Annual Report of the Academic Policies Committee
2008-2009
Executive Summary
The Academic Policies Committee had an extremely active and highly productive
year. Eight policy recommendations were made to the Academic Senate and of
these eight, seven were passed. The Repeat of Courses Policy, the University
Interdisciplinary Programs Policy, and the Graduate Council charge were all
revised. The Faculty Constitution was altered to allow greater representation of
Staff on the Academic Senate; this was ratified by a majority of faculty voting in a
campus-wide special referendum. Changes to the course criteria for the new
graduation writing assessment requirement (GWAR) courses were approved.
The Upper Division Written English Proficiency Policy was also streamlined and
made more congruent with current Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing in the
Disciplines practice and research; corresponding changes were made to the
GWAR Course Criteria. After substantial consultation between CWEP, Grad
Council, and APC, substantial changes were also made to the Written English
Proficiency Policy, Graduate Level, which had not been altered since 2003. Both
the Summer 2009 and Summer 2010 Calendars were also approved, the latter
including an additional 10 week session. One resolution was made, to
temporarily suspend changes to the General Education Curriculum, and this was
passed.
Charge and Membership
The Academic Policies Committee (APC) shall study and evaluate existing
educational policies and plans and may initiate recommendations for changes in
them. No modifications in such plans or policies shall be implemented without the
approval of this Committee.
Among the specific functions of the Academic Policies Committee are the
following:
1. The review of and suggested modifications in the academic master plan
based on the continuing analysis of the educational objectives of the University
and the needs of its students;
2. The determination of the general scope and relative size or priority of
programs;
3. The establishment of criteria for adoption or modification of degree
programs;
4. The review of grading practices and standards;
5. The review of admissions policies;
6. The review of each year's academic calendar; and
7. The development of criteria governing experiential learning, both prior (e.g.,
CEEL, credit by examination, advanced placement) and sponsored (e.g.,
internships, supervised field experiences), and of procedures for implementing
such criteria.
Membership:
* A minimum of seven members of the Academic Senate
* Two students, one graduate and one undergraduate, appointed by the
Associated Students
* The Vice President for Academic Affairs
Activities of the Year – Items Completed Resulting in New Senate Policy
Faculty Constitution
On November 18, 2009, Student Affairs Committee Chair and Staff
Representative, Bridget McCraken, visited APC and shared her perspectives on
altering the Faculty Constitution. She presented a document arguing for the
inclusion of more staff on the Senate on the grounds that decisions made in the
Senate often impacted staff and that staff often had valuable input. The draft
policy was brought to the Senate in first reading on December 2, 2008, and to
second reading on December 9, 2009, at which time it was passed without
revision. This was later ratified by a faculty referendum.
Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement (GWAR) Course Criteria
APC first discussed the revision to the GWAR Course Criteria on February 25,
2009 with the following guests, Director of Writing Across the Curriculum/Writing
in the Disciplines, Mary Soliday and Senate Secretary Ray Trautman. The
primary issues were the change from an enrollment maximum of 20 to 25, and a
change to allow course sequences, rather than just single courses, to be utilized
for GWAR. The draft policy was brought to the Senate in first reading on April 14,
2009. The ensuing discussion was vigorous and substantial. Issues raised
included whether The Writing Task Force (WTF) recommendation that all writing
classes have an enrollment limit of 20 students. The WTF had recommended
that the GWAR writing-intensive courses have limits of 25 students. If the GWAR
classes are more like writing-intensive than like writing or composition courses
than courses, then the 25-student enrollment cap is appropriate. It was also
argued that supplemental resources, such as tutorial services, might be a better
way to utilize limited resources rather than mandating a lower enrollment cap.
Questions were also raised about what should be done for students who do not
pass a GWAR course on their first enrollment. The draft policy was brought back
to the Senate in second reading on April 28th, and passed without revision.
Repeat of Courses Policy
On September 2, 2008, APC reviewed the Repeat of Courses Policy, #S08-248
to bring it into conjunction with the newly revised Executive Order 792. As the
SFSU policy could be more restrictive than the limits provided in the Executive
Order, but may not be more lenient, our policy had to be altered such that
students can repeat a course only if they earn a grade less than a “C” rather than
the previous “B.” The draft policy was brought to the Senate in first reading on
September 9, 2008, and returned to APC on September 16, 2008. Discussion
centered on adding language to make implementation immediate via electronic
disbursement and posting in online bulletin. The draft policy was returned to the
Senate on September 23, 2008 and was passed after revision.
