ASSA Committee Annual Report 2015-2016

Annual Report 2015-2016

Academic Standards & Student Affairs Committee

Becky Marchant, Committee Chair

May 11, 2016

Table of Contents

Committee Information……………………………………………………………………….3

Committee Accomplishments………………………………………………………………6

2015-2016 Charges from Executive Committee…………………………6

Recommendations for Future Committee Work………………………………….10

Appendices

Appendix A: Student Code Changes: An Overview & Summary….11

Appendix B: Student Code Changes Approved by Faculty

Senate, Apr. 14, 2016……………………………………………………13

Appendix C: Recommendations for Increasing Graduation

and Retention Rates……………………………………………………..31

Committee Information

Membership

ASSA Committee Annual Report 2015-2016

Diego Batista – Arts & Humanities

Jeremy Bryson (Spring 2016) – Social & Behavioral Science

Casey Bullock – Ex Officio

Brian Chung – Science

Geri Conlin – Education

Ted Cowan – COAST

Mark Denniston– Social & Behavioral Science

Therese Grijalva - Business & Economics

Brent Horn – Social & Behavioral Science

Ruby Licona – Library

Brandon Little (Fall 2015) – Social & Science

Becky Marchant– Arts & Humanities, Chair

Stephanie Mitts – Student

Shai-anneNalder – Student

Carol Naylor – Health Professions

Casey Neville – Health Professions

Kathy Newton – Executive Committee Liaison

HasanNezam – Student

David Read – Business Economics

Jeffrey Steagall – Administration

Scott Teichert – Ex Officio

Meeting Schedule

Fall Semester: September 18, October 12, November 11

Spring Semester: January 12, February 8, February 25, March 14, April 6

Total Meetings: 8

Meeting Attendance

Member / 09/19/
2015 / 10/12/2015 / 11/11/2015 / 01/12/
2016 / 02/08/2016 / 02/25/2016 / 03/14/2016 / 04/06/2016 / Total
Diego Batista / Excused / Present / Present / Excused / Present / Excused / Present / Present / 5
Jeremy Bryson / Present / Present / Excused / Excused / Absent / 2 (S16)
Casey Bullock / Present / Present / Present / Present* / Present / Present / Present / Present / 8
Brian Chung / Present / Present / Present / Absent / Absent / Absent / Excused / Present / 4
Geri Conlin / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / 8
Ted Cowan / Present / Present / Present / Excused / Present / Present / Present / Present / 7
Mark Denniston / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / 8
Therese Grijalva / Excused / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Excused / 6
Brent Horn / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Excused / 7
Ruby Licona / Present / Excused / Present / Present / Present / Excused / Excused / Present / 5
Branden Little / Present / Present / Excused / 2
(F15)
Becky Marchant / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / 8
Stephanie Mitts / Present* / Present / Present / Present* / Present / Absent / Present / Present* / 7
Shai-anneNalder / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Excused / Present / Excused / 6
Carol Naylor / Excused / Present / Excused / Present / Present / Absent / Excused / Present / 4
Casey Neville / Excused / Present / Present / Excused / Excused / Present / Present / Absent / 4
Kathy Newton / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / 8
HasanNezam / Excused / Present / Present / Present / Excused / Present / Excused / Absent / 4
David Read / Present / Present / Excused / Excused / Present / Absent / Present / Present / 5
Jeffrey Steagall / Present / Excused / Excused / Present / Present / Not recorded / Present / Excused / 4
Scott Teichert / Excused / Present / Excused / Present / Excused / Excused / Excused / Absent / 2

°Substitute attended

ASSA Charges

ASSA was tasked with the following charges in 2015-16:

Charge 1 -- Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media.

Charge 2 -- Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating procedures from the Student Handbook (Code).

Charge 3 -- Receive, evaluate, and give input to committee recommendations considering the satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs.

Charge 4 -- Review a proposed addendum to the PPM regarding military students and faculty responsibilities for excused military absences.

