Academic Governance Committee Report
Given to the University Senate 04-23-07
Submitted by Dr. Mike Gleason

At our last meeting four major items were discussed, one of which was a “Leadership” Motion I will bring to you today.  Additionally a “Withdrawal” motion from the previous meeting of March 9, which was not passed in time for the previous senate meeting will be presented first.  

1)  Shaina McGill shared information concerning the Chancellor’s Initiative for Academic Advising.

·        In the Chancellor’s visits with students a common complaint was that students are not happy with academic advising.

·        As a result an initiative involving 35 campuses within the system are reviewing academic advising procedures. There has been student and faculty involvement in the identification of issues surrounding advisement.  Shaina McGill stated that it was necessary to keep an open dialogue among the faculty concerning these issues.

·        A few of the attributes of a holistic advisement program were discussed: assessment of academic advising effectiveness, mandated advising, two year plan for courses by each school, and online advising notes.

·        The student advisory committee also recommended a Professional Advising Center.

·        Recommendations did not seem to be standardizing the advisement process at all 35 institutions, rather GCSU should decide how best it should work and what this looks like on our campus.

·        AGC members were concerned that advisement load be acknowledged for Tenure and Promotion.  It was observed that often good advisors are over loaded with students, so it takes a considerable amount of time compared to those that don’t advise similarly.

·        Separation of Registration Advisement and Career advisement and educating students on how to be good advisees (as outlined in the Students Rights and Responsibilities) were also discussed.

2) A full report from the Information Gathering Group on Scholarly Misconduct was not yet available for presentation. Mike Whitfield chairs the IGG and Tom Moore has done a great deal of work piecing the working draft together. The document is based in part on similar documents found on-line at Georgia State and North Texas. Moreover it contains clearer language and provides the previously identified needed protections for any scholar that may become accused of misconduct. The group will report its work to the appropriate standing committee for 2007-2008 year, likely to be either FAPC or RPIPC, depending on the definition of scholar.

3)  Withdrawal Motion passed at the March 9, 2007 meeting is to be presented at today’s Senate meeting. Dean Beth Rushing explained the proposal for a new Withdrawal policy.

·        A strong rationale for the change stems from unavailable classes due to re-enrollments by upperclassmen that have previously withdrawn from the class.

·        Said withdrawals create a financial burden for students effective loss of HOPE dollars, and due to excessive withdrawals and/or unavailable courses may contribute to all students needing time beyond a fourth year of college to complete their coursework for a degree.

·        This policy does not address transfer students or graduate students.

·        Other discussion came from guest, Shaina McGill, who described the impact on POUNCE due to second year repeaters taking classes that are primarily freshman classes. Students are dropping many classes because of the pressure of the HOPE scholarship; however students are making uninformed decisions because students must complete 67% of courses to receive HOPE.

·        Concerns were raised for courses that require a lab along with a lecture.  No resolution of this discussion was reflected in the final proposal presented to the Senate.  Discussion centered on whether that should count as one withdrawal or two. Five is the limit in the proposal.

·        Tom Moore had concerns for the 30% to 40% of those that withdraw from certain classes within the School of Business, and is opposed to the policy.

·        A discussion ensued on the need to establish a way to designate hardship withdrawals as distinct from regular withdrawals, with the idea that hardship withdrawals would not count in the five withdrawal limit.
 

4) A new proposal concerning a Leadership Option for students was presented by John Bowen, Gregg Kaufman, and Doris Moody.

·        John Bowen gave an overview of the program stating that core courses are an option for a leadership component, but ideally this component would be integrated through the major courses.

·        The student would work with his/her individual instructor to determine course assignments necessary that would meet the leadership option criteria. This program would relate academic courses to an applied learning experience within the community or GCSU community.

·        The Leadership option would be dealt with in individual departments. Suggestions from the committee: 1) a list of courses and instructors that would be willing to include the leadership component (would most likely be derived from the department) 2) criteria for faculty reference on what would be acceptable for the Leadership option 3) a suggested list of learning opportunities and outcomes.

·        The student’s transcripts would denote the leadership option with an L in the section; much like the Honors option notes an H.

5) A draft of an annual report has been released to the AGC for review.  Review comments and suggestions should be sent back to the AGC chair prior to May 1, 2007.