ASCRC Annual Report 2008/2009 DRAFT ASCRC Membership
Member	Department	Term end
G.G. Weix, (Chair)	Anthropology	2010
Holly Thompson	Chemistry	2009
Ione Crummy	MCLL	2009
Mary Nielsen	Health Professions	2010
Jean Luckowski	Cur & Inst	2009
Jill Bergman (interim Vice-Chair�serving on Appeals Committee 2008-9)	English	2011
Paul Silverman (Spring only)	Psychology	2011
Ruth Vanita	Liberal Studies	2009
Steve Lodmell	DBS	2010
Eijiro Uchimoto	Physics & Astronomy	2011
Kay Unger	Economics	2011
Kate Zoellner	Mansfield Library (Writing Committee Liaison)	2011
Doug MacDonald- (Fall only)	Anthropology (General Education Liaison)	2009
Students
Siri Smillie Tony Brockman Jon Dempersmier Daniel Zolnikov Kip Barhaugh
Ex-Officio Members
Arlene Walker Andrews	Associate Provost
David Micus (fall-only) Ed Johnson (spring-only) Melanie Hoell (fall-only)	Registrar Interim Registrar Director, Undergraduate Advising Center
Sharon O'Hare (spring-only)	Interim Director, Office of Student Success

Agenda Items and Actions

� Annual Curriculum Review
The ASCRC acted on a total of 341 curriculum proposals, including 7 Level I changes and 6 Level II changes.� The proposals appear on the Faculty Senate�s consent agenda, beginning November 13th.

Level I
Film Studies- New Minor

Management Information Systems � Name Change from Information Systems

Non Profit Administration � Professional Certificate

Practical Nursing � Distance Delivery

Religious Studies - New Option

Wilderness Studies- Program Revisions

Distance Delivery of Social Work program at Flathead Community College

Level II
Biochemistry � new program

Physics � New 2+2 Engineering

Applied Computing - Computer Aided Design Certificate of Applied Science

Climate Change -Interdisciplinary Minor

Geography � Bachelor of Science
Anthropology � Central and Southwest Asian Studies Major

Appeal decisions / guests attended ASCRC to address questions:
ANTH 242 Beginning Arapaho �guest: Neyooxet Greymorning, Anthropology
The course was proposed at the 200 level, whereas all beginning foreign language courses are 101-102 sequences. It was proposed in Social Sciences, rather than Humanities (including MCLL). �ASCRC Chair, and Social Sciences subcommittee met with the instructor; the proposal was revised, but still not approved because it was at the 200 level and did not conform to new common course numbering for introductory language instruction in Native American languages throughout the state of Montana.�

CLS 167 Nature and Society
Chair Weix met with the College of Technology Applied Arts and Sciences faculty to discuss a future general studies rubric.� The course was approved as AASC rubric.

Landscape and Livelihood field semester courses

The courses were being taught by off campus instructors affiliated as adjuncts with the EVST program.� The EVST Chair met with ASCRC to clarify that the EVST faculty supervise the evaluation of the courses, which are offered through continuing education funding, and which have been offered successfully for several years to enhance a program with 7 faculty and 288 majors.� The courses were approved in the spring.

Certificate in Non-Profit Administration

The courses were submitted without syllabi or instructors identified, and rejected by the Social Science subcommittee in the fall.� Subsequently, syllabi were provided, and the Political Science department faculty clarified that they would supervise the instruction delivered by adjunct faculty on line.� The certificate was approved in the spring.

BS in Physical Geography
The Science subcommittee approved the proposal. The Social Science subcommittee rejected the proposal on the basis of lack of student demand for the existing option in Physical Geography, and the lack of consultation with the Department of Geosciences.� The Provost�s office arranged for consultation with Geosciences in December, who wrote to verify their acceptance of the proposal on 12/2/08 and also on 2/17/09.� ASCRC met with the proposers on December 6, 2008 for discussion.� Both the Social Science and Science subcommittee made written recommendations for improvement.� A revised proposal was submitted through the Dean�s Office (and reviewed by the new Dean of CAS) in the spring, and the proposal was approved.

