Final Report of the Academic Policies and Procedures Committee
  AY 2009- 2010

STANDING CHARGES

1. Communicate with the Vice Provost for Academic Affairs, the University Registrar, and other administrative officials on academic matters relating to the instructional mission of the university.  Identify important issues and report recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing).

2.Review academic policy issues as referred by SenEx, including issues raised by COCAO (Board of Regents Council of Chief Academic Officers) and the Council of Presidents of Regents institutions.  Report recommendations for action to SenEx as needed. (ongoing)

The issue of whether a student should be permitted to take courses in his or her minor on a CR/NC basis was forwarded to the committee.    For a course in the minor graded CR, a point value would need to be assigned to that grade in order to determine a student’s minor GPA or to calculate the GPA for a certificate program.   The committee recommended that a student be permitted to take at most one course in the minor on a CR/NC basis.   The College or professional school in which the minor is offered will determine the default value to be assigned to a CR grade in computing the aforementioned GPAs.  Also, the College or professional school may identify for which of its courses the CR/NC grade is unavailable.

Several questions about the interpretation of part of Article VIII on Academic Program Discontinuance were raised by John Schott.   AP&P was asked for input on the following point:  “Section 8.3.X deals with notice to faculty of non-reappointment due to academic program discontinuance. As we read this subsection, if no faculty are not reappointed due to program discontinuance, then this section would be inapplicable.  I THINK YOU MEAN, IF FACULTY ARE NOT REAPPOINTED DUE TO DISCONTINUANCE THEN THIS SECTION WOULD BE INAPPLICABLE -- THE "NO" BEFORE FACULTY CREATES A DOUBLE NEGATIVE AND IS CONFUSING.”  Interpreting this to mean that all faculty are reappointed, then section 8.3 is inapplicable.    AP&P concurs with this opinion, but feels that an associated issue should receive further study.  Namely, if a faculty member is not reappointed under this provision and subsequently (perhaps in two or three years) the department is conducting a search for an additional faculty member, must the department try to rehire the person who lost his or her position due to program discontinuance.   The underlying issue here is if the faculty member who was let go was in a different subdiscipline that that in which the department is trying to hire someone.

3. Monitor proposals for Program Restructuring and Discontinuance, hold hearings, and follow other procedures in accordance with Article VII of the University Senate Rules and Regulations.  Report important issues and any recommendations for action to SenEx. (ongoing)

No proposals for Program Restructuring and Discontinuance were presented to the committee this year.

SPECIFIC CHARGES

1. Examine models for grade menus for graduate students in the wake of the changes to the Incomplete policy, as described in Dean Sara Rosen's memo dated 7/21/09 (attached). Report to SenEx by 10/6/09.

 The committee discussed Dean Rosen’s memo.  On September 25, 2009 the committee voted unanimously to recommend that
1)  an NP grade option indicating no progress be added to the grade menu, and
2) graduate students have the option of taking courses outside of the major on a CR/NC basis.
This recommendation was forwarded to SenEx which referred the matter back to Dean Rosen for consideration of questions raised about the NP grade.

2. In consultation with the International Affairs Committee, review the recommendation in the report from the Ad-Hoc Committee on English Proficiency Requirements for Undergraduate Admissions.  Report recommendations for action to SenEx by 10/06/09.

The recommendations in the report of the Ad-Hoc Committee on English Proficiency Requirements for Undergraduate Admissions were unanimously approved by the committee.  They were forwarded to SenEx and subsequently voted on and approved by the Senate.

3. Review the University of Kansas’ Financial Exigency policy found in USRR, Art VII.  It was last reviewed by AP&P in FY03 and they did not suggest any changes at that time.  USRR 7.5.1 states that “Every five years after the official acceptance of this document by the Chancellor, it shall be reviewed by the University administration and by AP&P. Either group may then suggest revisions to the document.”   Any changes to the policy would ultimately go to the University Senate for a vote. Report 11/17/09.

A subcommittee was set up to review the policy.  Although some changes were suggested, AP&P felt that those changes did not need to be acted on at this time.  The committee voted unanimously that no changes to the policy should be made at this time.  It also recommended that the policy be re-examined next year.

4. Examine the consistency of the grading policies of the various professional schools and the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and those policies’ effects on the academic achievement and motivation of students.  Additionally, examine the possibility of implementing a consistent +/- policy for the entire University.  Report findings to SenEx by 03/02/10.

REVISED 10/6/09: SenEx requests that AP&P: 1)  ask the Registrar’s Office which schools use the +/- option, 2) determine whether the decision to use the +/-  is up to each professor’s discretion  or whether it is department-wide or school-wide, and 3) find out how often faculty members in each school are actually using the plus/minus grade option.  In addition, SenEx suggests that Student Body President Mason Heillman be invited to meet with AP&P when this issue is discussed so that he can provide information on specific student concerns with this issue.

The College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and all professional schools except Engineering use +/- grading.   No department-wide or school-wide policies about whether an instructor is required to use the +/- grading were found.  Cindy Derritt compiled information about the use of +/- grading for the Fall 2008 and Spring 2009 semesters.   The data show that in slightly over 1/3 of individual classes + and – grades are assigned.   At the end of the 2009-10 academic year, grades given in the College after +/- grading was adopted will be examined to determine if the effect of this grading as been GPA neutral.   This charge should be included in next year’s charges.

5. Review KU’s current withdrawal policy relative to the tuition and fees for courses dropped in the first withdrawal period. Make recommendation to Senex by 02/16/10.

Revised 10/6/09: SenEx is putting this charge “on hold” while Student Body President Mason Heilman confers with the University Registrar about this issue.

AP&P felt that it was not the appropriate body to deal this matter.   When this opinion was communicated to SenEx, the charge was put “on hold” and has not been referred back to the committee.   Thus, no action was taken.

 

Recommendations for committee charges for AY 2010-2011

Several charges have been noted above.

One other issue that arose in Engineering this year concerns academic integrity and the ability of a student to drop a course and receive a W after a charge of academic misconduct.   Although we subsequently found out that the faculty member has the option of assigning a WG grade pending resolution of the academic misconduct matter, most faculty seem to be ignorant of this option.   Should anything about the WG option be put into code?   In any event it should be made clear to students that dropping with a W will not make an academic misconduct charge to away.   Faculty members should also be made aware of their rights in matters like this.