
Now for the edited note/announcement from Linda Maule.
On Monday, December 12, from 11:30am until 1:30pm, in DEDE III, instructors of
Foundational Studies courses, as well as all other ISU instructors, are invited to a
summit.
The summit’s purpose is twofold: (1) to discuss the ways in which the Office of
Foundational Studies and other units on campus may assist instructors as they face
the challenges of teaching at a comprehensive university, and (2) to develop
collaboratively several strategies for simultaneously challenging and supporting students
enrolled in foundational studies courses, specifically first and second year students.
Please note: The dialogue over the second item will be premised on the following
assumptions:
1.
Student achievement (or lack thereof) is a complex issue
2.
Poorly prepared, disinterested students and poorly prepared, disinterested
instructors--in part--contribute to the problem
3.
Students who demonstrate a commitment to their educational attainment
deserve our attention and our best efforts.
4.
Instructors have not been adequately trained to assist students who need
academic support, but are nevertheless the best situated and the most able to
2
5.
b.
develop innovative strategies to move students from where they are to
where we (instructors, the university, and society) wish them to be.
Strategies to move our students from point A to point B should be both
challenging and developmental. Moreover, recommendations/strategies for
developmental scaffolding should not be confused with coddling, nor
viewed as code for lowering expectations.
Finally, I know that most if not all of the senators have rather strong feelings on the
consideration of the grade and probation issue. I ask that we have a reasoned
discussion and then vote our conscience. Secret Ballots will be used.
IV.
Support Staff report: None. No one present from Support Staff.
V.
SGA Report- Nick Utterback
Thank you Chairperson Lamb. Good afternoon President Bradley, Provost Maynard, Faculty
Senate, and all others in attendance today. I hope each and every one of you is managing your
time and stress wisely as the semester is coming to a close. With that being said I don’t want to
take up too much of your time that could be better served in other places. There is only one item
on today’s agenda that I would like to express some student concern for. With the highly debated
topic of the grading system coming to a close and hopefully will be decided upon at this meeting,
another issue must be discussed today in order to better serve students here at Indiana State
University.
The choice to stay with the current plus/minus grading system is one that I believe will better
serve the students in the long run. Many peer institutions of ISU and schools in the state of
Indiana have a similar grading system, and as tough as it is to see a plummet in student grade
averages, this system will benefit students in many ways. Not only will students be graded more
accurately for the knowledge they have attained in courses, but they will also be graded more
fairly in the sense that two students whose grades have a difference of 9% won’t be receiving the
same grade. Another reason for keeping the current grading system is students are forced to
study more and work harder to attain the grade they want without the minus attached. Now I
know that last reason is wishful thinking and only a portion of the student population does that,
otherwise we wouldn’t be in the situation that we are.
With all of that being said, I believe it is pertinent to make a change to the Dean’s List
requirement if we are choosing to keep the current grading system. Now I don’t want to insult
your intelligence because you can read the information for yourself right in front of you, but I
would just like to point out a few key concepts. When the Dean’s List was originally established, it
served the purpose of honoring students who received straight “A’s”. This was a great honor and I
believe it still is, but due to a change in our grading system we need to adjust the Dean’s List
requirement accordingly. A student who is technically getting straight “A’s” under our new
system, even though they might be A minuses, will not receive the honor of being on the Dean’s
List. I know some of you might be thinking we as an institution don’t want to lower our standards
to accommodate more students, but you also have to look at the other institutions similar to
Indiana State who have adjusted their Dean’s List GPA requirement. By lowering the GPA
requirement for the Dean’s List from 3.75 to 3.5, you will be doing the right thing in honoring
those students who have worked studiously towards their academics. File 3a explains in greater
detail of the reasoning behind this necessary change. Thank you for your time today, and I hope
you can act swiftly on this matter to honor those students who have achieved high grades this
semester. Enjoy your break and Happy Holidays.
3
VI.
Special Purpose Advocate Report, Amanda Solesky – Not present.
VII.
