1 / 20

Proposed Changes to Academic Standing Policy

Proposed Changes to Academic Standing Policy. February 2012 Academic Standards Committee Presentation to Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate. Faculty Staff Beverly Chew Andy Burns Jim Collier Susan Foster Elaine Labach Kathy Kendall Erich McAlister Matthew Krichman

amelia
Télécharger la présentation

Proposed Changes to Academic Standing Policy

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Proposed Changes to Academic Standing Policy February 2012 Academic Standards Committee Presentation to Fort Lewis College Faculty Senate

  2. Faculty Staff Beverly Chew Andy Burns Jim Collier Susan Foster Elaine Labach Kathy Kendall Erich McAlister Matthew Krichman Justin McBrayer Karen Nakayama Carrie Meyer Theresa Rodriguez Dawn MulhernJennWagnon Delilah Orr Scott White 2011-12 Committee Membership

  3. No college-wide definition of “satisfactory academic progress” • July 2011 changes in federal rules drew attention to need for overall “mother policy” 34 CFR 668.16 • Current rules look only term by term; no actual measure of progress • Current rules not aligned with Federal Financial Aid eligibility policy • July 2011 changes require more alignment • Based on minimum cum GPA of 2.0 • ~Completion of at least 67% of semester credits • ~Maximums on number of (lifetime) attempted credits The Problem

  4. Inconsistent application of concept of satisfactory academic progress Our standings are based on semester GPA (not cum GPA) For Graduation, must have 2.0 cum GPA & 2.0 GPA in majors &/or minors But we don’t check cum GPA prior to graduation! Current policy: Fall 2001

  5. Typical pattern for Fall and Winter Semesters (all students) Historic pattern for First-time Freshmen Pattern of Current Standings

  6. Charge Academic Standards Committee with • Developing a college-wide definition of Satisfactory Academic Progress that includes both (qualitative) GPA and (quantitative) progress components. • Developing policy for enrollment eligibility for students who do not demonstrate SAP according to this college-wide policy (e.g. Probation, Suspension); developing appeal process • Developing procedure for better alignment of academic standards and financial aid SAP (monitoring and handling appeals) Request to Senate Executive Council (Sept. 2011)

  7. Mother policy would monitor progress in… • Achievement • GPA overall, in major, in minor • Pace • Course load per semester; 4 year completion • Credit completion per semester (few Fs, Ws, Is) • Focus • Declare major early (by 45 credits?) • Monitor major switching and addition of majors/minors • Establish and monitor degree plan for general education, major courses, and ‘free’ electives Enrollment Management Perspective

  8. Interaction with Other Committees & Strategic Plan

  9. Focus on Achievement Guiding Principles • Align with Financial Aid standards (cum GPA rather than semester GPA) • Define & monitor “satisfactory academic progress” both by cumulative & semester GPAs • Balance “second chances” with keeping students from digging too large a GPA hole • KISS (for benefit of everyone) • Constraints of Banner program Our Focus this year

  10. Considered models from numerous other institutions. Greatest investigation of: • CSU – Fort Collins • Univ. of CO – Boulder • Univ. of Redlands Research

  11. < 2.0 200 50 20 3 < 2.0 90 40 15 10 Research:Number of Affected Students

  12. Sensitivity Analysis - Freshman

  13. Sensitivity Analysis - Junior

  14. Proposed Academic Standing Criteria

  15. With current system: (after Fall 11) 82% (n = 3036) in 'Good standing' 10% (n = 375) on 'Probation Level 1' 2% (n = 57) on 'Probation level 2‘ 6% (n = 221) 'Suspended/Dismissed' With proposed system: (estimated) 81% (n = 2971) in 'Good Standing' 8% (n = 277) on ‘Academic Warning’ 10% (n = 379) on ‘Academic Probation’ <1% (n = 22) on ‘Continued Academic Probation’ 1% (n = 39) ’Academically Disqualified’ Academic Probation students would be required earn a semester GPA ≥ 2.0 in order to continue on probation. Initial Effect on Academic Standings

  16. n≈190 n≈120 n≈80 Over time…(conservative estimate)

  17. Alignment with Financial Aid

  18. Withdrawing from an entire semester (all Ws) will affect academic standing (currently, it does not) • Require all students on academic probation to meet with professional advisor prior to registration for next semester classes • Allow disqualified students to take FLC classes as non-degree seeking Guests (non-priority registration) • Allow disqualified students to take classes at another school to demonstrate readiness to return Recommendations

  19. Transition plan: Going into Fall 2012 • Cum GPA ≥ 2.0  Good • All others  Academic Probation 1 • All students receive communication about their academic standing after each Fall and Winter (email and/or print) Recommendations

  20. Approval of Revised Academic Standing Criteria – March vote

More Related