Central and Southwest Asian Major in Anthropology
The proposal was approved by Social Sciences subcommittee with one modification, suggested for structuring of upper division coursework.� ASCRC met with the proposers in the spring to recommend a required capstone course at the upper division level.

The proposal was revised and approved.

� Repeat Fee
Workgroup members:

Doug MacDonald

GG Weix
Mary Neilson

Dave Micus, Registrar

Jon Tompkins, Associate Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

Jon Dempersmier (student)
Scott Gauthier (student)

The Repeat Fee Workgroup investigated the various aspects of the issue through four additional meetings in the fall.� It drafted a proposal (appended # 1) that was rejected by ASUM.�� ECOS recommended that ASCRC address the academic policy issue and the administration would address and negotiate the issue of the fee with the students.

� Grade Point Average Calculation Policy
ASCRC had several discussions regarding the academic policy.� ECOS forwarded the following Cumulative Grade Average language to the Senate for consideration.� It was approved at the 12/4/09 meeting.

The cumulative grade average is computed by dividing the total quality points earned by the total number of credits attempted, excluding courses assigned W, WF, WP, CR, NC, NCR, I, AUD, or N grades and courses numbered under 100 (grade is preceded by an R). For repeated courses, excluding courses assigned W, WF, WP, CR, NC, NCR, I, AUD, or N grades, only the last grade earned will count toward the cumulative grade average. �Grades for courses transferred from other colleges and universities are not included in the calculation of the grade average for graduation.

� Update to Policies and Procedures
Experimental Courses (Appended #1)
Update to ASCRC subcommittee structure to revise categories for curriculum.� Categories for graduate course work were removed (reviewed by Graduate Council) and some new categories were added (Media Arts).

� General Education Course Review, Catalog Language and Conversion Guidelines
The General Education Committee reviewed courses and presented them to ASCRC for approval.� They were subsequently approved by the Faculty Senate.� There were several follow-up and appeals that were addressed by the committee and ASCRC.� In particular, some of the appeals for Ethics designation were mediated by the Chair of ASCRC over the winter break, and the issues of symbolic systems sequence courses, and the exemption for programs with a symbolic systems sequence requirement in the majors, were discussed at ASCRC and at Faculty Senate in the spring.� While the number of programs qualifying for exemption from GE Group III requirement was larger than expected, including a large number of majors in the Professional Schools, Sciences and Social Sciences, it was agreed all the programs receiving the exemption qualified under the GE structure approved by Faculty Senate on 10/11/07.� It was further clarified that students completing an Associate of Arts degree at College of Technology could fulfill the MUS Core for General Education, and were not subject to the requirement for second language study, or the exemption for a symbolic systems sequence, in Group III of the new GE structure.

Catalog Language and Conversion Guidelines were drafted by the General Education Implementation Workgroup, assisted by the Faculty Senate administrative associated, and approved by ASCRC and the Senate.

Members of the General Education Workgroup:
ASCRC Chair Weix
General Education Chair Macdonald
John Eglin, General Education Committee Member
ASUM Vice President Smillie

John Dempersmier, ASCRC Student Member
Shonna Trowbridge, Academic Advisor, Forestry

Kerry Bright, Academic Advisor, DBS

� Writing Course Guidelines, Catalog Language, and Review
The Writing Committee drafted Writing Course Guidelines and catalog language that were subsequently approved by ASCRC and the Faculty Senate (11/13/08).� The Writing Committee reviewed writing courses and upper-division writing requirement courses or expectations according to the new guidelines.� Thirty-nine writing courses, 84 upper division writing courses and 6 distributed models were approved.� The Writing Committee requested a transitional year to accommodate students who may have planned to take an upper-division writing course that was not submitted for review under the new guidelines. Seventeen �courses were identified as still fulfilling the old writing guidelines, and thus eligible for a writing course designation for 2009-10 only.� It is hoped that those courses will be revised to meet the new guidelines and submitted in 2009 for review by the Writing Committee.�

