FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
	Sheri Layral
	312 Signers' Hall
	474-7964   FYSENAT

A G E N D A
UAF FACULTY SENATE MEETING #135
Monday, March 6, 2006
1:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m.
Wood Center Carol Brown Ballroom

1:00	I	Call to Order – Paul Layer 				  5 Min.
		A.	Roll Call
		B.	Approval of Minutes to Meeting #134
		C.	Adoption of Agenda

1:05	II	Status of Chancellor's Office Actions 		  5 Min.
	A.	Motions Approved:
1.	Motion to amend the Computation requirements for the Certificate and A.A.S. degree.
2.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate By-laws, Section 3 (Art. V: Committees, Permanent) increasing membership on the Committee on the Status of Women.
3.	Motion to amend the UAF Faculty Senate By-laws, Section 1 (Art. III: Membership) to include research faculty. 
	B.	Motions Pending:  none

1:10 	III	Public Comments/Questions 				  5 Min.

1:15	IV	President's Comments - Paul Layer    		10 Min. 
		President-elect's Report - Shirish Patil 		10 Min.

1:35	V	A.	Remarks by Chancellor Steve Jones   	10 Min.
		B.	Remarks by Provost P. Reichardt		10 Min.

1:55	VI	Governance Reports     				  5 Min. 
	A.	Staff Council - Maya Salganek 
	B.	ASUAF -Joseph Blanchard 
C.	GSO - Susan Hazlett

2:00		**BREAK**

2:10	VII	New Business    					30 Min.
A.	Motion to amend the Advanced Placement Credit, submitted by Curricular Affairs Committee (Attachment 135/1)
B.	Motion to amend the grading policy to change the "I" and add the "NB" grading option, submitted by Curricular Affairs Committee (Attachment 135/2)
	C.	Resolution on SJR 20 and HJR 32 (Attachment 135/3)
	D.	Nominations for President-Elect (open until April meeting)
E.	Plan for Faculty Referendum on Proposed +/- Grading System, submitted by Curricular Affairs (Attachment 135/4)

2:40	VIII	Committee Reports     				20 Min.
	A.	Curricular Affairs - Rainer Newberry (135/5)
	B.	Faculty Affairs - Jon Genetti 
	C.	Unit Criteria - Glenn Chappell
	D.	Committee on the Status of Women - Jane Weber 
(Attachment 135/6)
	E.	Core Review - Mark Box (135/7)
	F.	Curriculum Review - Rainer Newberry
	G.	Developmental Studies - Cindy Hardy (Attachment 135/8)
	H.	Faculty Appeals & Oversight - Larry Duffy (Attachment 135/9)
	I.	Faculty Development, Assessment & Improvement - Larry Roberts
	J.	Graduate Academic & Advisory Committee - Cathy Cahill 

2:50	IX	Members' Comments/Questions			10 Min.

3:00	X	Adjournment

ATTACHMENT 135/1
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

MOTION:  
======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to amend the "UAF Advanced Placement Credit" for Foreign Languages/Alaska Native Language to delete Foreign Languages from the policy (p. 31-33 of the 2005-2006 catalog).  

CAPS  - Additions
[[   ]]  - Deletions

Alternate Ways to Earn Credit 

UAF Advanced Placement Credit

*[[Foreign Language/]] Alaska Native Language

After completing the course in which you were placed (above 101) and earning a B grade or higher, you may ask to receive credit for the two immediately preceding prerequisite courses, if any.  However, credit cannot be awarded for such courses if university credit has already been granted for them (e.g., through College Board Advanced Placement national tests or credit transfer from another college).  Credit will not be awarded for special topics courses, individual study courses, literature or culture courses, conversation courses, or any course taught in English.  

EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006

RATIONALE:  	The Dept. Foreign Languages is asking to do away with this manner of earning credit for the following reasons:
•	it is redundant: Students may earn up to 16 credits in French, German, and Spanish through the CLEP test offered by Testing Services. Tests in Japanese and Russian are offered by BYU and are also accepted by UAF. (see p. 31 of the UAF catalog) 
•	it duplicates AP credit: local AP language teachers are advising students not to take the AP test if they are planning to attend UAF because they can get the credit simply by taking a class.
•	it is inconsistent with other academic disciplines: Foreign Languages and Alaska Native Languages are the only programs that offer this sort of credit. ANL chooses to maintain the policy because there are no tests available in Alaskan Native languages. Other departments have no such policy- why should we be different? Students cannot earn credit for Biology 104 and 105 by taking Biology 106. 
•	it does not benefit heritage and native speakers: as languages grow in popularity more and more heritage and native speakers (in Spanish particularly, but also in other languages) are signing up for classes. Under the current policy they must begin at the 300-level in order to earn bonus credits for the prior courses. Many of these students are not served by 300-level classes and should go directly into more advanced courses, but cannot do so because they will lose their chance to earn “bonus” credits. 
•	it creates difficulties for instructors: students take classes that they really should not be in (for which they are either under- or over-prepared) so that they can try to get bonus credits. This creates difficulties for instructors who are trying to deal with, for example, a native speaker in a third-year language class. 
•	it is overly complicated: along with increased popularity and enrollment come increased difficulties. While we attempted to draft a policy that would cover all situations, this has not turned out to be so. Not a week goes by without some new, unexpected request for credit that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. The evaluation of these cases is causing an undue burden to faculty and staff.

ATTACHMENT 135/2
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

MOTION:  
=======

The UAF Faculty Senate moves to change the Grading System policy for the "I" -- Incomplete grade and add the "NB" -- No Basis grading option (2005-2006 Catalog, page 70-71), as follows:

[[    ]]  =  Deletions  
CAPS  = ADDITIONS

Grading System and Grade Point Average Computation

"I" 	Incomplete --
[[Indicates that you have not been able to complete the course during the scheduled course time.  

When the I grade is given, the instructor will include a statement of the work required of you to complete the course and the time limit you have to complete the work.  The maximum allowed time is one year.  At the end of the defined time limit, the instructor may issue a grade based on the work turned in.  If the instructor does not change the I grade, it becomes permanent at the end of one year.  The I grade is not computed in your GPA.  You cannot graduate with an I grade in any required course.]]

