Millersville University, Faculty Senate

Academic Standards Committee

1997-1998 Annual Report

Submitted 5/5/98 by Joel B. Piperberg, Chair


1997-1998 Members Department Term Expires
J. Piperberg, Chair
elected from Faculty Senate
Biology 2000
M. Chaudhary Computer Science 2000
S. DiBartolomeis Biology 1999
T. Greco Chemistry 1999
A. Kelly English 1998
J. Sciarretta Developmental Studies 1998
D. Schultz Mathematics 2000
E. Seda Educational Foundations 2000
D. Shanahan Geography 1998
Z. Shao Mathematics 1999
I. Sigler Mathematics 1998
M. White Library 1999
D. Davis Director of Admissions (ex-officio)
M. Gonzalez Registrar (ex-officio)
R. Wywadis Associate Registrar (ex-officio)
Gretchen Heim Student
Kevin Van Horne Student
Tanya Henne Student
Marco Marinaro Student
Josh Sosnin Student
Jen Bernstein Student

Meetings:
The full committee met during the Fall 1997 semester (November 13, 1997) to discuss changes in our procedures and other issues connectied to the charge of the committee. This meeting resulted in specific changes in committee procedures that were implemented at the Fall meetings in January and recommendations for further alterations in policy that have been referred to the Academic Policies Committee (see below).

A two-day meeting lasting from 8:30 AM-5:00 PM is held after both the Fall and Spring semesters. This academic year the Fall semester meeting was held on January 20 & 21, 1998 and the Spring semester meeting will be held on June 10 & 11, 1998. No formal minutes were taken at either of the meetings, but a summary of the Committee's actions at the Fall meeting is appended to this report. A report on the Spring actions will be submitted by the first meeting of Faculty Senate in the Fall 1998 semester. Average attendance was 15 members each day.

Motions Forwarded to Senate:
11/18/97--As a result of the Committee's meeting on November 13, 1997, it was moved that the following issues be forwarded to the Academic Policies Committee for consideration. First, the Academic Standards Committee believes that there should be some sort of limit on the number of times a student can repeat a course. It is not unusual for students (at least those dealt with by our Committee) to repeat courses (often remedial courses) three, four or even five times. As a group, we see this as an abuse of the system. Some suggestions for models of this limit are: (1) a strict limit on the number of times a student can take a particular course, (2) a limit on the total number of repeat courses a student will be allowed over their academic career, and (3) computation of an average for courses taken more than a certain number of times (presently, the grade on a repeated course replaces the grade earned the last time the course was taken). There are obviously other ways to address this problem, among them making no changes at this time. We feel that it would be best for the Academic Policies Committee to make that determination. Second, we favor an institution of limits to the number of courses/credits a student on probation ca take (4 courses or 12-13 credits). Students in academic difficulty will often take extra courses to make up for courses they have failed. This strategy frequently results in an even more dismal academic performance than the one that earned probation and often leads to dismissal. Such a rule, fairly framed, should protect these students from making such an error in judgment and might also serve to bring home to them more successfully that academic probation is a serious thing. Faculty Senate agreed to forward these issues to the Academic Policies Committee.

Other Deliberations and Actions:
As in previous years, the IMP (Improve My Performance) program has been given the names of certain students who appear to be likely to benefit from the program and have agreed to enter the program. Students who desire to enter the program sign up for IMP meetings in the subsequent semester at the time of their appeal if it is upheld. Data continue to indicate that those students who have elected to participate in the program have done better in subsequent semesters than those who have not.

At our meeting on November 13, 1997, we discussed the issues and took the actions summarized below:

1. The general consensus of the Committee was that a "toughening" of the language in the probation and dismissal letters is called for. Students seem to underestimate the seriousness of probation and dismissal. Future probation letters will include a more forceful statement encouraging probationary students to seek help from advisers and professor to help them avoid dismissal in the future. Dismissal letters will better define the kinds of extenuating circumstances the Committee feels warrant granting a student's appeal to return to classes. Also, we will include a request for documentation of such circumstances where possible (obituaries, medical documentation, results of tests for learning disability, letters from faculty on relevant issues, etc.). Probation letters will also include firmer reminders that probation and dismissal can result in loss of financial aid.

2. The penalty for the first dismissal is a one semester suspension of study at MU. The second dismissal results in a two semester departure. The third dismissal has routinely meant the student must sit out for three years (s/he is also notified that readmission after that time is unlikely). In the past, a student whose appeal has been granted has had the penalty for dismissal essentially waived. That is, upon a second dismissal, a student whose appeal for his/her first dismissal has been granted would only be subject to a one semester suspension. The Committee now unanimously favors counting a dismissal regardless of the outcome of the student's appeal. Thus, a first, second and third dismissal will result in penalties of one semester, two semesters and three years, respectively, whetehr or not any of their appeals have been upheld. It is hoped that the increased penalty will emphasize for the students the cost of dismissal more effectively than in the past. It is felt that this is a procedural matter handled under the auspices of the Committee and the Registrar's office and will thus not require consideration by the Academic Policies Committee.

