ACADEMIC
PROCEDURES AND POLICIES COMMITTEE
The members of the AP&P committee were Joe Sicilian (chair), Alfred Lata, Steve Shawl, Tim Miller, Arlene Barry, George McCleary, Tom Beisecker, Andy Knopp, Adam Obley and Kit Brauer.
The AP&P committee met six times during the academic year. Minutes of these meetings have been submitted previously. Various recommendations were sent to SenEx during the year. These are reproduced below in italics.
The committee’s responses to its Charges are as follows:
1. Confer with the Associate Provost for Academic Services
and/or other administrative officials on academic matters that seem
appropriate, including, but not limited to any changes in class scheduling,
course duplication, and enrollment procedures.
The President of the University Senate kept the chair of AP&P informed about such developments. No such issues were determined to warrant action by AP&P.
3. Act on petitions for exceptions to the general graduation requirements of the University.
No
such petitions were brought to the committee.
Two students did contact the committee concerning
the possibility of petitioning for exceptions to other university regulations,
in particular, the academic forgiveness policy, and the policy regarding the
exclusion of grades in courses completed by examination from the university
computed GPA. The Univesity Senate
Rules and Regulations specify that AP&P can grant exceptions to the general
graduation requirements of the University.
There does not seem to be any basis in University governance documents
for a role for AP&P in granting exceptions to any other University rule or
regulation.
4. Submit to SenEx: a) the approved minutes of each meeting (minutes must be kept), b) recommendations for action as they are approved by the committee, and c) a final report by April 1, 2003. The final report should make clear what was done (or not done) about each of the charges to the committee and should make recommendations to SenEx for action. The report should also provide the names of the committee members, include suggestions for charges to, membership in, and the chair of the next year’s committee.
Approved
minutes of all meetings have been submitted.
Recommendations
for action have been submitted. These
recommendations are reproduced below in italics.
The
final report is being submitted late.
This is entirely the fault of the committee chair. He overlooked the deadline and offers his
apology.
The
committee chair also neglected to ask committee members for recommendations
concerning charges to, membership in, and the chair of the next year’s
committee. Hence he can only offer his
own suggestions as follows:
Suggested
charge(s):
Experience
this year suggests that procedures for the enforcement of University
regulations and processes to petition for exceptions to university regulations
are not clear. Perhaps the AP&P
committee could spend one year in an attempt to improve this situation.
This year the committee did not find sufficient time
to carefully consider charges 6 and 11.
These are possible charges for next year’s committee.
Proposed
committee members: with the exception of the committee chair, all of this year’s
faculty committee members provided excellent service to the committee. The committee chair is happy to recommend
continuation of any of them. (Adam
Obley, a student members, was exceptionally insightful and helpful. But he will no longer be available.)
Proposed
committee chair: again, with the exception of the committee chair, any faculty
member on this year’s committee who will be returning would be an excellent
chair.
5. Monitor Program Restructuring and
Discontinuance and hold hearings and offer recommendations in accordance with
USRR Article VIII.
No program restructuring or discontinuance
proceeding was brought to the attention of AP&P.
Because of budget uncertainties, SenEx did ask AP&P to review University Senate Rules, Article VIII – Academic Program Discontinuance, and
University Senate Rules, Article VII - Financial Exigency. Copies of these documents were distributed to all committee members. Each committee member reviewed these Articles. No recommendations for changes came forth.
Additional Charges:
6. Form a separate committee or a sub-committee of AP&P to recommend university-wide policies and procedures for distance learning. Determine whether a deparate committee to oversee distance learning needs to be created: and if so how it should be constituted. Review the report of the ad hoc SenEx Committee on Distance Education approved by University Council on 4/9/98.
The committee learned that in July, 2002, after this charge was writtenthe Provost promulgated The University of Kansas Mediated Courseware Policy. As a result, in the Fall of 2002 the committee sent a message to SenEx asking if action on this charge was still recommended.
Recommendation: The committee
recommends that action on this charge be delayed pending the receipt of further
information from SenEx.