THE LETTER GRADE "I" (INCOMPLETE) IS A TEMPORARY GRADE USED TO INDICATE THAT THE STUDENT HAS SATISFACTORILY COMPLETED (C OR BETTER) THE MAJORITY OF WORK IN A COURSE BUT FOR PERSONAL REASONS BEYOND THE STUDENT'S CONTROL, SUCH AS SICKNESS, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO COMPLETE THE COURSE DURING THE REGULAR SEMESTER.  NORMALLY, AN INCOMPLETE IS ASSIGNED IN THE CASE WHEN THE STUDENT IS CURRENT IN THE CLASS UNTIL AT LEAST THE LAST THREE WEEKS OF THE SEMESTER OR SUMMER SESSION. NEGLIGENCE OR INDIFFERENCE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE REASONS FOR AN "I" GRADE.  THE DEFERRED GRADE (DF) SHOULD BE USED FOR THOSE CASES WHEN A STUDENT IS UNABLE TO COMPLETE A COURSE DUE TO INSTITUTIONAL REASONS, SUCH AS BREAKDOWN OF LABORATORY EQUIPMENT.  

	THE INSTRUCTOR WILL ALSO INCLUDE A STATEMENT OF THE WORK REQUIRED OF THE STUDENT TO COMPLETE THE COURSE AT THE TIME THE "I" GRADE IS ASSIGNED AND A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF THE INCOMPLETE GRADE WILL BE SENT TO THE DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE IN WHICH THE COURSE IS GIVEN.  AN INSTRUCTOR INTENDING TO ASSIGN A GRADE OF ‘I” WILL MAKE A CONCERTED EFFORT TO CONTACT THE AFFECTED STUDENT AND SECURE HIS/HER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CONDITIONS.

	AN INCOMPLETE MUST BE MADE UP WITHIN ONE YEAR OR IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE CHANGED TO AN "F" GRADE BY THE RECORDS OFFICE.  THE "I" GRADE IS NOT COMPUTED IN THE STUDENT'S GRADE POINT AVERAGE UNTIL IT HAS BEEN CHANGED TO A REGULAR LETTER GRADE BY THE INSTRUCTOR OR UNTIL ONE YEAR HAS ELAPSED AT WHICH TIME IT WILL BE COMPUTED AS AN "F".  A SENIOR CANNOT GRADUATE WITH AN "I" GRADE IN EITHER A UNIVERSITY OR MAJOR COURSE REQUIREMENT.  TO DETERMINE A SENIOR'S GRADE POINT AVERAGE AT GRADUATION, THE "I" GRADE WILL BE COMPUTED AS A FAILING GRADE.

"NB"   NO BASIS --

INSTRUCTORS MAY AWARD A NO BASIS (NB) GRADE IF THERE IS INSUFFICIENT STUDENT PROGRESS AND/OR ATTENDANCE FOR EVALUATION TO OCCUR.  NO CREDIT IS GIVEN, NOR IS THE "NB" CALCULATED IN THE GPA. THIS IS A PERMANENT GRADE AND MAY NOT BE USED TO SUBSTITUTE FOR THE INCOMPLETE (I).  IT CANNOT BE REMOVED BY LATER COMPLETING OUTSTANDING WORK. 

	EFFECTIVE:  	Fall 2006

RATIONALE:  	On December 9th, 1996, the Faculty Senate eliminated the No Basis (NB) grade and changed the ‘I’ so that it would not turn into an ‘F’ after a year.   With NB no longer an option, some faculty assigned grades of ‘I’ to students who had no intention of ever completing a particular course.  This caused a huge amount of paperwork (each 'I' requires a separate sheet of paper) and massive paper jams in Admissions & Records, as they’re supposed to keep a record of every ‘I’ grade.  CRCD faculty, through the Associate Dean, request restoration of the ‘NB’ grade—essentially viewing the changes of 12-9-96 as a failed experiment.  In doing so, it would be logical to return to the old ‘I’ at the same time.   Consequently, this proposal is to essentially turn back the clock to November 1996; restore the grade of ‘I’ to its originally intended use; and restore the option of giving a grade of ‘NB’ to a student who has registered but not substantially participated, and not withdrawn.  The addition of the line in italics is to help prevent giving an ‘I’ to a student who would prefer to take a (low) grade instead of finishing a course.

ATTACHMENT 135/3
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

RESOLUTION

ON

Constitutional Amendment: Benefits & Marriage
(SJR 20 and HJR 32)

WHEREAS, Discrimination against faculty on the basis of marital status is expressly prohibited by the University of Alaska Board of Regents Statement of Non-discrimination; and 

Whereas, the UAF Faculty Senate affirms the importance of complying with university non-discrimination policies; and

Whereas, SJR 20 and HJR 32 would have the effect of countermanding university policy prohibiting discrimination based on marital status; and

WHEREAS, to comply with SJR 20 and HJR 32 the university would deny financially interdependent partners (FIPs) insurance benefits, family membership at the Student Recreation Center, tuition waivers, faculty housing, and other valuable benefits currently offered; and

WHEREAS, The Faculty Senate affirms that providing insurance and other benefits to FIPs is a valuable way to recruit and retain excellent faculty, in addition to being required by university policy; now

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, That the UAF Faculty Senate is opposed to SJR 20/HJR 32.

Submitted by Jane Weber and Sine Anahita

**************************

The text that is underlined is the proposed amendment.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 20                                                                    
01 Proposing an amendment to the section of the Constitution of the State of Alaska                                        
02 relating to marriage.                                                                                                   
03 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF ALASKA:                                                               
04    * Section 1. Article I, sec. 25, Constitution of the State of Alaska, is amended to read:                          
05            Section 25. Marriage and related limitations. To be valid or recognized in                               
06       this State, a marriage may exist only between one man and one woman. No other                                 
07       union is similarly situated to a marriage between a man and a woman and,                                      
08       therefore, a marriage between a man and a woman is the only union that shall be                               
09       valid or recognized in this State and to which the rights, benefits, obligations,                             
10       qualities, or effects of marriage shall be extended or assigned.                                              
11    * Sec. 2. The amendment proposed by this resolution shall be placed before the voters of the                       
12 state at the next general election in conformity with art. XIII, sec. 1, Constitution of the State                      
13 of Alaska, and the election laws of the state. 

*****************

Dear Members:

The Alaska Legislature is considering an amendment of Alaska’s constitution that would prohibit unmarried Alaska couples from continuing to access a wide range of benefits that university employees have enjoyed for nearly a decade. Although originally intended to target same-sex couples, the amendment is so broad and vague that it would affect all non-married couples and their families.

Currently at the university, financially interdependent partners (FIPs) are eligible to live with their families in university student housing, faculty housing, and are able to purchase health insurance and family memberships at the Student Recreation Center. The amendment could prohibit FIPs being able to enjoy these basic benefits, and also could prevent them from having access to tuition waivers, library membership, even parking passes for their financially interdependent partners. If passed, the constitutional amendment could prohibit the university to allow an unmarried partner to take Family Medical Leave to tend to their seriously ill partner, or even to take leave to attend their partner’s funeral.