3. At the Appeal meetings in January and June, it has been common practice to tell all students whose appeals have been denied that they have the right to appeal the Committee's decision to either Dr. Stager or Dr. Roller. We will no longer do that unless it is our judgment that in a specific case we should. This notification will not appear in the letter sent by the Academic Standards Chairman either. Students are notified of these rights in other documents (the catalog, for example) and if they are serious enough to pursue a further appeal they should read the appropriate passage. It is hoped that this may serve to forestall appeals to Drs. Stager and Roller that are not really serious and cut down the number of cases that they must consider. It should also, to some degree, strengthen the students' impressions of the validity of the Committee's deliberations.

4. It was also suggested that more "teeth" be put into some of the competency requirements since some students appear to be taking courses the competency requirements for which they have not yet passed.

5. The Committee discussed ways of better coordinating our efforts with those of the Financial Aid and Admissions Offices. We will add a Financial Aid office representative to the Committee so that they can see how we do our work (a representative from the Admissions Office already serves on the Committee). It is hoped that after some exposure to the workings of the Committee, we will be able to streamline our collective procedures.

6. Some concern was raised over the ease with which students are readmitted after sitting out their penalty. It was suggested that the recommended changes above may serve to allay some of the expressed concern. It also seems that this issue is to a degree a philosophical one that may need further study at a later date. In the meantime, we will see what effect the abovementioned actions have.

The Academic Standards Committee met on January 20 and January 21, 1998 from 8:30 AM until 5:00 PM to hear the appeals of those students dismissed at the end of the Fall 1997 semester. The following table summarizes the results for the Fall 1997 semester:

CATEGORIES NUMBER (PERCENTAGE)
1. Total number of dismissals 97
2. Total number of appeals 52 (54% of dismissals)
3. Number of appeals granted 38 (73% of appeals)
4. Number of dismissals upheld 14 (27% of appeals)

DEMOGRAPHICS OF DISMISSED STUDENTS

The data below were provided by P. Koenig of the Registrar's Office at the request of M. Gonzalez.

1. Curriculum and Credits Earned Statistics for Academic Dismissals

CURRICULUM

MAJOR FALL 1996 SPRING 1997 FALL 1997
ART 2
BIOLOGY 7
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION 17
COMPUTER SCIENCE 6
ECONOMICS 1
ED TECHNOLOGY 1
ELEMENTARY ED 2
ELEMENTARY SPED 1
ENGLISH 4
GEOLOGY 2
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES 1
INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY 6
MATHEMATICS 4
METEOROLOGY 7
OCEANOGRAPHY 2
POLITICAL SCIENCE 3
PSYCHOLOGY 1
SOCIOLOGY 2
SOCIAL WORK 2
SPANISH 1
SPEECH COMMUNICATION 7
SPECIAL EDUCATION 1
UNDECLARED 30
CONT ED CREDIT 2
TOTAL 112

CREDITS EARNED

CREDITS EARNED FALL 1996 SPRING 1997 FALL 1997
0-30.5 26
31-45.5 27
46-60.5 22
61-90.5 27
91+ 10
TOTAL 112

2. Number of Times Dismissed (Regardless of Appeals)

NUMBER OF DISMISSALS FALL 1996 SPRING 1997 FALL 1997
ONE 83
TWO 22
THREE 6
FOUR 1
TOTAL 112

3. Previously Appealed to Academic Standards Committee

FALL 1996 SPRING 1997 FALL 1997
Previous Appeal Approved 16
Previous Appeal Denied 2
Total Who Met With
Committee Previously
18

4. Academic Dismissals and Appeals By Semester From 1989-1997

FALL 1989 - FALL 1997
TERM NUMBER DISMISSED* NUMBER OF APPEALS NUMBER OF APPEALS APPROVED NUMBER OF FINAL DISMISSALS**
FA 89 90
FA 90 120 72
FA 91 117 59 33 83
FA 92 112 55 37 72
FA 93 105 44 37 72
FA 94 118 55 36 77
FA 95 117 55 32 79
FA 96 112 65 40 66
FA 97 97 52 38 59
AVERAGE 111 55 37 74

SPRING 1990 - SPRING 1997

TERM NUMBER DISMISSED* NUMBER OF APPEALS NUMBER OF APPEALS APPROVED NUMBER OF FINAL DISMISSALS*
SP 90 139 32 97
SP 91 124 59 27 97
SP 92 98 51 32 60
SP 93 117 63 45 64
SP 94 120 63 46 70
SP 95 128 63 46 79
SP 96 136 66 42 94
SP 97 119 64 39 80
AVERAGE 118 62 39 80

* Number of students initially identified as subject to dismissal.
**Number of students currently on Registrar's probation table with dismissal code for term indicated.

Every student received verbal notification of the Committee's decision imeediately following the hearing and a formal (written) notification approximately one week later from the Committee Chairperson. Students whose appeals were granted received recommendations appropriate to their needs (e.g. counseling, academic advisement, career planning, repetition of courses, the IMP program, etc.) in order to assist them in quickly reestablishing satisfactory academic standing. the number of appeals upheld this semester is comparable to those granted during these meetings for the past five years.

Matters Currently in Committee:
None.

Future Plans:
None.

Additional Information Comments:
An Addendum to this report will be filed after the Spring 1998 meetings which are scheduled to take place on June 10 & 11, 1998. The demographic data will be updated at that time.

Return to Faculty Senate Home Page
Return to MU Home Page