Joint Forum of the Council on Academic Affairs and the Council on Graduate Studies

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 student’s right to earned grade • No process to protect instructor’s 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. CAA Dr. Kathlene Bower Ms. Chelsea Frederick Dr. Christie Roszkowski CGS Dr. Eric Hake Dr. Linda Morford Ms. Lenee Moseley 2006 Joint Committee CAA and CGS Members

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. Current Policy Faculty Member Chair Department GAC Dean Proposed Policy SAME: Faculty Member SAME: Chair NEW: College GAC NEW: University GRB Comparison: Current to Proposed Policy

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 allegedcapricious grades • Retain • Not for review of the judgment of a faculty member’s 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 • Notification & Verification of Informal Conference • Chair Review Meeting • Summary of Chair Review Meeting • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary • 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 • Notification and Scheduling • Fact Finding Meeting • Summary of Fact Finding • Acknowledgement of Receipt of Summary • 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 • Notification & Scheduling • University GRB Meeting • Summary of Meeting • Receipt of Summary of Meeting • 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. Current Policy Faculty Member Chair Department GAC Dean Proposed Policy SAME: Faculty Member SAME: Chair NEW: College GAC NEW: University GRB Review:Current to Proposed Policy

31. Discussion IGP 45 Review of Alleged Capricious Grades