This amendment could harm recruitment and retention of faculty and staff, and would place UAF in a regressive position in the current marketplace. In addition, it has the possibility of making researchers ineligible for grant funding from those federal agencies and other grant sources that require grantees to have equal employment policies prohibiting discrimination based on marital status or sexual orientation. The amendment would negatively impact equal compensation for equal work. Inevitably, student recruitment and retention would also be affected. The proposed constitutional amendment would thus adversely affect all members of the university community. You can act by contacting your legislators to voice your concern.

The title of the proposed amendment is “Constitutional Amendment: Benefits & Marriage.” It is designated in the Senate as SJR 20 and in the House as HJR 32. As of February 20, 2006, it has been referred to the Senate Judiciary and Finance committees. If it is subsequently passed by two-thirds of the Legislature, it will be put in front of Alaska voters in November for ratification. 

You can read its text here:
http://www.legis.state.ak.us/
click on “bill search”
in “bill root”, enter <sjr 20> or <hjr 32>
Its sponsors in the House: Representatives Coghill, Lynn, and Kelly
Its sponsor in the Senate: Seekins

What you can do:
Please contact your representatives. You can find their contact information here: http://w3.legis.state.ak.us/infodocs/infodocs.htm
You can also write Public Opinion Messages (POMs) from this site.

ATTACHMENT 135/4
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Curricular Affairs Committee

Plan for Faculty Referendum on Proposed Changeover to Plus/Minus Grading System
Background & Research
Since Faculty Senate President Paul Layer introduced the issue last year, the Curricular Affairs Committee has been considering a proposed change to UAF’s grading system, giving faculty the option of plus and minus grades that factor into the GPA (3.7 for A-, 3.3 for B+, etc.). The CAC did not wish to have this university-wide issue to be put to a decision by the Senate without getting some significant amount of feedback from the university community first. Efforts at polling faculty informally via the department chairs yielded only a partial response, but those who did ring in reported mostly mixed results within their departments, i.e. faculty both supported and opposed the change, for a number of reasons. Anecdotal evidence also suggests that faculty opinion is divided. Some have suggested going to a direct number-grade system.
One question has been whether the change would result in lowered GPAs in general; some wondered whether it might not raise them. Data was collected from six semesters when UAF was on an ‘advisory’ plus/minus grading system (not counted in the GPA), Fall 1990 to Spring 1993. Factoring the plus/minus points into GPAs yielded only negligibly lower results than if they were not calculated, both in overall GPA and across nearly twenty representative courses from different departments (ENGL 111X, MATH 107, PHIL 322X, PHYS 103, ANTH/SOC 100X, GEOS 101X, etc.). Example: 2.838 vs. 2.817, or 3.080 vs. 3.067. Other factors being roughly equal, in this comparison of scenarios we can expect that the overall GPA difference is likely to be minimal if UAF were to change to a plus/minus system that is counted in the GPA. (It is a credit to their offices, and a good sign at UAF, that Registrar Tim Stickel and Ian Olson of PAIR were able to provide such useful data and analysis, exactly what we wanted, so quickly and efficiently.) 
Three-Part Plan: Electronic Documents, Public Forum/Discussion, Faculty Referendum
There is some question about who will make the decision. In the judgment of the committee the vote should ultimately be up to the faculty, not decided by everyone in the university. All the same, student, staff and administrative input should certainly be sought and taken into account. The outcome would be determined by a majority of the UAF faculty in a direct referendum. A three-part plan is proposed:
1) Compile email address lists for all UAF faculty.  Send faculty results of the + calculations, and information on the proposed change, along with a statement supporting the referendum, giving the reasons why the change is desirable (the memo from President Layer has already done this, and could be adapted into a statement); and a statement against the proposed change, with the reasons why it should be opposed (we would need a volunteer who feels strongly to draft this statement). This should be done before Spring Break (i.e. no later than March 10).
2) Set up a time/place for a public forum on the issue, with discussion and debate mediated by members of the Faculty Senate and CAC. We will seek ASUAF representation, and comments and questions from the community can be taken, as well as any prepared remarks delivered. This should be in early April. It should be publicized well on campus; we can begin by consulting with Sheri Layral on the logistics.
3) An electronic referendum to be held one week after the public forum and discussion. CAC will analyze results: if in favor, we will bring forward a motion to the Senate to change the grading system; if opposed, we will report our results and not take up the question of plus/minus grades again for a long time. This must all be compiled and processed by the May meeting of the Faculty Senate.

ATTACHMENT 135/5
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Curricular Affairs Committee         Minutes
Monday February 6, 2006   11:45-12:45  Wood Center Conference Room A 

Present: Anthony Rickard, Carol Lewis, Anna Berge, Ataur Chowdury, Jodie Anderson, Joseph Thompson, Katrin Iken, Tim Stickel, registrar, student woman, Rainer Newberry

1.	motions to turn back the clock & re-instate the 'NB' and 'I as I' grades
Pete Pinney brought this up.  Basically the I and NB policies were created 1988.  They were modified in 1996 to eliminate the NB and change I so that it doesn't turn into an F.  However, an 'I' that is really a no penalty late withdrawal is a really clunky use of the 'I'.   Essentially the problem is that the CDRC faculty feel incapable of giving grades of 'F' and will use whatever mechanism available to do so.  There are several possibilities: (a) different rules for CDRC faculty and the rest of us (b) do nothing (c) change back to the old NB & I…the committee spent yet another hour debating this, but still has not reached a real consensus. 

         The original, 1988 policies:
"NB-No basis—Instructors may award a No Basis (NB) grade if there is insufficient student progress and/or attendance for evaluation to occur. No credit is given, nor is the 'NB' calculated in the GPA.  This is a permanent grade and may not be used to substitute for the incomplete (I).  It cannot be removed by later completing outstanding work.

Incomplete Grade Policy
The letter grade "I" (incomplete) is a temporary grade used to indicate that the student has satisfactorily completed (C or better) the majority of work in a course but for personal reasons beyond the student's control, such as sickness, has not been able to complete the course during the regular semester.  Normally, an incomplete is assigned in the case when the student is current in the class until at least the last three weeks of the semester or summer session. Negligence or indifference are not acceptable reasons for an "I" grade.  The deferred grade (DF) should be used for those cases when a student is unable to complete a course due to institutional reasons, such as breakdown of laboratory equipment.  

     The instructor will also include a statement of the work required of the student to complete the course at the time the "I" grade is assigned and a copy of the notice of the incomplete grade will be sent to the dean of the school or college in which the course is given.