7. Obtain information pertinent to the statistical distribution of grades at the University by unit and upper/lower division. Investigate the role of student drop rates and other factors that may impinge upon grade distribution. Determine what policies and procedures affect these distributions, and make recommendations where needed.
OIRP provided a database of all freshman-sophomore level courses taught in the Fall semesters from 1995 until 2001. For each course detailed information was provided on grades, drops and withdrawals. The data was investigated to determine distribution of grades and factors that are correlated with withdrawal behavior. The committee chair, Joe Sicilian, has the raw data and numerous summaries, and can make these available if requested by SenEx.
Committee members discussed two aspects of this grade information:
1.
The average grade in freshman-sophomore
courses at KU increased every Fall semester between 1995 and 2001. The average KU grade for 100 level courses
was 2.64 in Fall 1995 and was 2.81 in Fall 2001. The average KU grade for 200 level courses was 2.84 in Fall 1995
and 2.93 in Fall 2001.
Committee members pointed out that there
are many possible explanations for increasing grades. The quality of students may have been increasing. The regulations concerning dropping and withdrawing
from courses may have been changing.
There may have been grade inflation because of various pressures on
faculty members including pressures from increased importance of student
evaluation scores in faculty evaluations.
A determination of the actual causes would require a great deal of
additional data.
2.
There is a strong
negative correlation between the course GPA and the percentage of enrolled
students who withdraw from the course.
Recommendation:The committee recommends that before additional
study be carried out, the reasons for such study be identified. What are the possible policy prescriptions
that could result from additional understanding of this phenomenon?
8. Investigate
issues related to academic misconduct, including the practices of faculty in
the disposition of academic misconduct cases.
Consider how to reaise faculty and student awareness about formal
procedures, and whether to annually publicize actions taken in academic
misconduct cases throughout the University.
The Committee was unable to devote sufficient time to this charge. A brief discussion indicated that committee members are supportive of the suggestion for the schools to publicize actions taken as the result of findings of academic misconduct.
9.
Consider whether there should be an oversight process
for certificate programs. For
example, should certificate programs be offered through Continuing
Education. (See the 5/21/01 leteter
from CUSA Chair Larry Draper to College Dean Sally Frost Mason.)
On February 10, 2003 the committee sent the following recommendation to SenEx:
The
Academic Policy and Programs Committee recommends that SenEx authorize the
compilation of an inventory of University of Kansas certificate programs,
including a description of each program, the requirements necessary for the
award of the certificate, and the academic units under which the program is
directed.
Members of the
Academic Policy and Programs Committee are very concerned that certificate
programs are not subject to University academic oversight. Because the certificates bear the University
of Kansas name, the reputation of the University is influenced by the quality
of the programs. Thus it is in the
interest of the University that quality be maintained. The committee strongly recommends that an
oversight process be established. While
it may be generally agreed that certificate programs need not be as rigorous or
extensive as degree programs, all should be conducted under standards and
requirements approved by appropriate representatives of the university faculty.
At this time the nature of the existing programs in not known to committee members and cannot be easily investigated. This it is a concern itself and also makes it very difficult for the committee to recommend specific procedures for oversight. The compilation of an inventory is a first step necessary for the development of an oversight process.
After making approving this recommendation, the committee became aware of the following relevant information.
1. In the past, Regent’s approval was required for all Degree and Certificate Programs. At some time, the Regents explicitly dropped their approval process for Certificate Programs.
2. The Graduate School does have a list of approved graduate Certificate Programs and a statement of Policies and Procedures for Graduate Certificate Programs.
10. Clarify and interpret the meaning of attendance as it relates to the academic forgiveness policy (USRR 2). Address the meaning of “attendance” and “enrollment” particularly in the following contexts: (1) does correspondence work count as enrollment? And (b) does enrolling in/withdrawing from a course count as enrollment.
With the help of Cindy Derritt, Associate Registrar,
the committee agreed on the following recommendation, which was sent to SenEx
on March 9, 2003
Recommendation for SenEx
(1) It
is recommended that correspondence work not count as enrollment for the purpose
of the academic forgiveness policy.
