Please bring Attachment C, Attachment D and Attachment D-1 from the March 17, 2005 Faculty Senate Agenda

2004 - 05 
FACULTY SENATE
California State University, Sacramento

AGENDA
Thursday, April 7, 2005
Foothill Suite, 3rd Floor University Union
3:00
- 5:00 p.m.
WINE AND CHEESE SOCIAL IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING

MOMENT OF SILENCE

ARTHUR SHERMAN
Emeritus Faculty, Psychology
 

OPEN FORUM

CONSENT ACTION

FS 05-13/CPC, Ex. PROGRAM CHANGE PROPOSALS

The Faculty Senate recommends approval of the program change proposals found at Attachment A.

REGULAR AGENDA

FS 05-14/Flr. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2005

 

SECOND READING

FS 05-11/Ex. FACULTY SENATE ADVISING INITIATIVE

Background: During the fall semester, the Senate Chair and the Vice President for Academic Affairs co-chaired the Task Force for Student Success to continue examination and implementation of a set of recommendations laid out in the CSU Report on Facilitating Graduation (2002). The Task Force considered recommendations in three areas: first year experiences for freshmen and transfer students; advising and roadmaps in general education, pre-major to major transitions, etc; and degree audits/transfer credit evaluations processes. This initiative was developed by the Executive Committee after it identified carryover funds available in the Senate Budget and secured a commitment of matching funds from the Vice President for Academic Affairs. Please see Attachment B for further information.

The Faculty Senate recommends adopting the policy on advising as outlined in the March 17, 2005 Attachment C.

FIRST READING

FS 04-66/APC, Ex. ACADEMIC CALENDARS, 2006-2007 and 2007-2008

Background: At the November 18, 2004 Faculty Senate meeting, the Academic Policies Committee was asked to consider various options modifying the traditional academic calendar, i.e., shift spring break to coincide with the Cesar Chavez Holiday, extend the two-day Thanksgiving Break to the full week, including the preceding Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and insert a three-day Fall Break in the middle of the semester. The pros and cons of each option is outlined in the March 17, 2005 Faculty Senate Attachment D.

The Faculty Senate recommends adoption of the proposed 2006-2007 and 2007-2008 academic calendars (March 17, 2005 Faculty Senate Attachment D-1).

FS 05-15/GE/GRPC, Ex. GWAR, Satisfaction through Writing Intensive Courses in the Major

The Faculty Senate recommends changing the GWAR (Graduation Writing Assessment Requirement) as outlined in Attachment C.

Background is provided in Dick Kornweibel's (Chair of the GE/GRP Committee) letter of transmittal (Attachment C-1).

FS 05-16/GE/GRPC, Ex. G.e. hONORS PROGRAM

The Faculty Senate recommends to the President establishment of a university-wide G.E. Honors Program for a total of 36 lower division and 9 upper division units. Nothing in this proposal would preclude other campus entities from submitting other Honors proposals.

(The vision statement of the ad hoc committee that worked on the development of the G.E. Honors Program can be found at Attachment D-1. Senators had been directed to the full proposal in February at the following link: https://www.csus.edu/acse/GE_honors_proposal.htm.)

CONCEPT

The objective of the CSUS Honors Program is to attract highly motivated first time freshmen and provide challenging and stimulating liberal arts education in a small class setting. Honors students will pursue a cohesive program of study and form an academic community with fellow students organized in cohorts. The guiding principles of the Honors program will be active learning, global subject matter, and interdisciplinary approaches to study.

PROGRAM PARAMETERS

  1. This program will provide enhanced lower division General Education for a total of 54 units; 45 of these units (36 lower division units and 9 upper division) will be 'Honors enhanced courses.
     
  2. Entering freshmen meeting enhanced admissions criteria will be invited to join the program.
     
  3. The program will be composed primarily of courses with an Honors designation. These will be either enhanced sections of established General Education courses or specially created courses.
     
  4. A faculty Honors Committee will be responsible for curriculum, assessment, and nomination of a Program Director. The Honors Committee will be composed primarily of faculty teaching in the program, but with representation from colleges and departments not participating directly.
     
  5. Acting with the advice of the Honors Committee, the Program Director will supervise student recruitment and admissions, faculty recruitment, program development, etc. The Honors Director will report to the General Education administrator.
     
  6. With the exception of not more than three program seminars, courses will reside in appropriate departments. Selection of faculty and scheduling of Honors courses will be the joint responsibility of the department and the Honors Director.

