Minutes of the Educational Policy Committee April 21, 2004

Approved 5-5-04

Educational Policy Committee

April 21, 2004 (Meeting #9)

Present: Carol Bock, Chris Carroll, Lesley Choi, Kathryn Fuller, Seth Grenke, Steve Hedman, Jill Jenson, Karl Johnson, Kate Maurer, Bruce Munson, Bill Payne, Jerry Pepper, Jerry Peterson, Don Poe, Ryan Rosandich, Larry Wittmers.

Excused: Jeanne Doty, Vince Magnuson, Howard Mooers, Linda Rochford, Claudia Rock, Linda Rolfe

Guest: Kathy Skelton

The minutes of the 4-7-04 meeting were approved with no changes.

Vice Chair Elections

Ballots were distributed, marked, and tallied and Jerry Pepper was voted in as vice chair for 04-05.

Call for end-of-the-year subcommittee reports

Subcommittee liaisons are asked to submit a brief report to Chair Bock before the end of the semester. Liaisons are also asked to give a brief oral report of subcommittee activities at our next meeting.

Academic Integrity

No substantive changes have been made to the policy draft since our last meeting. The topic was re-opened for further discussion. A rationale was requested for the division between the one-wrongdoer/multiple wrongdoer. When the issue is between one student and one faculty member, it can be handled informally (typically by adjusting the students grade) as has been the process in the past. When the issue involves more than one student, it is no longer within the purview of the faculty member to handle. Some faculty are not comfortable knowing that a single individual could have multiple instances of academic dishonesty, but if the process is handled individually and not reported, that student would not get caught for being a multiple offender. The policy draft that is before the committee does not prohibit faculty from reporting cases of individual misconduct. It also does not require it. It is the faculty prerogative to decide which procedure is appropriate. A compromise was suggested that a faculty member could choose to decide the penalty, but also report the incident to a central office, so that if future incidents were reported, there would be a record of it. It was questioned whether it was fair to students that there no uniform policy on reporting. In addition, handling instances of academic integrity on an informal basis does also not allow for the possibility that the student is innocent. Students are powerless to challenge a unilateral decision made by a faculty member. Due to the power differential between students and faculty, it was suggested that it was appropriate to require some sort of a report. This report would not assume any guilt or innocence and a formal procedure would be held to adjudicate that complaint. The currently policy draft requires that students are to be notified if the offense is reported, and have an opportunity to defend themselves. Has the lack of a policy up to now been a problem? Imposing rigidity on a system could actually lead to more problems instead of solving them. It was suggested that this policy is not ready to go before the committee for a vote. There are many questions that have yet to be addressed, and a vote at this stage would be premature. The two issues currently at hand are the mandatory reporting of an incident or the mandatory reporting of a resolution of an incident. The committee will continue discussion of this topic at our next meeting.

Faculty ratio of tenure & tenure-track to other

The numbers presented at the last meeting show that faculty workload has remained stable over the past ten years, but many faculty have expressed concern that it does not feel that way. Some faculty felt that a decrease in tenure/tenure track faculty will bring about a decrease in the overall quality of education, due to the different level of commitment and competence. The issue was again raised that this is a governance issue, not an educational policy issue. There are many tenure/tenure track faculty who wear two hats – one as a part-time administrator, and one teaching. It was unknown if the numbers presented had been adjusted to reflect the release time of these faculty. More information was requested on how the financial flexibility of the current faculty ratio impacts education and how it impacts tenure/tenure track faculty in terms of service expectations. Has the service expectations for tenure/tenure track faculty increased as the ratio of temporary faculty has increased? Many temporary faculty do not serve on committees or advise students, which puts an increased burden on the tenure/tenure track faculty who do. ECCA raised this issue with the charge for EPC to “commence a review of the questions expressed and implied in the materials generated by UEA.” Questions that were raised included a request for administration to comment on what led to this ratio and if it is inline with the overall vision for UMD. More data is needed on this issue before this committee can draft a response to ECCA. It was suggested that EPC members discuss this issue with other faculty over the next few weeks and collect responses on what impact this ratio has had on the classroom. Discussion on this issue will be continued our next meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:30 p.m.