Summer 2009 and 2010 Academic Calendar
APC discussed the Summer 2009 Academic Calendar, prepared by Barbara
Luzardi, SFSU’s Academic Scheduling Coordinator, on, September 30, 2008.
The proposed calendar has the same structure as those of the recent past: two
successive five-week sessions, and an eight-week session, which starts one
week after the first five-week session starts. This structure is both desired by
many students and faculty, and appropriate for many courses.
APC met with two guests, the Dean of the College of Science and Engineering,
Sheldon Axler, Scheduling Coordinator, Barbara Luzardi, and Academic Senate
Secretary and former APC Chair, Ray Trautman. Dean Axler strongly
recommended that a fourth summer session, lasting ten weeks, be considered.
Dean Axler also proposed that future summer calendars be structured on as 3
three-week sessions, overlayed by a nine week session. Barbara Luzardi
communicated to APC and the Executive Committee that a ten-week schedule
would be simple to implement, but would require considerable additional work for
the Office of Administration and Finance. They would have to establish all of the
dates associated with a term (e.g., financial aid, registration, fee refund) and
reprogram the University’s computer system. Though it was not possible to
implement the fourth summer session for Summer 2009, it was possible to do so
for Summer 2010 (The Summer 2009 Calendar was brought to first reading on
October 7, 2008 and passed after revision in second reading on October 21,
2008; the Summer 2010 calendar was brought to first reading on April 28, 2009,
and moved to second reading then passed without revision.) Dean Axler’s further
suggestion should be considered with other possible structures for a perpetual
summer calendar.
One of the most significant issues raised by Dean Axler and others is the
question of the integrity of the academic experience for students taking more
than one five-week session concurrently. James Sheldon, the ASI graduate
student representative to the Senate and a member of APC, was especially
concerned about this issue. Even though students are advised to not take two
such courses concurrently, they often do so because, functionally, they can.
Dean Axler’s proposal would make this impossible, as the three weeks sessions
would necessarily meet for more than four hours, five days a week.
Senate Secretary Trautman suggested APC develop a perpetual summer
calendar as soon as possible, as it had been on the agenda of the 2007-2008
APC without being resolved.
In response to APC’s discussions in AY 2007-2008, Provost Gemello had
requested that the Office of Academic Planning and Educational Effectiveness
“revisit the issue of short-session courses.” Further discussions lead to a plan to
conduct both qualitative and quantitative analyses of short-session courses. The
qualitative phase included interviews with faculty who have taught specific Winter
Intersession and five-week and eight-week Summer Session courses, and focusgroup sessions with students who have taken such courses. The quantitative
phase involved a comparison of the mean difference in student GPA from a
prerequisite course to a corresponding follow-up course for three groups of
students, those who took the prerequisite and follow-up courses, respectively, in
Summer 2006 and Fall 2006, in Fall 2006 and Spring 2007, and in Winter
Intersession 2006 and Spring 2006. This report was submitted to APC by Linda
Buckley, AVP of AP & EE, in Spring 2009. APC received this report with great
interest and gratitude for the level of careful thought and work it represents.
APC sees a need for further discussion about the appropriate structure for
summer sessions, particularly in terms of a perpetual calendar, in the light of the
information provided.
University Interdisciplinary Council Membership
APC first discussed the change to the UIC charge on September 2, 2008, based
on a report given by Ray Trautman, designee of the APC Chair to the UIC. Ray
Trautman and the UIC Chair Jerry Shapiro, with the UIC, developed a draft of the
policy change. APC discussed the University Interdisciplinary Council’s (UIC)
proposal to revise Academic Senate Policy #S85-74 on 3/10/09. The UIC
suggested that their membership be expanded, by adding “up to five members
chosen at-large, elected by and from the voting members of the Faculty, as
defined by the SF State Faculty Constitution.” The primary goal of the
membership expansion is to enable the addition of a Liberal Studies faculty
member to the UIC. SF State hired its first Liberal Studies tenure-track faculty in
Fall 2008, and, given the inherent interdisciplinary nature of the Liberal Studies
Program, those faculty members should be represented on the UIC. However,
policy S85-74 limits the UIC faculty membership to one elected by each college.
A secondary goal of the membership expansion is to enable other interested
faculty to fully participate in the UIC’s activities.
APC fully supported the addition of a Liberal Studies faculty member to the UIC
and authorized the UIC to add up to two additional members if it so chooses. The
latter option is consistent with the membership privilege afforded standing
committees of the Academic Senate: “The committee may choose to add up to
two faculty members as regular voting members if it concludes this will add
special competencies to its membership, assist in the solicitation of the widest
possible range of views, or otherwise increase its productivity.” A few other small
language changes were made, such as “secretarial” to “administrative,” and
“school(s)” to “college(s).”
