Final report of the Academic Procedures and Policies Committee

2003-2004

April 1, 2004

The Academic Procedures and Policies Committee met six times during the 2003‑2004 school year, on September 19, October 17, and November 6, 2003, and January 29, February 18, and March 17, 2004.

Members of AP&P for 2003-2004:

Lase Ajayi

Arlene Barry

Joe Heppert

Pam Houston

Kyle Johnson (vice chair)

Bev Koerner

Nick Lawler

Stan Loeb

George McCleary

Tim Miller (chair)

Joe Sicilian

Maria Velasco

This report responds to the charges the committee was given at the beginning of the year.

1. Confer with the Senior Vice Provost 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 committee’s chair conferred with the Senior Vice Provost; no committee business ensued from that consultation.

2. Monitor issues raised by COCAO (Council of Chief Academic Officers) and the Council of Presidents of Regents' Institutions that might have implications for University policy.

No issues that might have implications for university policy were identified.

3. Act on petitions for exceptions to the general graduation requirements of the University.

Such petitions were acted on as presented.

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, 2004. 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.

Minutes have been kept and forwarded to SenEx; recommendations for actions have been recorded in the minutes and conveyed to SenEx; this final report is being filed in timely fashion. Suggestions for charges for next year’s committee will be listed below.

5. Monitor Program Restructuring and Discontinuance and hold hearings and offer recommendations in accordance with USRR Article VIII.

The committee’s advice on program restructuring and discontinuance was neither requested nor given.

Additional Charges

1. Review the three segments of the withdrawal period (see USRR 2.2.5) to pursue a university‑wide common withdrawal procedure that is acceptable to the College and all the Schools. (See discussion in SenEx minutes of 4/29/03).

The committee recommended to council that the free drop period would encompass week 1 through 3 of the semester and week 1 of the summer session; the drop period in which a grade of “W” would appear on a student’s transcript would encompass weeks 4 through ten of the semester and weeks 2 through 5 of the summer session, and the drop period in which the instructor would assign a grade of “WP” or “WF” would encompass week 11 through the last day of classes of a semester and week 6 through the last day of classes for the summer session.

2. Review the final report of the International Certification Committee and its recommendation for a Global Proficiency Certification Program. Make recommendation to SenEx by Oct. 1, 2003.

The committee made no recommendation on the proposal as it stood; the committee found problems in the proposal at several points, and generally concluded that the proposed program needed more rigor and structure.

3. Determine what, if any, policies and procedures have affected grade distributions. Using the data on grade distribution for fall semesters between 1995 and 2001 obtained by the FY03 committee, initiate dialogue on grade inflation.

The committee conducted a wide-ranging discussion of grade inflation and grading standards. There was a general sense that in many parts of this and other universities, high grades are too frequently awarded to students doing less-than-outstanding work. The discussion noted that there is wide variation in grading standards among various academic units as well as at different levels of study. The problem was understood to be complex and to be one that did not easily lend itself to an overall solution.

The committee finally agreed that initially, at least, the problem should be addressed at the departmental level. The committee recommends that each department record grade-point averages awarded by each faculty member and incorporate them into materials used in annual faculty merit evaluations.

The committee further resolved that faculty be encouraged to delineate clear grading standards on their syllabi. KU has official grading standards (published within the Senate Code); they should be disseminated and observed.

9. Investigate issues related to academic misconduct, including the practices of faculty in the disposition of academic misconduct cases. Consider how to raise faculty and student awareness about formal procedures, insure that the College and the Schools are following procedures, and whether to annually publicize actions taken in academic misconduct cases throughout the University.

The committee conducted a wide-ranging discussion of academic misconduct. There was a general sense that many of the existing penalties for misconduct are too light. Enforcement of penalties currently on the books is clearly inconsistent. The committee lacks information as to how widespread misconduct actually is. It would help to develop resources that would increase student awareness of the nature of academic misconduct and its consequences. The committee generally noted that the document on academic misconduct in the Senate Code is overly long and complex and is not user-friendly.

The committee concluded that academic misconduct appears to be widespread, and is not adequately monitored and punished. The committee proposes that a campus-wide honor code be established, with severe penalties for violation and enforcement by the whole campus community. The Senate Code should be rewritten once the honor code is adopted. The committee further recommends that the university step up efforts to inform students about the nature and consequences of academic misconduct, possibly through a short video that could be made widely available.

Because the possible installation of an honor code might take some time, and the committed proposed that in the interim the following changes to the existing regulations would help us learn just how widespread academic dishonesty is on campus, and would also help in the enforcement of the course repeat policy.