	An incomplete must be made up within one year or it will automatically be changed to an "F" grade by the Records Office.  The "I" grade is not computed in the student's grade point average until it has been changed to a regular letter grade by the instructor or until one year has elapsed at which time it will be computed as an "F".  A senior cannot graduate with an "I" grade in either a University or major course requirement.  To determine a senior's grade point average at graduation, the "I" grade will be computed as a failing grade."

We unanimously agreed to add this line: An instructor intending to assign a grade of 'I" will make a concerted effort to contact the affected student and secure his/her acknowledgement of the conditions.
	
Here was the Justification for dropping the NB and Changing I, Dec 9, 1996
	This change in the "I" grade gives the instructor the option to control the time limits and to issue a grade based on the work turned in.  The permanent "I" more correctly reflects what the student did not accomplish, as compared to the transformation of the "I" to an "F".  A student who receives a permanent "I" grade would have to retake the course to earn credit.  The criteria by which the instructor will issue the "I" can be delineated at the beginning of the course, just as they do for all other grades.  As per the catalog instructors are expected to state their grading policies in writing at the beginning of each course.

Changes in the "I", and "W" grading policies address the purposes for having the "NB" grade.  Therefore the "NB" rade is no longer needed.

    2.	+/- grades: it's time to put the pedal to the metal.  We've got the data—what's our next step??  We were basically out of time.  Rainer  threatened to email every committee member several times before the next meeting for specific ideas RE getting this off the ground.  This threat was acknowledged by the committee.

    3.	AFTER 15 MONTHS OF EFFORT THE ENROLLMENT MANAGEMENT TASK FORCE HAS COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS DESIGNED TO IMPROVE OUR GRADUATION RATE. 

There are bunches of recommendations (to the provost) and several concern the Faculty Senate.  Briefly: (a) the requirements for admission to the baccalaureate program will be raised from 2.0 GPA to either 3.0 GPA or 2.5 GPA + min ACT score (18).  The approximately 1/3 of the applicants who don't meet these criteria will be admitted as 'Batchelor's Intended' (BI) students.  Such a student will be admitted as a baccalaureate student after completion of at least 14 credits at the 100 level or above with a GPA of > 2.0, including 9 credits of core courses each passed with a grade of C or better.
  
The idea behind this change is that students who aren't really prepared to undertake a BA/BS/MBA degree are 'brought up to speed' with a combination of developmental and 'easy' 100-level courses.  Such a proposal ALSO requires that 100-level courses are carefully rated so that marginal students don't take them until they're prepared.  This brings us back to the issues of (a) creating prereqs for 100-level courses (e.g., should a student be concurrently enrolled in Engl 111 before being able to enroll in Econ/PolySci 100x?  should a student be concurrently enrolled in Math 107 before being able to enroll in Chem 105?) and (b) enforcing the prerequisites.

(A) Banner can help if UAF, UAA, and UAS agree.  (B) require advisors to check prereqs before signing registration form.  (c) Someone in admissions & records checks for students w/ prerequisites (instead of individual instructors)?

    At any rate, we'll need some legislation if this will come to pass.  
Also, we ought to go on record approving the change in admission requirements if we feel so inclined….

As with item #2, we were out of town and there was no time for discussion.  However, no one screamed bloody murder about the issues.

----------------------------

Curricular Affairs Committee         minutes
Monday Febr 20  ‘06         12-1 pm Nat Sci 301

Present:  Anthony Rickard, Carol Lewis, Anna Berge, Ataur Chowdhury, Katrin Iken, Tim Stickel, Rainer Newberry, Linda Hapsmith, Jodie Anderson, Melissa McGinty, Pete Pinney (guest)

1.	Motions to bring back  ‘I as I’  and NB
Preliminary considerations:    a.  Tim Stickel says that we will have electronic faculty-initiated withdrawal; however this will only be available for full-semester courses; others will still need paper copies.  b.  according to J. Weber’s accounting, ~1/2 of the CRCD faculty are in favor, ~1/2 opposed.  According to Pete P., this is a rural-urban split.    The committee was split between those who favor the return of the NB and those who oppose, but most agree that the faculty senate as a whole should argue & vote on it.  

       Motion: to change the I and NB policies as follows
     Incomplete Grade Policy
The letter grade "I" (incomplete) is a temporary grade used to indicate that the student has satisfactorily completed (C or better) the majority of work in a course but for personal reasons beyond the student's control, such as sickness, has not been able to complete the course during the regular semester.  Normally, an incomplete is assigned in the case when the student is current in the class until at least the last three weeks of the semester or summer session. Negligence or indifference are not acceptable reasons for an "I" grade.  The deferred grade (DF) should be used for those cases when a student is unable to complete a course due to institutional reasons, such as breakdown of laboratory equipment.  
     The instructor will also include a statement of the work required of the student to complete the course at the time the "I" grade is assigned and a copy of the notice of the incomplete grade will be sent to the dean of the school or college in which the course is given.  An instructor intending to assign a grade of ‘I” will make a concerted effort to contact the affected student and secure his/her acknowledgement of the conditions.
     An incomplete must be made up within one year or it will automatically be changed to an "F" grade by the Records Office.  The "I" grade is not computed in the student's grade point average until it has been changed to a regular letter grade by the instructor or until one year has elapsed at which time it will be computed as an "F".  A senior cannot graduate with an "I" grade in either a University or major course requirement.  To determine a senior's grade point average at graduation, the "I" grade will be computed as a failing grade.
        NB-No basis—Instructors may award a No Basis (NB) grade if there is insufficient student progress and/or attendance for evaluation to occur. No credit is given, nor is the ‘NB’ calculated in the GPA.  This is a permanent grade and may not be used to substitute for the incomplete (I).  It cannot be removed by later completing outstanding work.
	
  Motion passed 6  to 3

2.  +/- grades: it’s time to put the pedal to the metal.  We’ve got the data—what’s our next step??    Joseph notified that he would miss the meeting and agreed that his penance would be to put together such a plan. 

3. Regulations for ‘practicum/externship/internship’.  Right now, there are none.    Katrin to work on this.  Progress report:   Checking around, there are apparently no standards out there.
Presumably the hours per credit should be more than a lab, hence > 3 hours/week/credit
Joy Morrison claims there’s a 75 hours/semester/credit rule  (~5.5 hrs/week/credit)   
Career Services has a collection of such (Patti Picha) .  After a modest amount of arm-twisting, the following agreed to be a sub-committee, with Katrin as chair:  Anthony, Katrin, Jodie, Linda, Anna  

4.  a new and easy one?  --BONUS CREDITS
The current bonus credit policy is:
Foreign Language/Alaska Native Language--After completing the course in which you were placed (above 101) and earning a B grade or higher, you may ask to receive credit for the two immediately preceding prerequisite courses, if any. However, credit cannot be awarded for such courses if university credit has already been granted (e.g., through College Board Advanced Placement national tests or credit transfer from another college). Credit will not be awarded for special topics courses, individual study courses, literature or culture courses, conversation courses, or any course taught in English.