Written English Proficiency Policy, Graduate Level
APC first discussed graduate level WEP in early fall, 2008, and moved the item
into consultation with Grad Council, which conducted a series of three meetings
with the Graduate Coordinators, most of which were also attended by the Chair
of CWEP and the WAC/WID Director, as well as other members of CWEP.
Based on this consultation process, Grad Council recommended some revision
of the draft policy that had been delivered by CWEP to APC at the end of AY
2007-2008. These revisions primarily included an emphasis on assessing Level 1
WEP prior to admission, and requiring that programs take responsibility for
remediating students admitted conditionally to achieving Level 1 WEP. Some
flexibility is also allowed for how programs might assess Level 2 WEP in a
disciplinarily appropriate manner. Programs are required to file their methods for
assessing Level 1 and 2 WEP with the Division of Graduate Studies. APC kept
apprised of these discussions through regular updates throughout the Fall
semester, and was visited by CWEP Chair Betsy Blosser and WAC/WID Director
Mary Soliday on December 2, 2008, at which time the CWEP Chair agreed to
find rationales for the specific scores being recommended on tests for Level 1
written English proficiency. On March 10, 2009, APC reviewed the draft proposed
policy and voted to bring it to the Senate; upon consultation with the Executive
Committee, APC brought the proposed policy into first reading on April 28 th,
2009. It was brought into second reading on May 12 and was passed after
revision. One issue that remains unresolved is the question of how to move
students from Level 1 to Level 2 WEP during their time in their programs. This is
an issues raised by the Writing Task Force that deserves further inquiry.
Written English Proficiency Policy, Upper Division
APC first discussed the revision to the WEP policy, upper division on February
10, 2009, and again on February 25, 2009. The policy was also consulted with
the Committee on Written English Proficiency (CWEP) and the WAC/WID
Director, Mary Soliday, including a meeting between the APC Chair, the CWEP
Chair, Betsy Blosser, and Mary Soliday on February 12, 2009, during which time
a draft of the proposed policy was shared in hard copy during the meeting as well
as prior to the meeting by email attachment.
April 14, 2009, APC brought the proposed policy to the Senate in first reading.
Discussion items and questions included whether changing the minimum grade
required in the GWAR-designated course from a C- to a C would result in
students not being able to take the course CR/NC, the reality of the 2010
timeline, the role of CWEP in the implementation of this policy, the relationship
between CWEP and the Writing Across the Curriculum / Writing in the Disciplines
(WAC/WID) director, a deadline to implement the GWAR course, and how the
new program should be comprehensively evaluated.
The proposed policy was brought back to the Senate for second reading on April
28th, and was passed after revision.
Activities of the Year – Items Completed Without Resulting in New Senate
Policy
General Education Curriculum, Resolution
On September 2, 2008, Undergraduate Dean Gail Evans and General Education
Council Chair, Nancy Gerber, attended APC to discuss concerns about the
development of guidelines for the adoption of the Graduation Task Force’s
forthcoming recommendations for the revision of graduation requirements. In
particular, they presented a draft resolution to suspend the submission of new
GE proposals until the GRTF could complete its work. There was a discussion
about what might constitute proposals that should be considered “in the pipeline”
vs. those that were not sufficiently complete to move forward before the
suspension. This term was defined as a certain level of paperwork having been
completed. A deadline was set that completed proposals must be turned in by
10/15/08. After being brought to the Senate in first reading on September 9,
2008 APC returned it to discussion on September 16, 2008. The main issue
raised in first reading was what constituted “completed proposals.” After this was
further verbally defined, the resolution passed without revision in second reading
on September 23rd, 2008.
Activities of the Year – Active Items Not Yet Completed
Perpetual Summer Calendar
During the discussions of both the Summer 2009 and Summer 2010 Calendars,
there were discussions about setting up a perpetual summer calendar, as had
been done for the regular academic year calendar. However, because the format
of the summer calendar is open for a great number of variations, APC was not
able to gather enough information to make a definitive policy recommendation.
Conflict of Interest
On October 28, 2008, Dean of Graduate Studies, Ann Hallum, one of the
University’s Sexual Harassment Officers, joined APC to discuss the possibility of
developing what she termed a “Consensual Relationships Policy.” The current
sexual harassment policy only covers non-consensual relationships, but leave
unclear the responsibilities of faculty in consensual relationship where they might
have a conflict of interest. Through the discussion, it became apparent that the
issues raised by Dean Hallum went beyond romantic relationships and might
include familial relationships as well as other kinds of close relationships that
might create a conflict of interest in a student-teacher or other role in which one
party has supervisorial or evaluative power over another. APC members Mary
Ann van Dam and Nathan Avani volunteered to draft a policy based on Dean
Hallum’s draft and the discussion. The APC Chair was charged with contacting
University Counsel Patty Bartscher to discuss the draft policy. It was Counsel
Bartscher’s position that the issues of concern were all covered by State laws
and that SFSU would not be solving any problems by establishing such a policy.