(1) change 2.6.2: After consultation with and approval of the department chairperson, an instructor may, with due notice to the student, treat as unsatisfactory (1) any student work that is a product of academic misconduct or (2)a student's performance for a course as unsatisfactory when there are severe or repeated instances of academic misconduct as defined in Section 2.6.1.

(2) change one of the underlined sections of 2.6.5 from "Reduction of grade for severe or repeated instances of academic misconduct" to "Reduction of Grade for the Course."

(3) change 2.6.6: All sanctions of Reduction of Grade for Specific Work, Reduction of Grade for the Course, Disciplinary Probation, Suspension From a Specific Course, Suspension, and Expulsion that are applied by the College and the Schools or their designated departments and instructors will be communicated to the Office of the Provost.

10. Compile an inventory of certificate programs offered through the University and determine 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 letter from CUSA Chair Larry Draper to College Dean Sally Frost Mason and the 2/10/03 AP&P recommendation to SenEx.)

Governance staff supplied the committee with information indicating that certificate programs appeared to be offered in three different parts of the university: Continuing Education, the Graduate School, and three undergraduate schools: Business, Pharmacy, and the College.

The Graduate School has a detailed policy governing the awarding of certificates under its aegis and the creation of new certificate programs. Continuing Education generally offers certificates not of its own creation, but as outcomes of training programs operated to help persons in certain professions attain certified job skills (as in training for firefighters, for example).

Among undergraduate certification programs, the School of Pharmacy offers two certificates of a kind similar to those offered by Continuing Education, in cardiopulmonary resuscitation and administration of immunizations/vaccines. The School of Business offers a Dean’s Certificate in International Business. The College offers a certificate in Systems Analysis and Design, a 15-credit-hour program with its own courses.

The College program was the focus of most of the committee’s discussion. Although the one existing program and its instructors (all adjunct faculty members) were approved by CUSA, it represents an anomaly in that the College has no guidelines for creating or overseeing undergraduate certificate programs.

The consensus of the committee was that the existing Graduate School and Continuing Education procedures were satisfactory for the administration of their certificate programs. The committee recommends to SenEx that next year’s AP&P committee be charged with developing guidelines for the approval and oversight of undergraduate certificate programs. It was the sense of the committee that courses in certificate programs and faculty appointments in such programs should be overseen in the same manner that other courses and faculty appointments are.

11. Review the role of the AP&P Committee and other committees or administrative units regarding exceptions to, and clarifications of, academic policies.

The committee passed two motions: first, a recommendation that AP&P be designated the sole body authorized to make clarifications and interpretations of university-wide academic policies; and second, a recommendation that AP&P be designated the body authorized to rule on petitions for exceptions to university-wide academic policies.

12. Review USRR to determine if it is appropriate to delete references to procedures. Procedures would be a separate document and simply referred to in USRR.

The committee did not consider this charge because it had been deleted by request of the person who had proposed it (Pam Houston).

13. Review the data on the course repeat policy and determine whether or not to recommend changes to the policy or procedure.

Those data were not gathered in time for the committee to consider them, and therefore the committee decided to recommend that next year’s AP&P be charged with gathering those data and issuing a recommendation.

Suggestions for future charges:

The committee recommends to SenEx that next year’s AP&P committee be charged with developing guidelines for the approval and oversight of undergraduate certificate programs. It was the sense of the committee that courses in certificate programs and faculty appointments in such programs should be overseen in the same manner that other courses and faculty appointments are.

The committee recommends to SenEx that next year’s AP&P committee be charged with reviewing the data on the course repeat policy and determine whether or not to recommend changes to the policy or procedure.

The committee recommends that a university-wide honor code be developed and adopted, and that AP&P monitor the process involved and ensure that it reaches fruition.

The committee recommends that grade inflation continue to be monitored, and that new measures addressing it be taken as necessary.

Suggestions for next year’s committee members: no suggestions had been made by committee members as of 4/1/04, but we hope that some of this year’s members will serve next year to provide continuity.

Suggestions for next year’s committee chair: next year’s chair could be any of the carryover members from this year, subject to USRR requirements.

The committee further recommends that in the future AP&P be assigned a specific monthly meeting time. Scheduling a meeting for a large group is difficult, and a fixed meeting time would help enable the committee to be composed of persons available to attend the meetings. (Chair’s note: since many AP&P members are also University Council members, a plausible meeting time might be a 3:30 on certain Thursdays when Council is not meeting.)