Reason for the
recommendation: If a student who has
left the university completes correspondence work while away, then that
correspondence work will be treated as transfer credit upon reenrollment in the
University. Students taking courses
at other universities during an absence
are not considered in “attendance” at KU for the purpose of the academic forgiveness
policy. Enrollment in correspondence
courses should be treated in the same manner.
(2) It is recommended that for
the purpose of the academic forgiveness policy: A student will be considered in
attendance at the University of Kansas if that student is enrolled in at least
one course and the student’s record subsequently indicates either a grade, or a
W, or an I for that course.
Reasons
for the recommendation: A student must
be enrolled after the first drop period for this to be the case. This is the easiest way for attendance to be
verified.
11. Recommend standards and procedures for the adoption of undergraduate Minors, where such Minors involve course work outside of a school or the College.
Committee members asked for more direction regarding this charge.
Recommendation: The
committee recommends that action on this charge be delayed pending the receipt
of further information from SenEx.
12.
Consider the possibility of adding a representative
from UPSA and the Classified Senate as members of the committee, and
appropriate guidelines for participation:
On March 13, 2003 the following recommendation was sent to SenEx.
Pursuant to charge 12, the
Academic Procedures and Policies Committee recommends that one representative
from UPSA and one representative from Classified Senate be added to AP&P.
We believe that there is the
spirit of universal governance at the University of Kansas.
Representatives of UPSA and the
Classified Senate have impressed upon AP&P
Committee members their feeling
that the democratic spirit of university governance is
lessened by their lack of
representation on the AP&P committee.
The committee considered several
other issues in reaching this recommendation. These
issues are summarized below.
1. AP&P is a University Council committee
rather than a Faculty Council Committee.
UPSA and the Classified Senate have representation on the University
Council.
2. Members of the UPSA and the Classified
Senate are affected by procedures and policies that are considered by AP&P.
3. Members of the UPSA and the Classified
Senate have expertise that will be helpful to AP&P in its various
deliberations.
4. Regarding
number 1 above: AP&P was initially a Faculty Council Committee and was
moved to the University Counsel for the express purpose of adding
representation from the Student Senate.
The Student Senate is fundamentally involved with academic policies and
procedures.
5. Regarding
number 2 above: UPSA and Classified
Senate representation on SenEx and the University Council provide a vehicle for
those organizations to make it known, before such policies and procedures are
adopted, if proposed procedures and policies will adversely affect their
members.
6. Regarding
number 3 above: Representation of an organization on AP&P should be based
on the academic nature of the organization, not on the academic nature of the
work done by a small number of its members.
The vast majority of the members of UPSA and the Classified Senate are
not involved with academic policies or procedures.
Special Charges:
Near the end of the year AP&P was asked by SenEx to consider the issue of the timing of the three drop periods and make recommendations for further action. The committee constructed a proposed policy that was sent to SenEx. It is reproduced below.
Proposed
Amendment to the University Senate Rules
2.2.5 The University withdrawal period is divided into three segments:
Period 1: Coincides with the 90 percent reduction period of the
Adjustment/Refund Schedule [as per 2.2.5.2, enrollment in the course
will be canceled and the course deleted from the record; the
withdrawal is to be submitted directly to the Enrollment Center].
For withdrawal from courses with shorter, longer or
out-of-sequence periods, the withdrawal period will be adjusted using
the Adjustment/Refund Schedule: Non-Fifteen-Week Courses (see Tuitions
and Fees: What if I make a Change?). Courses with shorter, longer, or
out-of-sequence periods of instruction will be indicated in the
Timetable of Classes.
Period 2: Coincides with the 50 percent reduction period [as per
2.2.5.3, the course will be designated "W" and the withdrawal
will be
submitted directly to the Enrollment Center].
Period 3: Will begin on the calendar day after the last calendar
day of Period 2 and end on or before the last day of the class [as per
2.2.5.4, the mark for the course of "W' or "F" will be
assigned by the
instructor; the withdrawal will be submitted to the Dean of the
College or school in which the student is enrolled - students with
dual enrollments will submit copies of the withdrawal notice to the
deans of both schools]