The APC determined hat a debate between these two perspectives would be
necessary in order to move the development of a policy forward, but such a
discussion was not able to be scheduled during the 2008-2009 year. APC
decided not to bring a draft policy to the Senate floor.
Concentrations and Emphases
APC discussed the proposed policy on concentrations and emphases on
November 18, 2008. AVP Linda Buckley had headed a Task Force on this issue;
as she could not attend the November 18th meeting, the APC chair met with AVP
Buckley prior to the meeting and brought the notes for the proposed policy as
well as supporting documents to the attention of APC. The primary issues at
hand are the proliferation of terms used throughout campus, such as “tracks,”
“option,” “concentrations,” and “emphases. These terms can be confusing for
students—particularly when it comes to what will and what will not show up on
transcripts. The draft policy was brought to the Senate in first reading on
December 2, 2008. One goal of the policy is to provide clarity for students. Issues
raised on the Senate floor included the question of how this policy might affect
MA programs, how program viability might be affected by treating concentrations
“in all ways like a separate major,” and that limiting degree programs to the term
“emphasis” to describe recommended sets of elective courses could be
unnecessarily restrictive. The motion did not pass and APC, in consultation with
the Executive Committee, decided that further consultation would be required
before revising the draft policy and bring it back to the Senate.
Agenda for the Coming Year
Perpetual Calendar
This includes two issues: a perpetual summer calendar, and a question about
revising the structure of class scheduling, which may impact the current
perpetual calendar structure.
Developing a perpetual summer calendar will require serious investigation of
such issues as the academic purposes of the summer sessions, the
effectiveness of the various configurations of summer sessions for various kinds
of instruction (partially addressed by Linda Buckley’s working group on short
sessions), and how best to utilize resources (faculty, staff, facilities, etc.) during
the summer, as well as other issues.
A revision to the structure of class scheduling for the regular academic year is
being discussed at administrative levels. This might mean, for example,
developing a Monday-Wednesday, Friday-Saturday schedule similar to the
current Tuesday-Thursday schedule.
On-line Policy
APC should discuss with the Executive Committee the feasibility of developing a
policy to govern on-line courses.
Conflict of Interest
There remain many unresolved issues as discussed above; APC recommends
that this issue be revisited.
Concentrations and Emphases
It is possible that a resolution to the issue can only occur at the Chancellor’s
level, but it is recommended that APC review the draft policy. It would be useful
to review the language used at the CSU system level, especially regarding what
does and does not appear on student transcripts. APC recommends that this
proposed policy be reviewed in consultation with Grad Council and the Chairs
Council.
Academic Integrity
The 2007-2008 APC spent some time investigating the development of an
Academic Integrity Policy. A subcommittee consisting of Wei Ming Dariotis,
Mohammad Salama, and James Sheldon reviewed similar policies at a variety of
other institutions, particularly San Jose State University, and several guests were
invited to discuss issues relevant to such a policy. These guests included Elise
Wormuth, Associate Dean of Humanities, who had developed a policy in use by
the College of Humanities, and University Counsel, Patty Bartscher. The task
was larger than could be accomplished in one year. The 2008-2009 APC did not
take up the issue because the Executive Committee decided it might sit better
with the Strategic Initiatives Committee as a larger policy on ethical behavior. At
this time, the policy remains undeveloped. The recommendation is that APC, in
consultation with the Executive Committee, spend some time to determine if a
smaller Academic Integrity Policy should be developed by APC, or the Strategic
Initiatives Committee or a Task Force should be charged with developing a larger
policy on ethnical behavior that includes an Academic Integrity Policy.
Graduation Requirements
The Graduation Requirements Task Force (GRTF) may submit a revised General
Education policy to APC in Fall 2009. The Academic Senate approved on Mar.
11, 2008, a resolution to “Endorse the Educational Goals for the Baccalaureate
Degree at San Francisco State,” prepared by the GRTF. The Educational Goals
statement was the first step for the Task Force, established by Senate policy
F05-237, in developing its recommendations to the Senate for changes to the
requirements for the Baccalaureate with a focus on all-university requirements,
including General Education.
Report prepare by APC Chair, Wei Ming Dariotis