Motion to change to:
“Alaska Native Language--After completing the course in which you were placed (above 101) and earning a B grade or higher, you may ask to receive credit for the two immediately preceding prerequisite courses, if any. Credit will not be awarded for special topics courses, individual study courses, literature or culture courses, conversation courses, or any course taught in English.”

The Dept. Foreign Languages is asking to do away with this manner of earning credit for the following reasons:
•	it is redundant: Students may earn up to 16 credits in French, German, and Spanish through the CLEP test offered by Testing Services. Tests in Japanese and Russian are offered by BYU and are also accepted by UAF. (see p. 31 of the UAF catalog) 
•	it duplicates AP credit: local AP language teachers are advising students not to take the AP test if they are planning to attend UAF because they can get the credit simply by taking a class.
•	it is inconsistent with other academic disciplines: Foreign Languages and Alaska Native Languages are the only programs that offer this sort of credit. ANL chooses to maintain the policy because there are no tests available in Alaskan Native languages. Other departments have no such policy- why should we be different? 
•	it does not benefit heritage and native speakers: as languages grow in popularity more and more heritage and native speakers (in Spanish particularly, but also in other languages) are signing up for classes. Under the current policy they must begin at the 300-level in order to earn bonus credits for the prior courses. Many of these students are not served by 300-level classes and should go directly into more advanced courses, but cannot do so because they will lose their chance to earn “bonus” credits. 
•	it creates difficulties for instructors: students take classes that they really should not be in (for which they are either under- or over-prepared) so that they can try to get bonus credits. This creates difficulties for instructors who are trying to deal with, for example, a native speaker in a third-year language class. 
•	it is overly complicated: along with increased popularity and enrollment come increased difficulties. While we attempted to draft a policy that would cover all situations, this has not turned out to be so. Not a week goes by without some new, unexpected request for credit that must be dealt with on a case by case basis. The evaluation of these cases is causing an undue burden to faculty and staff.

Unanimously approved with the proviso that ANL makes clear what they want and FL agrees to the make exams available for post 100-level courses.    We’ll bring this up at the Fac Senate meeting in 6 weeks?  Sooner if possible.

Ran out of time…..and didn’t get to this one…

5.  Summer Special Topics Courses
     ‘Special topics’ courses are a one-time, target of opportunity means of bypassing the normal course review mechanisms.  They are explicitly not to be used more than once.  If it’s a good idea, it’s supposed to go through the trial course or new course approval process.  This is true for all courses except SUMMER SPECIAL TOPICS.  These can be repeated infinitely (or at any rate, there’s no restriction on how many times they can be offered) with only the most perfunctory of reviews.   For example, there’s a stacked 200/600 level summer trial course on the books for next summer that’s happened once before and will presumably happen again, without review.  200/600????????  Here’s the question: should summer special topics courses be subject to the same restrictions as normal special topics?  That is, they can’t be repeated as such, but must become either trial courses or real courses.

ATTACHMENT 135/6
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Minutes of Committee on the Status of Women
February 7, 2006

Present: Uma Bhatt, Renate Wackerbauer, Denise Thorsen, Jane Weber, Carol Gold, Sine Anahita, Wendy Zhou, Qwentyn Richards, & Cindy Hardy 

1)  How should the committee proceed? We discussed our procedures and goals. 

2)  The motion to extend the membership to 9 members, two of which are Senators, passed at the Senate meeting of 2/6/06.

3)  Committee nominations for next year were discussed.

4)  UAF’s Strategic Plan 2010:  We moved to put forth a motion resolving that the statement on diversity should not be removed from the “Vision Statement” of the Strategic Plan 2010.  Motion needs to go to the Chancellor before 2/12/06. 

The rationales are:
- We do have strengths in the area of cultural diversity
- Such a statement has been in the plan for 15 years - what message does it send if we take it out?
- What message are we sending to our rural and Alaska native students, women, and members of other minorities if we take it out? 
- “Vision statements” are statements of what we’re striving for.

5) An article about student teaching evaluations was given out.  We’ll put this on next year’s agenda. 

6) Sine summarized the salary issue and we will do a supplemental report on this issue.  

ATTACHMENT 135/7
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Core Review Committee

Report for the Senate Minutes.  The committee met on 9 February with six members present. Also present were Linda Hapsmith and Melissa McGinty.  

After reviewing twelve petitions, the committee endorsed a draft of a formal statement of problems with transfer-credit substitutions within the state system.  It expects that certain discussed recommendations for palliative measures will be added.  It agreed to meet next on 23 February.

*******************

DRAFT   DRAFT   DRAFT   DRAFT   DRAFT

Memorandum
        to:	Paul Layer, president of the Faculty Senate of the University of Alaska Fairbanks	
    from: 	M. A. Box, chair of the senate’s Core Review Committee	
    date: 	18 February 2006	
subject: 	transfer credits for general-education requirements within the state system	
 copies: 	the Core Review Committee; P. Morrow, dean of the College of Liberal Arts; P. Reichardt, provost; C. Gold, chair of the Department of History; J. Rosenberg, chair of the Department of Political Science; M. Schuldiner, chair of the Department of English; Michael Earnest, associate director of admissions	

This memorandum responds to your request for a formal statement of the problems with transfer credits for baccalaureate general-education requirements within the state system.  As you know, these problems stem from a regents’ policy (pt. 10, ch. 4, § 6) that in part is enacted in the table of substitutions for courses within the system (see, e.g., UAF 2005-2006 Catalog 32).  The problem is that transfer substitutions for required courses are imposed on Fairbanks that strike faculty as inappropriate.  It is troublesome here and not elsewhere in the state system in that it arises only for transfers into a core curriculum from curriculums arranged more conventionally into guided menus.  The regents’ policy either (a) presupposes incorrectly that all universities in the system have structured their general-education requirements as guided menus, or (b) deliberately suspends the core curriculum at Fairbanks for intrasystem transfers.  Whichever description is accurate, the effect is the same when students transfer general-education course credits into Fairbanks from her sister universities.
The two approaches to the requirements are incommensurable, one giving priority to a structured curriculum aiming at a consciously formulated conception of a liberal education, the other to students’ election of courses introducing them to different fields of study.  The difference is explained in Provost Reichardt’s white paper.
The approaches taken by UAA and UAS are similar and can be characterized as “restricted menus.”  That is, each of these institutions has ensured a common educational experience by defining broad areas of knowledge to which every graduate must be exposed and has then developed a menu of courses that can be used to fulfill the requirements in each of these broad areas.  At UAS, for example, there are at least twenty-one courses that can be used to fulfill the requirement for three credits of humanities.  Similarly, at UAA any of nine courses can be used to meet the “quantitative skills” requirement.

