October 15, 2003

 

 

                                                       

Faculty Senate Meeting - Highline Community College

 

President and Chair:  Phil Droke

Vice President:  Glen Avantaggio

 

Present:

    Ron Sabado

    John Lindsay

    Ruth Frickle, Senator at Large

    Katie Guiliford

    Rebecca Sliger

    Han Lim

    Patricia Haggerty

    Arline Garcia

    Alicja Baker

    Gwen Spencer

   

 

1.  It was noted at the beginning of the meeting that we have a quorum of eight today.

 

2.  Patricia Haggerty asked if someone in administration could change an instructor's grade.  Phil Droke explained that administrators generally speaking can not change a student's grade.  Exceptions are when an instructor has not turned in grades and/or a student needs a grade for transferring, scholarship or athletic purposes.  A "surrogate" grade can be given as a temporary grade under these unusual circumstances. 

      Instructors also explained that students and their parents could pressure faculty for a grade change but that grade changes are extremely rare.  In addition, on the grade change paper, there is a section that must be filled out explaining the reason for a grade change and this sectioin must always be filled out.

 

3.  Jeff Wagnitz, Dean, is to drop by the faculty senate to share information on grade withdrawal.

 

4.  At-large senators will help with recruiting for committee memberships to cover several vacancies.  This information will be put on our web site.  Faculty probationers will be pursued for committee membership

 

5.  Phil Droke will be inviting several committees to our senate meeting to explain their roles and tasks so we will better understand their functions.  Focus will be on health and safety and discipline.  

 

6.  Jeff Wagnitz was present and explained that the "wi" grade originated with the faculty senate.  Other provisos include attendance a certain percentage of time in classes.  There was a full faculty discussion about the usefullness of these policies and procedures and the timing of their use, ie, for example usig a "wi" at midterm, only. 

 

7.  Phil Droke emphasized that it is the students responsibility to withdraw from class, not the instructors.  Also discussed at this time was the concept of "compassionate" withdrawal under conditions of military activation, automobile accidents.  Jeff Wagnitz asked if there was a retroactive "wi"?  Phil Droke responded, no, there is only one year for a grade change.  He emphasized that withdrawal by an instrutor was meant strictly as an attendant mechanism for students spending large amounts of time not going to class.

He also suggested that faculty senate track this issue and find out about how the registrar's office uses a "wi"

 

8.  Withdrawal better defined:  A "wi" can be used if 60% o classes are not attended.  Faculty could also add a "compassionate" withdrawl for extreme emergencies, only.

 

9.  Phil Droke asked Arline Garcia to talk with her division members about helping with the rewriting of the withdrawal policy.

 

10. Han Lim asked why this "wi" policy was changed in the first place.  Ruth Frickle added that change in the withdrawal policy had to do with strict accountability issues.  Rebecca Sliger mentioned that an instructor can change a grade at their discretion, paying attention to the one year time limit.

 

11. Ron Sabado and Alicja Baker emphasized that a little historical information could help us  understand the reasons for a policy change here, and Ruth Frickle explained that at times faculty wanted to use a "wi" rather than give a student a 0.0 grade. 

 

12.  Jeff Wagnitz checked the recent College catalog for information on the withdrawal policy with PHil Droke emphasizing that clear, written rules working the best for implementing policies and procedures.

 

13.  Students by-passing class pre-requisites:  Patricia Haggerty brought up the issue of students getting into classes via the computer rather than taking pre-requisites. 

 

14.  Gwen Spencer emphasized that that for math, sciences and writing there must be letters written allowing entrance to these classes and all of these go through the registrar's office. 

 

15.  Transferability:  Phil Droke explained that transferability from college to university, etc., is supposed to be seamless   through all state colleges and universities but not yet working this way. 

 

16.  Faculty discussed the possiblity of instructors receiving a copy of the rosters stating who is in the class, having taken the required prerequisites.  Entrance requirements that put responsibility on the students were strongly emphasized. 

 

17.  Class overloads:  Gwen Spencer discussed with faculty the policy of our having a limit for students wanting to take more classes than usually allowed.  Part of the procedure is to have an avisor "ok" an overload, ie,  anything more than 18 hours.  She also emphasized that we need benchmarks for overloads, ie, guidelines that concern, for example, that students not be on probation when requesting overload status.  Also suggested was that GPA should be evaluated before giving overload status and that first year, first quarter students not be granted overload status.  High school transcripts could be reviewed prior to deciding about overload status.  Arline suggested suggested even the use of an unofficial transcrip could be used in evaluated overload status and Rebecca Sliger discussed the possibility of using a computer for pulling up transcripts for evaluation.  However, if students, except students on probation, insist on overload, we must usually grant this status.

        In summary, Gwen Spencer requested guidelines for overload status.  She will write a draft for faculty senate consideration and critiquing.

 

Respectfully submittted,

 

Judy Johnson-Wise, 

    Faculty Secretary