Charge 5 -- Provide recommendations to increase retention and graduation rates of first time, full time students.

Subcommittees

A subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anneNalder, Stephanie Mitts, HasanNezam, and Casey Bullock met to work out a solution for Charge 1 (Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media). This subcommittee proposed a policy change that was later approved by ASSA.

Additionally, the Student Code Procedural Committee—initially formed in 2014-15 by ASSA—continued their work in 2015-16. This temporary committee was tasked with helping to address Charge 2 (Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating procedures from the Student Code), a charge that had carried over into 2015-16. Consisting of Bruce Bowen, Stephanie Hollist, Patrick Thomas (added in 2015-16), Jeff Hurst, Eric Amsel, and Sandi Weber (student senator, participated only in 2014-15), this group worked extensively on the Student Code revisions and then presented their proposed revisions to ASSA. ASSA then offered input and suggested additional revisions before approving and taking the changes to Faculty Senate.

Exemplary Service/Special Assignments

All members of the ASSA Committee cooperated and collaborated effectively in making decisions, investigating questions, and drafting policy. They were flexible in discussing issues online or face-to-face and were motivated to fulfill our charges.Fivemembers–Casey Bullock, Geri Conlin, Mark Denniston,Becky Marchant, and Kathy Newton–attended every meeting or arranged for a substitute.

In addition, several members conducted substantial work outside of meetings. Casey Bullockidentified classroom recording policies at other universities for ASSA to study when addressing Charge 1 and supplied data from the Registrar’s Office pertaining to other ASSA charges.

Brent Horn, David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anneNalder, Stephanie Mitts, HasanNezam, and Casey Bullock served on the subcommittee to address Charge 1. Brent Horn drafted the document that accompanied the subcommittee’s proposed solution.

In cooperation with Veteran Affairs Director Charlie Chandler, Mark Denniston drafted language that ASSA used in creating new policy about military absences (Charge 4).

Committee Accomplishments

2015-2016 Charges from Executive Committee—Progress and Results

Charge 1:Study PPM 6-22, Student Code, and make recommendations concerning students getting permission from faculty and other students regarding taking photographs, recording lectures, and dissemination of such media.

Progress: During 2014-15, the ASSAapproved language for PPM 6-22.IV.D.3 to address this charge. The intent of ASSA’s language was to (1) affirm that students must gain permission from the instructor before recording instructional materials or interactions and (2) clarify when written permission is required or when oral permission suffices.When the proposed language went to the Student Senate for approval, Student Senate amended the language and reversedthe initial proposal’sintention. Student Senate proposed, instead, that students be granted permission by defaultto make audio recordings in class unless instructors opt-out in their syllabi. Because no agreement was reached in 2014-15, the charge carried over to 2015-16.

During Fall 2015, a subcommittee consisting of Brent Horn (chair), David Read, Ted Cowan, Shai-anneNalder, Stephanie Mitts, HasanNezam, and Casey Bullock met to work out a compromise on this charge. Their compromise solution involved removing the current policy language from “Students’ Responsibilities” (“Obtain the instructor's permission before recording lectures”) and adding the following statement to the “Students’ Rights” section of PPM 6-22:

“Expect instructors to inform students of the classroom policies regarding the audio and/or visual recording of course lectures and activities.”

On February 8, 2016, ASSA voted to recommend this change to Faculty Senate along with an additional recommendation that President Wight establish a task force to investigate the nuances of the classroom recording issue and provide guidelines to faculty and students. This task force recommendation was stated as follows:

Recommend that the WSU University President empanel and finance a Speech, Media and Publication Awareness task force to study the growing body of nationally recognized issues in higher education caused by technology proliferation and open source publication affecting WSU students, faculty and staff. The goals of the task force are as follows:

Collect and analyze information on relevant best practices in higher education, current WSU policies and procedures, and state and federal legal standards regarding speech on campus, and the creation and publication of related media, such as notification of students who are recorded in class, or the ability to limit rights afforded by fair use under copyright law.