UAF, however, has taken an approach that can be characterized as a “core curriculum.”  That is, the UAF faculty has developed a formal statement of the “foundation of skills and knowledge” that it expects of baccalaureate graduates and, based upon that philosophical statement, a core curriculum to address it.  While there are elements of the menu approach within this core curriculum, there are also well-defined elements of each course that must be present in order for it to satisfy one of the core requirements.  These restrictions are most evident in the portion of the core curriculum that is focused on the humanities and social sciences, where cross-disciplinary and interdisciplinary courses have been developed to address the philosophical expectations.  (1)
For example, though both a lower-level course in American literature and one in “world” literatures would serve to introduce students to the broad area of literary studies, they are not interchangeable for us because the former does not address the purpose for which our course, World Literature, was placed in our core curriculum.  English/Foreign Language 200X was created to counteract temporal and geographical ethnocentrism.  To put it negatively and formulaically, our requirement is not satisfied by any course exploring literature in only one or two peoples, regions, or languages (albeit in translation), not to mention periods of history.  A course in American literature at another university that is imposed on Fairbanks as a substitute for World Literature contravenes the rationale of the core curriculum, however excellent that course might be for other purposes.  Needless to say, no one faults courses in American literature or general-education requirements structured as a guided menu featuring electives within broad areas of study.  The point is that Fairbanks chose another valid approach to curricular design according to which a course in American literature belongs elsewhere than in the core.
Regents’ Policy
To these concerns regents’ policy 10.04.06 is blithely indifferent.  Under “General Education Coursework Transfers,” the regents state the following.
1.	The general education requirements for each University of Alaska university and community college will include a common core of coursework constructed in part to facilitate transfer of general education credit among the University of Alaska universities and community colleges.
2.		A student who has completed the general education requirements at one University of Alaska university or community college and transfers to another University of Alaska university or community college will be considered to have completed the general education requirements at all University of Alaska universities and community colleges.
3.		A student who has completed some of the general education requirements at one University of Alaska university or community college will have those credits count toward fulfillment of the same categories of general education requirements outlined in the common core at all University of Alaska universities and community colleges.  This applies even if there is no directly matching coursework at the institution to which the student transfers. This statement will be published in each university and community college catalog.  (Board of Regents, P10.04.06) 
Despite the reference in article 1 to a “core,” the regents plainly did not intend a systemwide adoption of the core approach to curricular design, much less a systemwide adoption of a common core curriculum.  The language seems to prescribe the establishment of a common subset of courses included in the larger set of general-education requirements.  But the logic of article 3 indicates otherwise since if the courses in this subset were common throughout the system, there would be no point to the policy stated in the article to override projected mismatches between courses in the three universities’ “common core.”  Whatever was meant by “common core of coursework,” article 3 envisions mismatches that article 1 tries to prevent from happening on a large scale.  In fact both articles 2 and 3 presuppose and attempt to solve problems of mismatching of courses that article 1 falls short of solving. 
It will be better to step back from the confused language of the articles and interpret them broadly and sympathetically in terms of their evident purposes.  We will get some surprising results.  Although the regents wish to respect the academic autonomy of the universities, they also want transfers between the universities not to be punitive for students.  Towards that goal they direct three things. 
1.	There will be some commonality in the courses in the three sets of general-education requirements so that the sets are not totally disparate.  
2.	However an admitting institution might assess a transcript of a transferring student, whether that student has completed his or her general-education requirements will be decided by the institution where the student took the general-education courses.  
3.	Those students not having certifiably completed their requirements before transferring will not have the courses that they did take disallowed as substitutes for core requirements on the basis of a mismatch in course content.  The category of general-education requirement (communication, natural sciences, and so on) will be deemed fulfilled by any course placed in that category at the institution from which the student is transferring.
Articles 2-3 appear to be attempts to cut a Gordian Knot left tied by article 1, whatever that article might accomplish.  The knot is the problem of how to allow students to transfer within the system and not have to start their general education over again or go back to lower-level courses when intellectually they have progressed past the point at which those courses are challenging.  The way of cutting the knot is, counterintuitively, to relocate the assessment of a student’s prior work from the university to which the student is seeking admission to that from which the student is transferring.  With respect to academic standards, each of the three universities is made dependent upon the other two to keep their curriculums at a parity of rigor.
The Downside of Courses in Common
Article 1 presupposes that courses in common throughout the system unproblematically facilitate transfers.  There never has been a deliberate construction of a common set of general-education courses for the three universities.  Such commonality as exists is the effect of different faculties’ subscription to a professional consensus about coursework in their fields, not of a planned standardization systemwide.  Given the regents’ policy, commonality actually becomes a problem when a course offered both here and elsewhere in the system is imposed on Fairbanks as a substitute for a core course, creating a discrepancy in which our own native sons and daughters can take that course, indeed be required to take it by the requirements of their major, and yet not be allowed to apply it to the core requirement as do transfer students.  The discrepancy is glaring also to students transferring here.  In illustration I will quote from Jonathan Rosenberg, the chair of our department of political science: 
The most consistent problem we have with UAA and UAS transfers is the substitution of Introduction to American Government and Introduction to Political Science for Political Economy.  This is especially problematic for our majors and minors who are required to take both our PS 100X and 101 (Introduction to American Government and Politics).  Students may take the equivalent of our 101 at UAA or UAS, have it evaluated as a substitute for 100X and still have to take our 101 despite its having identical content to the course they have already taken.  (qtd. in Callahan)
To exempt such majors from Political Science 101 would be to allow them to use one course to fulfill two different requirements, effectively to pretend that one requirement did not exist.  
Establishing Completion of Requirements
According to article 2, Fairbanks should not contradict Anchorage if Anchorage has determined that by its own curriculum a student transferring to Fairbanks has completed the requirements.  This arrangement means, as noted above, that the assessment of a student’s general education is not best made by the admissions office of the university to which the student is transferring.  Differing judgments about completion are not merely an abstract possibility.  Last semester the Core Review Committee had to judge an appeal in which Anchorage and Fairbanks differed over whether a student had completed his requirements.  According to reckonings in Anchorage, a student who had transferred into our engineers’ “Two Plus Two” program had completed his literature requirement.  But my predecessor as chair had disapproved the petition in the summer, the provost had affirmed the disapproval in October, and in the event my committee reaffirmed the disapproval on 23 November.  As I wrote on our agenda for that meeting, 
Our catalogue explicitly disallows what is requested (table 6 on page 35), namely the substitution of College Board Advanced Placement test results for any English course other than our first composition course (English 111).  The basis for the petition to apply a test result to World Literature (English 200X) is that the test was taken at Anchorage rather than here.  Anchorage applied the results to its Introduction to Literature (English 121), which regents policy for intrastate transfer substitutions requires us to accept for our core requirement.  In short, if the student had taken the examination here, he would have no basis for a petition.  (Box)
In this case we judged that though regents’ policy forces course substitutions on us, it is another matter for a substitution for a course (i.e., an examination) to be substituted for another course in our core by imposition, especially when that use of the examination results is disallowed by our catalog.  
Favoring Categories at the Expense of Course Content
According to article 3, if a student transferring to Fairbanks took no courses with a content like that of our World Literature, a humanities course of some sort will be deemed to satisfy the category of requirement.  Here the result can be anomalous substitutions for core courses that are disparate in subject matter.  For our Modern World History we must accept Anchorage’s Business Administration 151 (Introduction to Business Administration) and Social Work 243 (Cultural Diversity and Community Services), which are not even courses in history, much less ones that seek to deal with their topics on the transnational scale envisioned by the framers of the core curriculum.