CRITERIA FOR HONORS DESIGNATION OF COURSES

  1. A focus on critical thinking and analysis.
     
  2. Combining the breadth of the GE program with depth and exploration of basic concepts used in each discipline.
     
  3. An interdisciplinary approach to study.
     
  4. Active participation by students in their courses.
     
  5. Small class size (enrollment limit of 30 with a minimum of 20) requiring discussion and/or research.
     
  6. Humanities and social science classes in the Honors Program will have a global orientation.
     
  7. Reading and written work that exceeds the expectations of standard lower division GE courses.

STUDENT ADMISSIONS

  1. A program subcommittee will conduct student admissions.
     
  2. All freshmen applicants to CSUS with high school 3.5 GPA or a 1200 SAT will be invited to apply to the Honors Program.
     
  3. Other students of exceptional ability, enthusiasm, and commitment may apply.
     
  4. All enrollees must have passed the CSU mandated EPT and ELM tests or be determined to be exempt from those requirements.

GOVERNANCE

  1. As a university program, the Honors Program will report to Academic Affairs.
     
  2. The University Honors Committee will be composed of six faculty teaching in the program, one faculty from each college without a course in the program and at least one member from Student Affairs. The Committee will exercise the same range of responsibilities as a departmental faculty. Members will be appointed by the General Education administrator.
     
  3. The director will also be appointed by the General Education administrator upon nomination from the Honors Committee. The director will be responsible to faculty in the same way as a chair in a department and will report to the administrator of General Education as a chair reports to a dean.

 PROPOSED STAFF AND BUDGET

A fair estimate for the annual cost of the program to Academic Affairs, not including scholarship funds, is $80,000 to Academic Affairs. The university, the colleges and the departments will all support the program in ways appropriate to and proportional to their participation.

(Appendix A (Proposed Program for Initial Cohort) can be found at Attachment D.)


Background to FS 05-17, 05-18 and 05-19 (from Bob Buckley, Chair, Academic Policies Committee) can be found at Attachment E. Attachment E-1 provides guidelines for the assignment of WU grades.

FS 05-17/APC, Ex. STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS, WU GRADES

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the Student Grade Appeal Process and the Grading Policy as follows:

(Amend subsection I.B:)

I. GRADES THAT MAY BE APPEALED BY THIS PROCESS

Assigned final letter or Credit/No Credit grades, otherwise known as course grades, may be appealed; but

  1. Incompletes may not be appealed until a final letter or Credit/No Credit grade has been assigned.
     
  2. A WU may be appealed. The question to be answered by the Grade Appeal Panel when deciding whether a WU has been assigned arbitrarily, capriciously or with prejudice is whether it would be clear to a fair and reasonable instructor that

1) the student had not left the course by ceasing to attend at all, or

2) the student had done enough work in the course to support a performance grade (including a grade of F given for some combination of work completed and work left undone).

If the panel decides in favor of the student under 1) or 2) above, the panel shall set aside the WU and invite the instructor to evaluate carefully the student’s performance and assign the appropriate academic grade (A-F). The presumption of valid grading and burden of proof prescribed by this Policy in appeals of academic grades shall likewise apply to an appeal of a WU.*

BC. Grades assigned to particular pieces of student work or to particular student performances may not be appealed independently of their influence on the calculation of a course grade.

(Amend subsection II.A:)

II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL AND BURDEN OF PROOF

To convince a grade appeal panel to alter a grade, a student shall allege and prove by a preponderance of the evidence one or more of the following compelling reasons for changing the grade assigned.

  1. That the instructor assigned the grade arbitrarily.

Note: To make out a case of arbitrary grading, a student shall show that the instructor would not or could not give any reasons for the grade assigned rooted in failure to submit work or attend class or in the substance and form of the work submitted for grading either when that graded work was returned or subsequently in a routine conference to discuss the student's performance before the student had begun to seek any relief from the grade appeal process.

(Amend subsection V.B:)

V. DEFENSES TO AN APPEAL

  1. To convince a grade appeal panel to maintain the grade assigned, an instructor defending a disputed grade shall show by a preponderance of the evidence that the disputed grade was assigned reasonably.
     
  2. A reasonably assigned grade is one that results from a careful evaluation of the work submitted for grading or as a consequence of a failure to submit required work or to attend class as required or some combination of these alternatives embodied in a grade report submitted to the Registrar in a timely manner. reported to the Registrar in a timely manner Work has been carefully evaluated (1) if the purpose of the evaluation has been to ascertain from the substance and form of the work itself the relative quality of the work submitted, (2) if the means of evaluation are reasonably related to achieving that purpose and (3) if the means of expressing that evaluation include some explanation of the results of it to enable the student to distinguish the better work from the worse for him- or herself. Grades so assigned are grades reasonably assigned within the meaning of this policy. Note: Means of evaluation are reasonably related to achieving the purpose of evaluation if, in the judgment of a grade appeal panel, they fall within a continuum of conceivable choices of means bounded on the one hand by means plainly or obviously adapted to the purpose and on the other by means not wholly or completely unrelated to it. A panel may not limit the extent of this discretion by substituting its own choice of reasonable means for an instructor’s choice, provided the instructor’s choice is within the continuum described in this note.

