Dear Kathy and Members of the UEPC

April 28, 2015

Dear Kathy and members of the UEPC,

There are TWO issues involving activity courses in the Kinesiology department that require attention from the UEPC. Given that I have already met once with the group to discuss these issues, I will describe them briefly below, and I am hoping for a formal vote on both in the May 4th meeting.

Issue #1: Separating the physical activity program from the Department of Kinesiology

A brief history: The Department of Kinesiology, formerly Health, Physical Education, and Recreation,has been offering physical activity courses for over 30 years. Those courses have been required for some Kinesiology majors in the department (in particular, students in the now defunct Teaching and Coachingconcentration, and until recently students in the Sport and Recreation Management concentration). In addition to serving our students, activity courses have always been open to students of all majors, and provide an excellent way for students to learn new skills, get exercise, and develop a life-long appreciation for the benefits of physical activity. As of 2014-15, we, as a department, no longer requireany of our students to enroll in activity courses. This was part of a sequence of changes made by the department that was approved by the UPEC and the Senate in AY 2013-14. Subsequently, we voted as a department, to discontinue activity course offerings, not because we devalue the idea of physical activity, but mainly because we do not have to resources to oversee the activity program (and do not want to assume the liability that comes with these courses), and this will allow us to focus more time on our three concentrations, our 29 course offerings, and the over 150 majors, minors, and pre-majors in those courses. This was part of the action plan of our 2012 Department Review (a plan that was subsequently accepted by the PRC):

"The Department of Kinesiology intends to withdraw from administeringand staffing .25 physical activity courses by the close of the 2013-14AY. There is much duplication of our offerings on campus andcontinuing serious concern among our faculty with regard to offeringcredit through this program to student-athletes for athletic practicesand competitions. The College has also withdrawn faculty

compensationfor administering this program. We will begin this process byinvestigating whether there are other campus units that have aninterest in and the resources to take over these offerings."

2012 KinesDept Review, pg 37

If the activity program only served Kines students, eliminating it would be more of a departmental matter. However, the activity program offers up to 45 courses per year and continues to be very popular with students of all majors.Therefore, we view the activity program as more of a campus-wide program. Currently, Craig Johnson volunteers his time to manage the program’s day-to-day operations, while the Department Chair assumes responsibility for the program. During the past five years, neither has received any compensation for their efforts.

After consulting with the Provost, Vice-Provost, the Athletics Director, the Dean of SOLA, and the Dean of SOE on this matter, it is clear that all parties a) see the program as valuable to the students at Saint Mary’s College, and b) want to see it continue long into the future. Therefore, instead of asking to discontinue the program, we are asking to separate the program from the Department of Kinesiology by a) giving it a new prefix (PHED), b) establishing the resources to hire an activity program director who would be compensated properly, and c) having that person coordinate with college administration to maximize the program’s potential. Recently the Dean of SOLA has allocated .66 release time for this position beginning in AY 15-16.

After meeting with the Registrar in person in mid-March, Julia assured me that the PHED prefix could be created rather easily, upon approval of the UEPC and Senate. This will allow the program to be viewed as a college wide program rather than a Kinesiology program. However, because academic credit (in the form of .25 units per course) will continue to be associated with these activity courses, there still needs to be a tie to oneacademicdepartment.That rules out Athletics, and I checked to see if the School of Education was interested, but they declined the offer. Therefore, by default, the activity coordinator will still have to work with the Department of Kinesiology until a better solution is found. To quote the Provost on this solution, “The coordinator can be viewed as a potential "liason" between PHED and KINES, but I would like to see a one-step-removed connection to Kinesiology if it's viable.”

Any suggestions from the UEPC regarding an academic home for the physical activity program would be welcome.

Issue #2: Formal Approval of Kines 003: Intercollegiate Athletics

Within the activity program there is one course that does not fit the regular curriculum, and over the years, has been a source of controversy within the Kinesiology department. That course is Kinesiology 003: Intercollegiate Athletics, a course without formal learning outcomes, formal syllabi, and differs from our other activity course offerings in many ways.

A brief history of Kinesiology 003: Intercollegiate Athletics: Similar to manyother institutions across the country (see the links below as examples), Saint Mary’s College has been offering .25 activity credit to its intercollegiate athletes for participating in athletics (the credit comes in the form of an activity “course” titled of Kines003: Intercollegiate Athletics). It should be noted that this practice is approvedand endorsed by the NCAA, and Saint Mary’s College began doing this well over 25 years ago with head coaches listed as the instructors and athletes earning letter grades for participation. About ten years ago, the practice stopped for a few years, as the Department of Athletics experimented with a different process to allocate these .25 credits (i.ethe Champs Life Skills program).The practicethen resumed roughly seven or eight years ago because of a request made byour current Athletics Director, Mark Orr, and a subsequent vote to approve it within the Department of Kinesiology. It is my understanding, based upon stipulations made by the department at the time, athletes who seek this credit, are eligible to receive .25 units (P/NP only) once per academic year for participation in athletics, and Dr. Craig Johnson serves as the instructor of record(rather than head coaches) for the 300+ college athletes who are enrolled in Kinesiology 003 throughout the fall and spring semesters.

Currently, most faculty in our department are not opposed to athletes earning credit for participation in athletics as long as it is limited to .25 per academic year and is on a P/NP basis. We feel that the student athletes are learning about a physical activity in the same way students learn in our activity program. In terms of content and contact hours, the college athletes are doing much more in their sport than what occurs in a .25 activity course. The dissenting viewpoint is that students should only be awarded academic credit if they have enrolled in a course with approved syllabi, learning outcomes, methods of evaluation, etc…

What is concerning to me, as the Chair in the department responsible for the delivery of the activity courses including Kines003,is that none of this hasever been brought to the UEPC or the Academic Senate for formal approval. I feel strongly that this is a college wide issue, not a Department of Kinesiology issue, and should not be left up to the Kinesiology faculty to decide whether or not athletes should earn up to one full unit (.25 each year) of academic credit for participation in intercollegiate athletics. I asked the SOLA Dean and the Provost for advice on how to proceed withKines003: Intercollegiate Athletics course given that one of the action items in our department review is to explore options of eliminating this practice, and they have asked me to consult with the UEPC. After doing so, the UEPC asked me to craft a formal proposal requiring a vote to either approve or deny the course.This seems to be the best course of action, because given the history of this course, I think we are well past any proposal for Kines 003 being approved as an experimental course.

Thank you,

Steve Miller

Action Item 1: Vote on the proposal to create “PHED” prefix for the activity courses. The activity program would then appear in a separate part of the Catalog and on GaelXpress, the grade distributions would be separated from Kinesiology, and the program would be managed by the PHED Activity Coordinator, with its own individual budget.The PHED Activty Coordinator will still report to the chair of Kinesiology, until an alternative home department can be found.

Action Item 2: Vote on the proposal of Kines 003 Intercollegiate Athletics as an academic credit for college athletes. No more than .25 credits (P/NP) from Kines 003 could be awarded per year.

------

From Mark Orr:

….. For all of your reference, below are outlines of our other NCAA Division I institutions describe the course credit provided for athletics participation. I included Stanford University (Pac-12), Gonzaga University (WCC), and Dartmouth College (Ivy). All 3 are well respected academic universities, and certainly not institutions that would compromise academic integrity in any way.

I would be happy to meet with you, UEPC, or faculty in your Department if you would like. I still have several of the documents and files that we researched back in 2008.

Thanks Steve.

Mark