Sometimes the course is at a lower level of academic rigor than the core course for which it is substituted.  Our admissions office informs me that University of Alaska Southeast’s Introduction to Chemical Science (Chem S100) presents this problem.  Because it “satisfies General Education Requirements at UAS, we have to take it as core credit at UAF.  ….  The course description is identical [to] our CHEM F075, which is considered below college level” (Earnest, “Re: problems w/transfers”).  A double problem of discrepant content and academic level probably exists in substituting for our World Literature that university’s Freshman Seminar: A Sense of Place (HUM S120), which is designed to assist first-year students “in finding their place in the university setting” (qtd. in Earnest).
The Scale of the Problem
Although it would be inaccurate to say that we have a massive problem urgently needing remedy, the problem is not going away on its own.  As the provost noted,  
With increasing frequency UAF students feel free to decide which part of the UAF core requirements they will meet with UAF courses and which ones they will meet by taking a distance-delivered GER [general-education requirement] course from one of the other MAUs, transferring it to UAF, and demanding that it be applied to the UAF core curriculum requirements.  Another set of requests (demands) comes from UAF students who live in the Anchorage area and take UAA Summer Session offerings when they are home for the summer.  ….  In essence, the liberal transfer policy is undermining the UAF core curriculum.  (Reichardt 2)
So the problem should not be ignored.  Any attempt to deal with the problem runs up against a natural reluctance in the system to attempt an overhaul of regents’ policy, and two reasons can be readily imagined for this reluctance.  It would be bureaucratically difficult to achieve and, more importantly, the regents’ policy was intended to accomplish something worthwhile.  Any steps we might take probably should treat respectfully the goals of not letting transferring become punitive and of not directing advanced students into courses that, as well as serving their specific purposes in the core, also serve as lower-level courses for freshmen and sophomores.
Remedial Measures
It would be idle to hope that the other universities would adopt a core curriculum to achieve compatibility with us.  If they did, the chances are low that their core curriculums would match up well with ours.  If they wished to adopt our own core curriculum, they would have to start hiring to shape their faculty to teach the new courses.  Our English Department hired two specialists in comparative literature to oversee the course in World Literature.
If compatibility for transfer credits is the highest priority, then the logic of the situation points towards our adjusting to the rest of the state and adopting a menu of introductory courses, which are inherently more standardized and amenable to substitution.  To do so would make us more compatible with the universities outside of Alaska, too.  But I doubt that for our faculty compatibility is the highest priority.  Many in our faculty will argue that the pedagogical value of the core is important enough that they would rather live with the anomalous transfer-credit substitutions  that the regents’ policy has created.
So another possibility is to affirm that the core the regents confirmed years ago is still as valuable as it was when they confirmed it and then find a way to live with the anomalies.  Accepting that a remedy is out of our reach, we can still minimize the problem so as to make it more tolerable.  Following are some measures for consideration.  Those whose task it would be to implement them will know better how practicable and efficacious these suggestions are.
Palliative Measures: Courses in Common 
Jonathan Rosenberg tells me that he intervenes when he sees a major or minor in political science applying credit for Anchorage’s or Juneau’s introductions to political science or American government to our core course in political economy.  Transfer students can be made to see the sense of applying their credit for these courses to the requirements in our major and minor, for which they are a direct match, and of taking our core course.  Obviously it would do much if our admissions office could advise transfer students likewise that applying a direct match with one of our courses to a core course is not preferable to applying it to the course with which it is a direct match.
A transfer student who, invoking regents’ policy, insists on applying a course offered in common towards a core course should not be exempted from the requirement in the major or minor that would have been met by that course.  Neither is it desirable for that student to take a course  twice.  The departments facing this situation might designate some other course in their array as an alternate to fill that requirement so that students do not take twice what is nominally the same course.  Would it be impudent to suggest that it might be sensible for the alternate to fill the requirement in the major and minor to be designated as the core course?  If the student is exempt from the course in the core curriculum, that course might be required in the major (or minor) as an alternate to the course offered in common in the three universities.
Such a measure might look like evasion of regents’ policy, but in fact it allows regents’ policy to achieve its goals while not undermining the requirements of the baccalaureate degree.  It was not the regents’ intention for students to take courses twice.  On the other hand, a department might have some course at that level other than the core course to which it would prefer to direct enrollment.
Palliative Measures: Establishing Completion of Requirements Prior to Transferring
It could be that if we can address the problem with advanced-placement examinations the problem of disagreements over whether transfer students have completed their general-education requirements would largely abate.  In case it would not, we might try formalizing the regents’ policy by instituting some certification of completion by the university at which the student took the courses.  What this certification might look like will be best decided by the administrative staff in admissions and graduation who deal in these matters daily.  
It might be possible for the three universities to arrive at a common use of advanced-placement scores, and the chair of our English Department is ready to take up the subject with the appropriate people at our sister institutions.  However, it should be understood from the beginning that the resulting standardization might be achieved by raising our academic standard rather than lowering it.
Palliative Measures: Favoring Categories at the Expense of Course Content
This problem of anomalous substitutions can be reduced as a side-effect if our sister universities  reduced the number of courses that they apply towards general-education requirements.  If Anchorage’s Business Administration 151 (Introduction to Business Administration) and Social Work 243 (Cultural Diversity and Community Services) were removed from its menu, and thence from the table of substitutions, those courses would not be imposed on us as substitutions for World History.  I have no ideas for incentives to offer our sister universities to reduce their menus other than the occasion to reform their curriculums.  Two criteria suggest themselves for dropping courses from the menus: 
(a)	the suitability of the course content for general education, understood as the foundation of a liberal education rather than as occupational preparation or an opportunity for students to sample the different fields, and 
(b)	some parity of academic level within the categories in the menu, indeed throughout the state system in the sense that everything in a category (say, social science) would be at roughly the same level regardless of which of the three universities a student attends.
Obviously our composition course English 111 is at a lower level of academic difficulty than our course in World Literature (English 200).  The point is not to make these two courses at the same level of difficulty; it is to make all courses in a single category at a parity throughout the state.  For present purposes it would not be necessary to develop some exact measurement of academic level to achieve sufficient parity.  It would require only rough judgments such as we make in assigning catalog numbers to new courses. 
As for the problems described by the provost of our students’ using distance delivery or summer courses to attempt to circumvent the requirements of the core curriculum, I have nothing to suggest other than for the university to say no to such attempted substitutions.  And that is, I believe, the provost’s policy now.  It would be better to prevent students from attempting a maneuver that will be unsuccessful and hinder their steady progress through the requirements, but I do not know how.
Conclusion
These proposals might be supplemented by other efforts at palliation as needed.  The approach is to deal with a family of problems on a problem-by-problem basis.  The proposals do not constitute an attempt to retie the knot that the regents cut so that it can be untied properly.  The present instance illustrates the fact that cutting knots is messy, not clean.  We envision here an exercise in maintenance of the curriculum that attends to the resulting loose ends.  
Works Cited
Board of Regents, P10.04.06, “Transfer of Credit,” Policy & Regulation, U of Alaska system website.  16 January 2006 <http://www.alaska.edu/bor/policy/10p/p10-02.doc>.
Box, M. A.  Agenda for the meeting of the Core Review Committee of 2-3 p.m. Wednesday 23 November 2005.  Electronic message.  21 November 2005.
Callahan, Karen Lee.  “Re: Problem cases of transfers.”  Electronic message to the author.  23 January 2006.
Earnest, Michael.  “Re: augmented draft of the statement.”  Electronic message to the author.  16 February 2006.
—.  “Re: problems w/transfers w/in the state system.”  Electronic message to the author.  18 January 2006.
Reichardt, Paul.  “General Education Requirements within the UA System.”  White paper, 15 July 2005.
University of Alaska Fairbanks.  UAF 2005-2006 Catalog.  Fairbanks: U of Alaska Fairbanks, [2005]. 