(see Attachment E-1 for an explanation of the WU grade)

FS 05-18/APC, Ex. Student GRADE APPEAL PROCESS

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS to have the student consult with the department chair if the instructor is unwilling or unable to meet with the student, as follows:

(Adds to subsection VIII.A:)

VIII. GRADE APPEAL PROCEDURES IN DETAIL

A. Informal Process

  1. Chair delivers this document to student.
     
  2. Student meets with instructor. Students who believe that they have not received a reasonably assigned grade shall seek to resolve, in good faith, the matter informally with the instructor who assigned the grade. This shall be done as soon as possible, but no later than the end of the third week of classes of the semester following the semester in which the grade was assigned.

If the instructor cannot or will not attempt to resolve the matter informally by at least meeting with the student for a discussion of it before the end of the third week and the student has made a good faith effort to secure an informal resolution by having a meeting with the instructor, the student shall at once notify the Chair as provided in subsection VIII.A.3, and upon verification the appeal shall go forward without further delay.

FS 05-19/APC, Ex. Student GRADE APPEAL PROCESS

[additions in bold; deletions in strikeout]

The Faculty Senate recommends amending the STUDENT GRADE APPEAL PROCESS to require an assessment of the grounds for appeal prior to proceeding with an “appeal of violations of procedures”.

(Adds new subsections 8 and 9 to IX.B and renumbers the remaining subsections accordingly:)

IX. APPEAL OF VIOLATIONS OF PROCEDURE

A. Procedural Appeals Board

B. Appeal of Violations of Procedure

  1. Standard of review of the conduct of grade appeals
  2. Who may appeal
  3. Grounds for appeal
  4. No change of grade pending resolution of an appeal
  5. When to appeal
  6. Letter of intent
  7. Letter of appeal
     
  8. Presumption. Panels and departments are presumed to have acted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Grade Appeal Process. Therefore a party appealing shall seek first to persuade the Procedural Appeals Board by the contents of the letter of appeal and by the documents submitted with it by the party or the Vice President for Academic Affairs to conclude the following:
  1. That a panel may have committed the violation or violations of procedure alleged in the letter of appeal;
  2. That the alleged violation or violations may have deprived the process as a whole of fundamental fairness; and
  3. That the alleged deprivation may have been the sole cause of a decision by the panel adverse to the party appealing.

If the Board is not persuaded by the letter of appeal and documents submitted with it to reach each of the conclusions specified in items a through c, above, the Board shall take no further action on the appeal and the decision of the panel shall be upheld.

  1. Summary Judgment. Whenever it appears on the face of a letter of appeal that the person appealing cannot prevail on his or her claim, the Board may dismiss the appeal at once. Normally, the Board shall exercise this discretion when the plain language of the Grade Appeal Process in and of itself precludes the claim being made, as for example when an oral hearing is claimed and the process provides for none but written hearings in the case.

108. Ordinary appeals.
119. Expedited appeals.
1210. Oral hearing.
1311. Disposition of appeals.

INFORMATION

  1. Faculty Senate's home page:  www.csus.edu/acse, or, from the CSUS home page, click on Administration and Policy, then Administration, then Faculty Senate.
  2. Status on actions taken by the Senate:  https://www.csus.edu/acse/04-05_actions.htm   
  3. Faculty Senate meetings for Spring 2005:
     
    • April 12, 2005 (Tuesday) - 2nd meeting of the Committee on Committees (3:00-4:00), Sacramento Hall, Room 275

    • April 14, 2005 - 1st organizational meeting of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate (3:00-3:30); business meeting of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate (3:30-5:00)

    • April 21, 2005 - Senate meets

    • April 26, 2005 - Outstanding Teaching and University Service Awards reception, 3:00-5:00, Alumni Center

    • April 28, 2005 - 2nd organizational meeting of the 2005-2006 Faculty Senate (3:00-3:30); business meeting of the 2004-2005 Faculty Senate (3:30-5:00)

    • May 3, 2005 - Outstanding Community Service and Lifetime Achievement Award for Community Service reception, 3:00-4:00, Ballroom I, University Union

    • May 12, 2005 - Senate meets