� Drop/ Add policy revision
ASCRC had several discussions regarding the withdraw policy. The draft language was revised several times.� The language appended (#2) was finally approved by the Faculty Senate on 2/12/09. ��

� Dormant Course Policy

The following Dormant Course Policy was approved by ASCRC 2/17/09.�

A course will be considered dormant if it has not been offered for three calendar years. Each year, as part of the catalogue preparation process, the registrar�s office will notify departments of any dormant courses in their offerings and inform those departments that these courses will be deleted from the catalogue. Departments may request that dormant courses remain in the catalogue for one additional year by providing a rationale to the registrar. The registrar�s office will notify ASCRC of the deleted courses.

� Procedure for requesting reconsideration of a rejected curriculum proposal
The following resolution was approved on 4/21/09

When ASCRC or one of its subcommittees has problems with a proposed curriculum change, the committee involved will ask the department to respond to the committee�s specific queries. If the committee votes ultimately to deny the proposal, the committee will notify the department of the denial and of a right to resubmit. Resubmission is permitted only if the department is able to provide pertinent information and/or explanation not previously before the committee.

� Undergraduate Advising Center Courses
Efforts are underway to find academic homes for the courses to assure appropriate oversight.

Communication Items

� Common Course Numbering
The committee met with Betsy Bach, UM�s Transferability Liaison on 3/10/09

� General Education Council Meeting

� General Education Advising Materials

� Committee Structure

� Pre-requisite Test Score Restrictions for Upper-division Writing Courses (3/16/09)
The Director of the Writing Center is working with the Registrar�s Office to find a way to assure students have passed the WPA prior to taking upper-division writing courses.

� College of Arts and Science Curriculum Review Procedures

� ECOS� Charge to the General Education Commitee

___________________________________________________________________________

Repeat Fee Proposal (9/30/08)� ��#1

Background:

Last year (2007-2008) the ASUM passed a resolution to eliminate the grade recalculation fee (1)� ASCRC supported that resolution, and Faculty Senate modified the resolution and passed it in the modified form (2), with a failed attempt to remove the grade recalculation option altogether.� The President refused to remove the fee, and the Provost asked the Faculty Senate to arrive at a compromise.� A member of ECOS and ASCRC proposed one alternative (3) at the end of the year, which ASCRC discussed briefly at its final meeting in April 2008.� In August, the ad-hoc committee was formed of ASCRC, administration, Disability Services, ASUM, and Registrar, with input from the Business Services staff (4).� The committee has met four times, and considered peer institution policies on both grade recalculation fees and academic policy for repeating courses (5), and has arrived at a proposal for consideration by ASCRC, ECOS, and the Faculty Senate as a whole.� We are submitting this proposal together with the results of peer institution comparison, the O�Hara study (6), and the testimony from Disability Services and ADSUM students (7).

�The issues at stake are fourfold.� One, students continue to advocate for a reduction of the recalculation grade to zero, with the option of repeating courses and having the final grade replace all other grades when calculating GPA, on the grounds of equity and fairness.� Representatives from ASUM are amenable to a revenue neutral transition, in which the fee would be reduced to $50.�

Two, the Administration, specifically the President, has asked for a revenue-neutral proposal; the current $100 fee for each repeat course grade being recalculated generates approximately $110,000 a year.�� The proposed reduction in the fee from $100 to $50 would likely achieve this, and would be paid at the beginning of each semester, rather than at a time of the student�s choosing before graduation.� This prediction is based on the O�Hara study, and its recommendation, which would charge the fee of all students electing to repeat a course, but excluding students who withdraw from courses.

According to the O�Hara study, approximately 4300 courses are repeated each year, with about half of those course repeats ending in withdrawal.� Of the remaining total, approximately one half of the students pay the fee for one or more courses repeated.� It appears that a majority of students repeat a failed course within one year, and of those, a majority of those students earn a passing grade and do not repeat the course again (see the O�Hara study).� Students who do not pay the fee have all grades calculated in their GPA, including failing grades (F).�

A third major interest at stake, articulated by the Provost, is that of academic success: the proposed policy should enhance successful completion of courses, and aim to reduce the overall number of courses repeated.� One factor that would encourage this success would be for students to be invested in repeating a course to completion, and to have a stake in performing as well as they could in the course the second time, with the result of replacing a failing grade with a passing grade that improves their GPA.