MOTION TO APPROVE FACULTY SENATE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2011 (N. Hopkins/
J. Kuhlman; Vote: unanimous)
T. Hawkins named Parliamentarian by acclamation.
VIII.
Fifteen Minute Open Discussion
a.
N. Hopkins: What specifically are the initiatives that the administration is taking to
improve our retention?
b.
President Bradley: The Provost and I are not taking the lead on this. J. Shriver takes the
lead on that. Have her here at the next meeting. It will be better if she made the report.
She will be reporting to the Trustees on December 16. I would like to follow up on the
faculty forum and the discussion of the problem with student attendance. Some of what
needs to happen are things that faculty cannot do. Reporting only once does no good.
We used to do it multiple times. I am willing to install card swipe stations. We want to
respond to good ideas. We need to focus not so much on reporting attendance but on
clear and quick and consequences if they are not attending. I think that we should
discipline students for more than a failure of grades. AOP students could be
dismissed for lack of attendance. I would think we could get card swipe information. The
data could go into Banner and back to you and the student’s advisor. We are in the
process of developing ASPECT (a software program with Microsoft) to get students
information through text and email to RAs and do so quickly so that they could intervene.
Most of our data is in various buckets that are not generally accessible for people to act
on the data, and it is part of their job to act on.
c.
B. Yousif: How are low SATs related to retention?
President Bradley: High School GPA is a better indicator of success. Our SATs would only
account for 1-3% drop in retention. That said we are committed to increasing SAT
expectations. Also coming this fall, two-thirds of AOP will be required to come for a three
week program during the summer and successful completion of the program will be
required for them to enroll in the fall. There are no variables that differentiate students’
willingness to work other than their actual work.
S. Lamb: I think it should be repeated, increasing SATs is a goal for enrollment
management.
President Bradley: Yes.
d.
R. Guell: The data that I had on students when I was First Year Programs Coordinator
indicate, as the President said, that there is no correlation between SATs and whether an
individual student returns as long as you have their High School GPA in the regression.
However, at the cohort level, there is a statistically and practically significant relationship
between student SATs and the retention of the cohort. The coefficient on that simple
regression is .28 so most of the drop in retention is attributable to the drop in SATs. In
looking at this I have been puzzled by the question “how could it not matter at the
individual level, but matter a great deal at the aggregate level?” The only answer that I
have come to is based on the notion of the externality. That is, the academic preparation
of the people around you helps you succeed. If they are smarter, they are more able to
be able to help you understand the material, helps you be retained in college.
R. Schneirov: I have talked to guidance counselors from high schools. They indicated that
other schools ask for a disaggregation of high school transcripts. Because we do not
4
differentiate between real classes and automatic-A classes, we have lower standards than
other schools (e.g. an A in Band is not the same thing as an A in English). Other than
IVYTech, ISU has the lowest standards.
D. Bradley: I cannot respond to this – all I can do is ask Admissions to enlighten what they
do and what they understand others are doing.
R. Guell: My understanding is that in the Admissions process if you have greater than a
2.5, and if you have a core 40 diploma, that we don’t necessarily disaggregate. We do
the disaggregation in house once the high school GPA is lower than the 2.5.
S. Lamb: At this point I would like to ask if any guests would like to respond to this issue
or any others.
No response.
J. Buffington: We have learned that there will be 30 authorized searches. Will the
Business Dean search be part of that?
President Bradley: An RFP was sent out for search counsel for that position. I will have
the provost respond to this next week when he returns.
C. MacDonald: What is the drop dead date for search completion?
President Bradley: There is no hard and fast date. I do not understand why it goes
beyond 3 months without success or failure; more fail because of failure of the
committee. I apologize for lateness, now that you have them, move forward.
D Hantzis: What is the split between tenure-track and non tenure-track?
President Bradley: I do not have the breakdown. There is no intention of deviating from
our stated goal of the 70-15-15 (divided equally between instructors and adjuncts.)
e.
f.
g.
