1 / 31

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies. Internal Governing Policy 45 Review of Alleged Capricious Grades. Introduction. Ms. Chelsea Frederick 2005-2006 Student Member of CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee. EIU Student Concerns.

keaton
Télécharger la présentation

Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies

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. Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies Internal Governing Policy 45 Review of Alleged Capricious Grades

  2. Introduction Ms. Chelsea Frederick 2005-2006 Student Member of CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee

  3. EIU Student Concerns • No process to protect student’s right to earned grade • No process to protect instructor’s rights when appeal is not supported • Lack of knowledge and familiarity with department grade appeal processes

  4. EIU Faculty Concerns • No appeal process for the instructor in the current policy • The DGAC (Department Grade Appeal Committee) has no real power and their decisions may be ignored

  5. EIU Administration Concerns • Processes not clearly specified • Timelines not clearly specified • Outcome not clearly required • Academic councils not informed

  6. CAA Dr. Kathlene Bower Ms. Chelsea Frederick Dr. Christie Roszkowski CGS Dr. Eric Hake Dr. Linda Morford Ms. Lenee Moseley 2006 Joint Committee CAA and CGS Members

  7. Guiding Principles • Define bases for grade appeal • Allow student and faculty appeals • Specify processes & timelines • Retain effective elements: faculty/chair roles • Improve ineffective elements: committee & administrative roles • Ensure all steps have a functional purpose • Inform academic councils

  8. Illinois Institution Consultations • Governors State University • Academic Regulations: Grade Appeals • Illinois State University • Student Grievance Process • Northern Illinois University • Procedures for Appealing Alleged Capricious Course Grades • University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign • Academic Policies & Regulation: Procedures for Review of Alleged Capricious Grading • Western Illinois University • Undergraduate and Graduate Grade Appeal Procedures

  9. Other Institution Consultations • California State University • Student Handbook: Grade Appeal Procedures • East Tennessee State University • Grade Appeal Process • Texas A & M • Student Rights: Grade Appeals • University of Michigan • Assignment of Course Grades and Student Appeals

  10. Faculty, Chair and College Committee Roles Dr. Christie Roszkowski Member CAA & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee

  11. Current IGP 45 • Defines Bases for an Appeal • Defines Steps in Procedure • Faculty Member • Chair • Department Grade Appeal Committee • Dean of the College, Graduate School, School of Continuing Education • Attempts to Establish Deadlines

  12. Current Policy Faculty Member Chair Department GAC Dean Proposed Policy SAME: Faculty Member SAME: Chair NEW: College GAC NEW: University GRB Comparison: Current to Proposed Policy

  13. Bases for an Appeal • Retain 4 Current Bases • Clarify Basis 1 • Mathematical or clerical error • Adopt NIU & U of I Language • Only for review of allegedcapricious grades • Retain • Not for review of the judgment of a faculty member’s assessment of the quality of student work

  14. Retain Faculty Member Role • FIRST STEP • Informal resolution with faculty member • Cannot proceed without this step • If successful • Resolved • If unsuccessful • Chair assistance

  15. Retain Chair Role • Current & Proposed Role • Attempt to assist the student and faculty member reach a resolution of the issue

  16. Chair: 5 Steps • Notification & Verification of Informal Conference • Chair Review Meeting • Summary of Chair Review Meeting • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary • Timely Request for Review at College Level

  17. Provide Chair with Timelines and Guidance • Specify timeline • Must initiate by 10th day • 5 days to complete summary • 5 days to return request for a review • Provide forms & guidelines to assist chair • Form 1: Request for Formal Review • Form 2: Receipt of Summary & Decision on College Level Review

  18. Chair Outcomes • Successful Resolution • No request for further review: process terminates • Unsuccessful Resolution • Student may make timely request for review by College Grade Appeal Committee

  19. Modify Committee Structure • Rationale for Department Committee Modification • Service intense: 33 committees, numerous faculty • Lack of faculty familiarity with process and bases for grade appeal • Lack standard procedures to insure objectivity and procedural consistency • Burden to Student VPAA & Student Dean of Graduate School • No reports/consultations with academic councils

  20. College Grade Appeal Committee Benefits • Retain faculty focus • Reduce commitment: 24 faculty required • Orientation and procedural reviews • Ensure members are fully informed and prepared • Standardized procedures • Ensure objectivity and fairness • Retain student members • Provide annual reports to academic councils

  21. College GAC: 5 steps • Notification and Scheduling • Fact Finding Meeting • Summary of Fact Finding • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary • Timely Request for Review by University Grade Review Board

  22. Provide College GAC with Timelines & Guidance • Timelines • 10 working days to complete report • 5 working days to request a review • Guidance • Form 3: Summary of Fact Finding • Form 4: Timely Request for University Level Review • Review opportunity for student or faculty member

  23. College GAC Outcomes • Successful Resolution • No timely request from student or faculty member • Process terminates • Unsuccessful Resolution • Timely request: review by University Grade Review Board limited to procedural issues

  24. University Grade Review Board Role & Presentation Conclusion Dr. Eric Hake 2005-2006 Member of CGS & Member of the Grade Appeals Subcommittee

  25. Elimination of Dean Role • Rationale for Elimination of Dean Role • Critical importance of faculty voice in grading and grade changes • Lack of clarity regarding dean role • No standards for review

  26. University Grade Review Board Benefits • Retains faculty role in grading/grade changes • Review limited to procedures • Not re-examination of merits • One Board with orientation and guidelines • Ensures objectivity & fairness • Student representatives • Able to enforce college decision • Reports to academic councils

  27. University GRB: 5 Steps • Notification & Scheduling • University GRB Meeting • Summary of Meeting • Receipt of Summary of Meeting • Require Second Review by College GAC if Indicated

  28. Provide University GRB with Timelines & Guidance • Timelines • 10 working days to complete review • Guidance • Role 1: Change grades if appropriate • Role 2: Review procedures if requested

  29. University GRB Outcomes • Successful Resolution • No College GAC procedural errors • College GAC findings implemented & process terminates • Unsuccessful Resolution • Procedural errors by College GAC • College GAC required to repeat review

  30. Current Policy Faculty Member Chair Department GAC Dean Proposed Policy SAME: Faculty Member SAME: Chair NEW: College GAC NEW: University GRB Review:Current to Proposed Policy

  31. Discussion IGP 45 Review of Alleged Capricious Grades

More Related