A fourth interest is to avoid discrimination against students who have, or who come to be identified with, disability(ies). The testimony from Disability� Services and ADSUM suggests that the current policy presents inequitable difficulties for students with disabilities (See letters from Marks and Pialet) when faced with their options early in the semester to address a course in which they are failing.� In particular, students whose tuition is paid by grants and federal support must be approved to withdraw from a course, or courses, and the additional level of review can inhibit them from exercising that choice.� Therefore, they are more likely to be affected adversely by the current policy of repeating courses, and having to pay $100 for each grade that is recalculated to replace the final grade only for that course.

The concern of the CAS administration and retention efforts are for students who must withdraw from courses for legitimate reasons of hardship.� Those students who withdraw from course(s) are heterogeneous, including both those faced with illness and family emergencies, as well as those who elect to drop a course for whatever reason.� In order not to penalize or burden the former, the subcommittee is proposing that no change in policy be proposed to affect those who withdraw from courses, or a semester, in order not to penalize further students facing personal hardship.

We propose a change in how the current policy is implemented to include the following:

a) Students may repeat courses;

b) Student must indicate at registration their intent to repeat a course, and pay a fee of $50;

c) The fee would be billed automatically; the most recent grade replaces all prior grades in the GPA.�

d) All grades will show on the students� transcript.

The consensus of the ad-hoc subcommittee is that these changes would help reduce both the number of repeated courses, and the fee associated with processing recalculation of grades. Advantages of this change in policy are:

1. It is revenue-neutral, generating the equivalent to cumulative revenue from the current $100 grade recalculation fee.�

2. Students must indicate their intent to repeat the course at registration, and pay the fee up front.� This would provide incentive for completing courses successfully.

3.� It expands access to all students to use the current option to request grade recalculation, and reduces economic discrimination by reducing the processing fee by half.

4.� It does not apply to students who withdraw from a course, including those who are unable to complete courses due to unexpected circumstances such as illness, or death in the family.

5. It allows students with disabilities, who have funded college through grants and scholarships and are restricted from withdrawing from class, to have the same opportunity as other students to repeat a course.

6. It reduces paperwork processing requests for grade recalculation between Business Services and the Registrar by replacing an automatic fee initiated by a student at registration.

Current Policy� (Catalog, p. 24)

Repeating a Course

Grades of AUD, I, N, NC, NCR, NF, W, WP, or WF do not repeat other grades but an F grade does. All courses repeated remain on the permanent record but only the last grade received is used to determine credits earned. If the last grade received is an F, no credit is given for previous passing grades. All grades are used to calculate the grade point average unless the $100.00 per course repeat fee is paid. If the repeat fee is paid, only the last grade received is used in calculating the grade point average.

Proposed Policy

Repeating a Course

All course grades remain on the permanent record but only the last grade received is used to determine credits earned.� If the last grade received is an F, no credit is given for previous passing grades.� A $50 processing fee is paid at registration and only the last grade is used to calculate the grade point average.� Grades of AUD, I, N, NC, NCR, NF, W, WP, or WF cannot replace a traditional letter grade.�

_________________________________________________________________

Drop / Add Policy Revision�� #2

Proposal to change the course drop date from the thirtieth (30) instructional day to the forty-fifth (45) instructional day of the semester, and the thirty-first (31) instructional day to the forty-sixth (46) instructional day for drop petitions

Dropping and Adding Courses or Changing (Catalog pg 21)

Students are expected, when selecting and registering for their courses, to make informed choices and to regard those choices as semester long commitments and obligations.