ATTACHMENT 135/8
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Developmental Studies Committee
February 10, 2006

Attending: Nancy Ayagarak, Ron Illingworth, Bernice Joseph, Cindy Hardy, Debbie Toopetlook, John Creed, Linda Hapsmith, Joe Mason, Margie Illingworth.

Old Business:

Minutes: were approved.

Motion to expand the role of the committee: A motion was put forward to expand the role of the committee to include curricular review of vocational programs, including AAS and Certificate programs.  After some discussion, the committee focused on the following questions:
Do we really want to take on the oversight of all AAS and certificate course reviews? Do we risk confusing courses specifically designed to fit a vocational need with developmental courses, whose intent is to prepare students for further academic coursework? 
We agreed that there's a risk in labeling any courses as having “primarily developmental level content.”  We also agreed that taking on this role might dilute the focus of the committee at a time when there's much attention paid to the role of developmental education in the university and we may have far more work to do in the near future. We agreed to withdraw the motion, but to continue to be willing to review vocational courses that contain math, English or study skills content and to advise the Curricular Review committee on these courses.   Margie made the motion to withdraw the original motion.  It passed unanimously and the motion to expand the role of the committee was withdrawn.

Continued discussion of 100-level designators-  Developmental faculty have been discussing the question of the alignment of developmental course number designators and the need for 100-level designators to replace some 0-level designators.   This is an ongoing topic of discussion and information gathering.

Enrollment Management committee report- Bernice and Nancy reported to the committee on the Enrollment Management meeting held February 3.  Everyone on the task force supported the new admission requirements to the bachelor's degree programs (HS 3.0 or HS 2.5 plus ACT 18) with the caveat that we improve student support.   The move to "selective" admissions while maintaining UAF's open enrollment policy will mean beefing up the Advising Center and the role of departmental  "Bachelor-Intended" advisors.  The task force has asked for the 5th floor of Gruening for the Department of Developmental Education, the Advising Center, and a learning center.  They recommended the hiring of three math and two English instructors.  The task force also recommended the coordination of developmental education courses across campuses.  

The task force also brought up reading as an issue. When mandatory placement is initiated, reading classes will probably be most impacted by increased enrollment, due to the levels of reading needed for many 100-level core classes.   The task force acknowledged the need for budgetary support for developmental education. 

Bernice noted that a report from the February 3 meeting will be out in a week.  It will go to the Chancellor's Cabinet and recommend that these changes be in place for the Fall semester 2008.

 STARR committee- Craig Dorman's office has asked Dave Veazey to convene a statewide committee (STARR--Statewide Taskforce to Assure Remediation Results) to look at how developmental education is currently implemented throughout the state and to recommend improvements in our developmental programs.  Cindy will be working closely with this committee.  She and others from Anchorage and Juneau are going to NADE, sponsored by Dorman's office. Fairbanks members of the committee include Jane Weber and Joe Mason.  

New business:

Distance Ed support for developmental education- Bernice reported from the Provost’s Council that UAF got $475,000 for performance-based budgeting.  A portion of this goes to distance education development.  Bernice is on the subcommittee on distance education whose priorities include: developmental studies distance support, a site on both lower and upper campuses in Fairbanks for distance education course delivery, and the development of distance-based core classes.  Because of mandatory placement, the subcommittee has asked what can be done to support developmental education with one-time student support funds.  Suggestions include tutoring, especially in English, for distance students; online self-tutoring programs such as PLATO (this could be run as a pilot initially); developing a website for an on-line learning center;  and better data collection assistance.  The funds for this need to be spent before June 30.  Bernice will take our suggestions back to the subcommittee.

Next meeting: Friday, March 10, 11:30-1:00.

ATTACHMENT 135/9
UAF Faculty Senate #135
March 6, 2006

Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee
Meeting Report

The Faculty Appeals and Oversight Committee met with Provost Reichardt and discussed the administrative review of IARC Director Syun Akasofu.  The committee also approved and moved to forward to the Administrative Committee two motions updating the administrative review process.