To the Academic Senate, Santa Cruz Division:

This year, the Committee on Educational Policy devoted most of its time in consideration of both aspects of the campus's student assessment policy: grading and narrative evaluations. Slated for agenda discussion this year, with preliminary discussions included: the writing-intensive requirement, and the Santa Clara Valley Regional Center.

The Committee carried out its usual substantial amount of routine business: course approval, catalog review, external review of programs, review of student petitions, and responses to questions from faculty, students, and the administration. CEP members represented the Committee on the Senate Advisory Committee (SAC), Campus Academic Planning Council (CAPC), the Universitywide Committee on Educational Policy (UCEP), and external reviews of programs.

Late in Fall, 1999, 18 Senators called for a Special Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division to discuss a proposal to change UCSC's student assessment policy. The proposal called for mandatory grades and a change from the current mandatory to an optional narrative evaluation system. In a close vote, the proposal was referred to CEP.

The Committee divided discussion into two areas: grading and narrative evaluations. CEP first considered the specifics of the grading proposal presented at the December Special Meeting, and drafted a revision of that proposal with: 1) no more than 25% of the UCSC credits applied toward graduation may be taken for P/NP; 2) courses graded NP will appear on the transcript; 3) pluses and minuses may be added as modifiers to the grades A, B, and C; 4) courses with grades D or F may be repeated for credit; and 5) a quarterly and cumulative grade point average (GPA) for UCSC courses will appear on the transcript. The threshold for passing for courses taken on a Pass/No Pass basis and for satisfaction of both general education and major requirements was placed at the level of C; i.e. work performed at the C (minus) level would not be acceptable for general education or for work in the major, and if taken P/NP would receive an NP. At the February Senate meeting, CEP's proposal was discussed and approved effective fall, 2001, with one amendment: "that the pass be at the C minus level rather than at the C level." A mail ballot was called and conducted early in the spring quarter, but the votes have not been tabulated pending a definitive interpretation of the amendment. Resolution of the referendum on the grading proposal as amended will continue into next year.

After the Senate's passage of the grading proposal in February, CEP devoted most of its time in discussion of the second part of UCSC's student assessment system: the narrative evaluation system. The pending proposal from the December Senate meeting called for optional narratives. CEP considered this proposal as the functional equivalent of termination, so devoted its attention to consideration of reform options so that the Senate could debate the issue.

CEP considered various proposals that fell under the following two general categories: "universal" narratives and "systematically restricted" narratives. Proposals for the "universal" narratives or performance evaluations for all classes tended to emphasize cultural and technical reforms to make narratives shorter and less work for faculty, and to make transcripts professional and attractive. "Systematically restricted" narrative evaluations fell into three categories: restriction by class size, restriction by performance in class, and restriction by class status, e.g. lower vs. upper division.

In a split vote, CEP decided to present one proposal at the Spring, 2000 Senate meeting: mandatory evaluations in upper division courses, with the provision for course-sponsoring agencies to require narratives in designated lower division courses. CEP believed that it would be a robust, comprehensible, and attractive system that would apply to all of a student’s most important work, especially within her major field(s) of study; it would be making an "uncommon commitment" in several ways that could provide a comparative advantage when it comes to recruitment, retention, and post-graduation; and that performance evaluations would no longer be a substitute for grades, but rather an addition and enhancement. Unfortunately, the proposal was not discussed as planned at the May Senate meeting due to the cancellation of the meeting. CEP's discussion of the narrative evaluation system will begin anew with the new committee in the fall.

CEP's plans to review all of UCSC's general education requirements, after the mail ballot in spring 1999 failed to ratify the proposal for changes to UCSC's GE, were postponed due to the Committee's attention to consideration of student assessment.

To restore the intended interpretation of the W requirement, effective fall 2001 CEP has designated the composition (C) course as a prerequisite to all W courses and consequently removed the writing-intensive designation from the college core courses. CEP anticipates further discussion of the W as well as the other general education requirements, including a particular request for review of the Ethnic Studies courses, next year.

With the approval of mandatory grading by the Senate in February, 2000, and the pending mail ballot, CEP made no changes to the list of courses appropriate for exemptions for the letter grade option. A comprehensive review of courses with P/NP only grading is slated next year.

As part of review of the curriculum for the catalog, CEP approved revisions to the Art and Biology majors. Biology revisions included: addition of a Bachelor of Science; change from the B.A. to the B.S. for Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Marine Biology; and the establishment of a new major in Ecology and Evolution. Art revisions included the addition of three foundation courses with a format of one lecture and two studio sessions per week. These courses are intended for majors; to satisfy general education requirements; and to accommodate first year students wishing to enroll in an art class.

New minors were approved for Italian Studies, Jewish Studies, and Jazz.

Other issues discussed this year were approval of honors in Women's Studies, and approval of a one-year trial period for the enrollment restriction of "interview only" for heavily-impacted Physical Education courses.

CEP discussed a case forwarded by a department asking for a re-examination of the current policy for duplication of credit, in instances where a department has designated sets of courses for which credit cannot be granted more than once. CEP was supportive of the need for students to make timely progress toward the degree with selection of a similar course not

intended for majors, but were not supportive of applying the practice for authorized repeats of courses as a model. In this case, CEP endorsed the current practice of the Registrar, which is to treat such situations as a "duplication of credit": no additional credit is awarded and the second course grade is not included in the grade point average calculation. Discussion of the practice will take place next year.

CEP participated in the external review of the Latin American and Latino Studies Department, the Writing Program, and Science Communication Program. It also reviewed the charges for the external reviews of the Astronomy/Astrophysics Department, the Art Department, the Anthropology Department, and the Sociology Department.

CEP continued to review student petitions for substitution or waivers of general education requirements. As part of next year's review of the general education requirements, the question of the lack of distinction between introduction to the discipline and topical courses in some areas as well as the distinction between upper and lower division courses will be examined.

CEP reviewed its provisional one-year approval and decided to permanently approve the one-time career exception to the letter grade deadline.

An inquiry late in the year about CEP's policy of extension of enrollment will also be taken up next year.

CEP favorably endorsed the re-organization of the Biology Department, the establishment of a new Electrical Engineering Department, as well as took part in the continuing discussion of a revision to the external review procedures and the establishment of a Santa Clara Valley Regional Center. Further discussion of the latter two items will continue next year.

CEP gratefully acknowledges the steadfast and professional assistance of Cathy Fong, whose dedication, hard work, and sense of humor, even in difficult times, were crucial to the committee's success.

October 17, 2000