After registering and through the first fifteen (15) instructional days of the semester, students may use (http://cyberbeart.umt.edu) to drop and add courses or change sections and credits. Fees are reassessed on the ~~fifteenth~~ sixteenth day of the term. Added courses and credits may result in additional fees. For courses dropped by the fifteenth instructional day, no fees are charged and courses are not recorded. (For deadlines and refund policy for withdrawal from all courses, see the Withdrawal sections of this catalog.)

An instructor may specify that drop/add is not allowed on the internet. A drop/add form is used to make changes in these courses, if approved by the instructor.

After adding a course, the credit/no credit grading option or auditor status may be elected on the internet or on a form available at the Registration Counter in Griz Central in the Lommasson Center. These options are not allowed for some courses as identified in the Class Schedule. Change of grading option to audit is not allowed after the 15 instructional day.

Beginning the sixteenth (16) instructional day of the semester through the ~~thirtieth (30)~~ forty-fifth (45) instructional day, students use paper forms to drop, add and make changes of section, grading option, or credit. The drop/add form must be signed by the instructor of the course and the student's advisor. The signed drop/add form must be returned to the Registration Counter (or the Registrar's Office at the College of Technology) no later than the ~~thirtieth~~ �forty-fifth instructional day. A $10.00 processing fee is charged for each drop/add form. Added courses and credits may result in additional fees. There are no refunds or reductions of fees for courses dropped and grades of W (withdrew) are recorded.

Beginning the ~~thirty-first (31)� forty~~-sixth (46) instructional day of the semester through the last day of instruction before scheduled final examinations, students must petition to drop. ~~add, and make changes of section, grading option, or credit.~~ The petition form must be signed by the instructor of the course and the student's advisor and, ~~in the case of drops only, by~~ the dean of the student's major. A $10.00 processing fee is charged for each petition. ~~Added courses and credits may result in additional fees.~~ There are no refunds or reductions of fees for courses dropped, and the instructor assigns a grade of WP (withdrew/passing) if the student's course work has been passing or a WF (withdrew/failing) if the course work has been failing. These grades do not affect grade averages but they are recorded on students' transcripts.

Documented justification is required for dropping courses by petition. Some examples of documented circumstances that may merit approval are: ~~registration errors,~~ accident or illness, family emergency, ~~change in work schedule, no assessment of performance in class until after this deadline, or~~ other circumstances beyond the student's control.

The opportunity to drop a course for the current term or alter grading option for such a course ends on the last day of instruction before scheduled final exams. Dropping a course taken in a previous term or altering grading option or audit status for such a course is not allowed. The only exceptions are for students who have received a grade of NF (never attended) or new students unfamiliar with the drop process who have ceased attendance before the sixteenth day of instruction and can provide to the Registrar�s Office instructor verification of non-attendance.

See the School of Law section of this catalog for the add and drop deadlines for law courses.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Revision of Special Topics Language�� #3

Changes shown in ~~strike-out~~, underline.

Special Topics Courses on ASCRC Policies Site

Under �Adding New Courses�

6.� Has the course been taught experimentally? An X95 course taught ~~twice~~ three times must be reviewed and approved by ASCRC or Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate prior to inclusion in the catalog.

Makes the policy consistent, in line with general understanding of policy.

Special Topics Courses: (revised 2/23/99)

~~After the department offers a course three times~~ At the third offering of an X95 course, the Registrar will ~~send a notice~~ notify the department that curriculum forms should be submitted to establish a permanent course number.� In the case of compelling special circumstances, ASCRC will consider exceptions and allow a fourth offering.� ~~and~~ require the curriculum change forms or require a letter indicating why an exception should be made to offer it a fourth time. The letter would be received during the third offering and the Registrar will not accept the course if it comes in again

Special Topics Courses on ASCRC Procedures Site:

6.� Has the course been taught experimentally? An X95 course taught ~~twice~~� three times must be reviewed and approved by ASCRC or Graduate Council and the Faculty Senate prior to inclusion in the catalog.

Repeatability: Normally a course can only be taken once. Exceptions are allowed for variable topics courses (e.g. seminars, independent studies, special topics, theses.). Usually the limit for repeatability is 9-12 credits.