Announcement by S. Lamb: The revisiting changes to the Handbook in light of the new Board
approved definition of “Regular Faculty” (subject to approval of Executive Committee) – Did not
receive approval of the Executive Committee. It has been postponed. We think that this item is
something that we will need to send down to FAC for its verification.
IX.
MOTION TO APPROVE Changes to the Freshman Retention Efforts, Grading System, and
Probation Status (C. MacDonald/B. Kilp) (File 5)
1.
Simplify the current grading system by reducing the number of grades between
"satisfactory" to "failing" by removing C- and D- from the list of potential grades. In
addition efforts will be increased to make sure all faculty and instructors are aware of the
GPA points associated with each of the possible grades.
2.
Modify the Freshmen Dismissal Standards from 1.0 or less to .85, giving academic units
the authority to extend probation to students who earn a GPA of between .50 and .84, on
a case-by-case basis. Freshmen who earn a GPA of .49 or less will continue to be
automatically dismissed.
a.

MOTION TO SPLIT (N. Hopkins/ A. Morales; Vote: 27-1-1)

MOTION FROM 1 Above To Eliminate The C- and D- (Secret ballot vote: 15-15-0) Motion
failed
A. Morales: It bothers me because it is unfair to students who succeed. There will also be
the same translation problem for other schools.
5
b.
D. Bradley: The C- is a nasty grade. It does not transfer or meet prerequisites. It implies
an acceptable grade when it is not. Why have 5 unacceptable grades?
R. Guell: A C-does not always require that it be taken again.
D. Bradley: If C- is nasty, D- and D and D+ should go. All I have talked to C- will become,
if D- not available will give Fs. This is not a retention issue, but an exact issue; we
blundered when we implemented it. I have nothing in principle against the plus/minus
system. Many people did not understand the changes in the grading system when they
were done. They didn’t understand how it impacted the Dean’s List, Graduation /Honors,
Admission to Degree programs; none of these things were considered completely nor
understood well. Starting from scratch would have been a better way to do it in my
opinion. So this is not a retention issue.
K. Bolinger: I agree with the president “sub average” - they are not cut points. We need
to take time out and evaluate the minus grade.
K. Kincade: Is it possible for departments to reevaluate for purpose of accepting C- (no
transfer) but deal with Major?
S. Lamb: Depending on outcome of today’s vote.
A. Morales: Are there other institutions that have a similar grading scale?
R. Guell: The University of Georgia has a mixed grading scale, but not the one being
proposed (eliminating the D- and the D+.) - keeping the C- . Again, the president is right;
it wouldn’t help at the individual course level, but it would be more helpful at the
aggregate level, and it would reduce the number of grades that say “you didn’t get it”
from five to three.
D. Hantzis: Seems silly; faculty sees a distinct difference (e.g. C- is really D). I do not think
the current scale reflects this difference.
President: A C- is really a D.
P. Cochrane: Minus are important communication tool especially during drop/add
decisions.
K. Yousif: Why can’t we recalibrate numbers?
D. Bradley: All of American Higher Ed says a 2.0 is satisfactory progress.
K. Yousif: Could a C- be 2.0?
D. Bradley: About the only thing that we do not have control over is that about all Higher
Ed says a 2.0 is satisfactory progress. What we are really dealing with is a 4.0 point scale
and anything below it (2.0) is unsatisfactory progress. Recreate problem 100 point
scale/Letter grades.
J. Hughes: Why our students are suddenly doing so poorly (attitude, recruiting)? We
need to deal with the root problems. The minuses have become a distraction; we should
look at the things that matter. Let’s get rid of the minuses and see where we are.
N. Hopkins: Asking for a paper ballot (vote).
S. Lamb: We will have a paper ballot as I have stated at the beginning of this meeting. I
appreciate the quality of this discussion; colleagues, thank you very much.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
NOTE from R. Guell: Approved Motions will be in effect spring 2012.

MOTION TO RETURN TO THE + ONLY GRADING SYSTEM. (J. Hughes/J. Kuhlman; Secret
ballot vote: 15-15), motion failed.