Develop and publish an educational awareness campaign regarding speech and publication with respect to best practices, WSU policies, and legal requirements.

Create and publish a clearinghouse of information related to issues related to speech and media on campus.

Assist Faculty Senate in identifying deficiencies in current WSU policy and practice. For example, the extension of recording and distribution policies to online courses, the extent to which free speech can be limited in the classroom, authorization for the recording of campus activities by various parties, student and faculty privacy in the academic setting, and the protection of academic freedom, tenure and promotion from unauthorized publication and/or unfair criticism.

Faculty Senate heard both the policy change and the task force recommendation on February 18, 2016. Initially there was a motion to accept the policy change, but the motion was later withdrawn. The task force recommendation passed unanimously.

Charge 2:Review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22 with regards to separating policy from the Student Handbook (Code).

Progress:On Oct. 13, 2014, the ASSA committee voted to create a Student Code Procedural Committee to determine what aspects of the current Student Code are policy–and should thus remain in PPM 6-22–and which aspects are procedure that could be removed from PPM 6-22 to make it less cumbersome. We determined that the members of the Student Code Procedural (SCP) Committee would be a representative from the provost’s office, a representative of University legal counsel, the dean of students, the due process officer, a representative of the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and a student representative. When the committee was assembled, it consisted of Bruce Bowen, Stephanie Hollist, Patrick Thomas (added in 2015-16), Jeff Hurst, Eric Amsel, and Sandi Weber (student senator, participated only in 2014-15).

On February 25 and March 14, 2016, the Student Code Procedural Committee met with ASSA to discuss their proposed changes to the Student Code. After reviewing the proposal and providing additional revisions, the ASSA voted on March 14, 2016 to approve the changes to PPM 6-22. Student Senate approved the changes, and subsequent open hearings were held on March 22 and 23. Faculty Senate then heard the proposal on April 14, 2016. With the understanding that current procedures—although removed from PPM 6-22— will remain in force until new procedures could be developed and approved by Faculty Senate, the FS voted to accept the PPM 6-22 revisions. See Appendix A for a summary of the revisions and Appendix B for PPM 6-22’s revised language.

Charge 3:Receive, evaluate, and give input to committee recommendations considering the satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs.

Progress:Faculty Senate voted to remove the developmental education "three strikes" policyfrom the PPM a couple of years ago with the understanding that, when a new policy was drafted, the ASSA would review it. On March 14, 2016, Becky Marchant contacted Bruce Bowen to learn whether he and/or other administrators are drafting or planning to draft new developmental-course satisfactory-progress requirements to replace the three-strikes policy. He indicated that he is not aware that any related policy has been or is currently being created. Thus, this charge cannot be addressed at this time.

Charge 4:Review a proposed addendum to the PPM regarding military students and faculty responsibilities for excused military absences.

Progress:Veteran Affairs Director Charles Chandler met with ASSA on February 8 and again on April 6, 2016 to discuss the issue of military absences. ASSA considered policy language from Charlie Chandler and Mark Denniston. After discussion and revisions, ASSA voted to approve the following changes to PPM 6-22, which will go to Student Senate for approval in Fall 2016:

III.B.7.p. Expect instructors to allow students absent from class while engaged in official University activities, or students absent due to mandatory military orders that do not exceed 15% of total participation for the course, a reasonable opportunity to make up missed quizzes, exams, and/or assignments or complete some comparable activity;

IV.D.6 Notify their instructors as far in advance as possible of any planned absence due to mandatory military orders, or for official University activities, and discuss with instructors the terms, options, and possible outcomes of these absences;

Charge 5:Provide recommendations to increase retention and graduation rates of first time, full time students.

Progress: The ASSA Committee approached this charge in three ways to learn what can be done about graduation and retention rates: (1) consult Academic Support Centers and Programs (ASCP), (2) consult the Office of Institutional Effectiveness (OIE), and (3) confer with colleagues across campus. On November 11, 2015, Prasanna Reddy—Director of ASCP—met with ASSA and provided information about tutoring and supplemental instruction (SI) services at WSU.

