Internal Governing Policy 45

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 students right to earned
  grade
• No process to protect instructors 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
2006 Joint Committee CAA and CGS Members

• CAA
• Dr. Kathlene Bower
• Ms. Chelsea Frederick
• Dr. Christie Roszkowski

• CGS
• Dr. Eric Hake
• Dr. Linda Morford
• Ms. Lenee Moseley

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
Comparison Current to Proposed Policy

• Current Policy
• Faculty Member
• Chair
• Department GAC
• Dean

• Proposed Policy
• SAME Faculty Member
• SAME Chair
• NEW College GAC
• NEW University GRB

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 alleged capricious grades
• Retain
• Not for review of the judgment of a faculty
  members 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

1. Notification Verification of Informal
   Conference
2. Chair Review Meeting
3. Summary of Chair Review Meeting
4. Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary
5. 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

1. Notification and Scheduling
2. Fact Finding Meeting
3. Summary of Fact Finding
4. Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary
5. 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

1. Notification Scheduling
2. University GRB Meeting
3. Summary of Meeting
4. Receipt of Summary of Meeting
5. 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
ReviewCurrent to Proposed Policy

• Current Policy
• Faculty Member
• Chair
• Department GAC
• Dean

• Proposed Policy
• SAME Faculty Member
• SAME Chair
• NEW College GAC
• NEW University GRB

31
Discussion

• IGP 45
• Review of Alleged Capricious Grades