MOTION TO INCLUDE ONLY A, A-, B+, B, B-, C+, C D, and F R. Guell/J. Conant MOTION
Tabled (R. Schneirov/A. Morales 25-5-0).
6
X.
MOTION TO REDUCE THE FRESHMAN RETENTION STANDARD TO 0.85. From Executive
Committee: (C. MacDonald/B. Kilp) Passed 26-2-0, after being amended;
Original motion:
Modify the Freshmen Dismissal Standards from 1.0 or less to .85 or less, giving academic
units the authority to extend probation to students who earn a GPA of between .50 and
.84, on a case-by-case basis. Freshmen who earn a GPA of .49 or less will continue to be
automatically dismissed.

MOTION TO AMEND (C. MacDonald/N. Hopkins, unanimous)
Modify the Freshmen Dismissal Standards from 1.0 or less to .85, giving academic units
the authority to extend probation to students who earn a GPA of .85 or less.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.

D. Hantzis: I am willing to trust the Deans. We need consultation with
departments that we used to have.
J. Hughes: However, when we had Deans bring back a lot of students three years
ago, it was a total failure.
R. Guell: The difference is that we never intended this to be a 1.15 standard. I
have re-examined the data from when we passed this. It turns out that students
who had between a 1 and a 1.15 had a spring success rate of 30% whereas those
who had GPAs below 1.0 had a rate of under 10%.
D. Bradley: We need to think about what this says about us. We are school of
opportunity. We have standards; we will give you a warning, but there will be
consequences. Statistically 1.0 most are not coming back. We are not talking
about a significant number so what is more important is what is our attitude is. A
number showed promise beforehand. Many had 3.0s or high SATs.
C. Olsen: It will be just as bad to put them in the same situation.
D. Bradley: Things won’t be the same.
MOTION TO CHANGE THE STANDARD FOR THE DEAN’S LIST (C. MacDonald/ J. Kuhlman;
Vote: unanimous). SAC Recommendation: SAC recommends the Dean’s List GPA
requirement be adjusted to 3.5 from 3.75.
XI.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE PRIOR LEARNING POLICY Motion to Approve the Prior
Learning Policy, (J. Kuhlman/ C. MacDonald; Vote: unanimous)
The GC Recommendation:
Select graduate programs may provide students with an opportunity to receive a limited
amount of graduate credit as a result of an appropriate and rigorous assessment of prior
learning which would ordinarily include the submission of documentary evidence such as
a professional portfolio or a comprehensive examination.
Students must be enrolled at ISU and have departmental consent to be eligible for credit
by assessment of prior learning. If a student’s performance on the departmental
assessment meets or exceeds departmental standards, credit will be granted. Students
who earn credit through an assessment of prior learning do not receive
a letter grade, but are assigned an “S” to denote satisfactory completion.
7
No student may earn more than 30% of their total graduate credits through the
assessment of prior learning. In addition, the combined total of transfer credit and
assessment of prior learning may not exceed 30% of the total minimum credit hours
required for the program. As such, Master’s programs in the College of Graduate and
Professional Studies will accept credits for transfer and/or prior learning that have been
approved by the department and College of Graduate and Professional Studies for a
maximum of nine credit hours for programs less than 40 credit hours, 12 credit hours for
programs that require 40-49 credit hours, and 15 credit hours for programs that require
more than 49 credit hours. Departments with specialized programs make seek an
exception to this policy by petitioning the College of Graduate and Professional Studies
through the Graduate Council. All associated testing fees, protocols, and related policies
for the assessments are determined by the University Testing Office and approved by the
University Board of Trustees. All students earning credit are additionally required to pay
the standard credit by exam fee per hour earn as determined by the University Board of
Trustees. All program proposals for a credit bearing assessment of prior learning are to
be approved by the Graduate Council.
a.
N. Hopkins: Does this apply to the Master’s level only?
J. Gatrell: No.
Meeting adjourned at 5:04 p.m.
8