She indicated that students who attend SI classes are retained in and pass the corresponding classes at a much higher rate than students who do not attend SI.

Unlike SI, tutoring subjects vary from semester to semester based on the needs of the students requesting tutoring. Some of the limitations faced when arranging tutors are budget and tutor availability. Often students who need tutoring do not request it until late in the semester, at which time funds are depleted and/or the proficient students who would make good appointment tutors are very busy and no longer able to make time in their schedules to help.

Some solutions the ASSA discussed in terms of helping improve retention by expanding SI and tutoring include

Enabling students who need volunteer hours (for CEL or for graduate school/medical school applications) to be able to get volunteer credit for tutoring other students (This would need to be coordinated with CCEL.)
Increasing funding for SI and appointment tutoring
Encouraging students to contact tutoring services early in the semester to help ensure a tutor will be available for them

In addition to the information gleaned from ASCP, ASSA also received feedback regarding graduation and retention from OIE and our colleagues. Heather Chapman from OIE summarized preliminary data by stating that (1) The factor that most impacts a student's odds of graduation seems to be whether or not the student received grants, scholarships, or waiver money. Loans also have an impact, but money that a student does not pay back has the most positive impact on graduation. (2) The number of times a student changes their major has a positive impact on graduation. The more times a student changes majors, the more likely the student is to graduate. However, this may be because students are required to choose a major as they start at WSU, and as they learn more they may find their initial choice is no longer what they want. It also may simply indicate the fact that those who change their major more are likely to have been at WSU longer. (3) Credit hours taken have a positive impact on graduation. Students who enroll in more credit hours on average each semester (e.g. full-time status) are more likely to graduate. (4) Students with concurrent course credit are more likely to graduate.

ASSA members also solicited input from colleagues within their colleges. Based on the OIE’s information and our colleagues’ input, Becky Marchant created a report of ASSA’s additional findings and recommendations to address graduation and student retention. See Appendix C for the report.

Recommendations for Future Committee Work

Charges Still Needing Action

Changes to PPM 6-22 resulting from Charge 4 (military absences), above, still need to be discussed and approved by Student Senate, revised if needed, and then presented to Faculty Senate. As a result, this charge should carry over into 2016-17.

Charge 3 (satisfactory-progress requirement for developmental programs) could not be addressed this year because no requirement policy is currently under development. This charge may need to be carried over, or Executive Committee may wish to wait until a new requirement is being drafted to renew this charge.

Other Recommended Work

The information gathered for Charge 5 (graduation and retention) may be useful to share with other campus entities that are considering the problem of retaining students and helping them succeed. Executive Committee may want to have it presented to Faculty Senate and/or others.

Appendices

Appendix A

STUDENT CODE CHANGES: AN OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY

In Fall 2014, ASSA was charged to “review and consider ways to restructure PPM 6-22.” The goal was to retain in the Student Code the policyelements which codify students’ rights and responsibilities including their due process rights. But to remove and revise the procedural elements by which the institution was to offer due process to students.

•The procedures in Code need revision as they have proven to be inefficient. Students with a complaint may experience petition run-around, having their complaint adjudicated by multiple committees. For example, depending on the situation, a student grade complaint may have to be heard by a College Hearing Committee, the Registrar’s Office, and the Bursar’s Office.

•The code is also unfair, as students with the same fact patternmay be treated differently. For example, a student charged with academic dishonesty may be adjudicated differently in the Hearing Committees in different Colleges. Such inconsistency is a violation of substantive due process and leaves the institution open to potential litigation.

•Finally, the current policy is unresponsive to changes in state statute, case law, and the need for procedural flexibility in rendering due process. Presently, any change in procedure must be vetted in open hearings and then approved by ASSA, Student Senate, Faculty Senate Executive Committee, Faculty Senate, President’s Council, and Trustees. Such a process takes several months, exposing the institution to legal risk.