|
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SANTA CRUZ |
AS/SCM/258 |
MINUTES
A
Special Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division
3
December 1999
Meeting
A Special Meeting of the Santa Cruz Division of
the Academic Senate was held Friday, December 3, 1999, the last instruction day
of the Fall Quarter, in the Media Theater, M110. With Parliamentarian David Kaun and Secretary David Koo present,
Chair Roger Anderson called the meeting to order at 3:35 pm after a quorum was
present. The Special Meeting was requested by 18 Senators on November 19, 1999
to discuss and vote on a proposed change to Santa Cruz Regulations on the
Divisional Grading System. The proposed change would eliminate the Narrative
Evaluation System (NES) and replace it with mandatory grades.
Chair Anderson requested two modifications of
Robert's Rules of Order:
1) to allow initial presentations of 12 minutes
by each of three groups: 3 of those that requested the Special Meeting; the
Chairs of the Graduate Council and the Committee on Educational Policy (CEP);
and 3 student representatives with privilege of the floor, and
2) to limit each speaker in the subsequent
debate to two minutes rather than the usual 10 minutes.
The two modifications were adopted without
objection. Chair Anderson also requested that Senate members say their name and
speak into the microphone so that an accurate record of the meeting would be
obtained by a court recorder and so that the students outside the meeting room
could listen to the debate via the broadcast system.
1. Approval of Minutes
Chair Anderson, without objection, called to
dispense with approval of the Minutes for the last Regular Meeting of the
Academic Senate held on October 27, 1999, since they were not yet available.
2. Resolution on Divisional Grading System
(AS/SCP/1256)
During the first of three sets of initial presentations,
Professor Lincoln Taiz introduced the resolution and explained the rationale
for calling a Special Meeting. Professor Deanna Shemek read the resolution,
including the amendments. Professor
Karen Bassi moved that the resolution (AS/SCP/1256) with the two amendments be
adopted. The motion was seconded. The
two amendments had been distributed to the assembly in a handout before the
start of the meeting and state the following:
i) Item #4 was amended to include the following
statement after the first sentence.
This
privilege expires for students who seek readmission after a break in attendance
greater than two years, and for students who do not graduate before September
1, 2005.
ii) Item #5 adds a new section to the original
proposed resolution that replaces the existing UCSC SR9.2. It reads as follows:
9.2
Performance Evaluations
9.2.1
At the end of the term, each instructor teaching a credit-granting course has
the option of preparing a performance evaluation for any student. The evaluation should assess the quality and
characteristics of the student's performance in the class. Performance
evaluations will be included in the student's transcript at his or her request.
The following points were included in the
presentations of Professors Lincoln Taiz, Deanna Shemek, and Karen Bassi.
Based on an overwhelming response to a petition
to change the grading system, a Special Meeting was called so that this issue
was the sole agenda item. Another rationale for the timing of the Special
Meeting was to have a mail ballot in the middle of the year within the time
limits stipulated by the Senate Bylaws.
The resolution is a formal version of a petition signed by 187 Academic
Senators. It calls for the elimination of the current mandatory NES and the
institution of a conventional letter grading system with pluses and minuses.
The grading policy proposed is consistent with that of other UC campuses. The resolution implements the UC systemwide
practice of allowing students in good standing the option of taking up to
one-third of their courses on a pass/no-pass basis, although departments may
require that courses in a major be taken for credit. The NES will be preserved for currently enrolled students, with
time restrictions that are consistent with present catalog rights policy for
graduation requirements and a five-year sunset clause (September 1, 2005).
Implementation of a mandatory grading system
will not mean elimination of commentary of student work and performance. The
criteria for a good grade is the same as that of a good evaluation. Praise and
comments on student work will continue.
Mandatory grades will be better than NES in conforming to how the world
at large recognizes student achievement. The argument that NES discourages
competition is not an argument for its retention. NES cannot and does not
ensure responsibility by the faculty for the learning environment. Students can
be motivated to do well regardless of the form of their final evaluation.
Instead of NES, students should come to UCSC because of the excellence of the
faculty, the quality of the programs, and the opportunity to develop critical
and creative talents.
The proposers want a vote on the resolution at
the meeting after discussion, but whatever the outcome, a mail ballot will be requested.
Assuming the mail ballot goes out in February 2000, this would provide two
months to fully examine and debate every possible nuance of the resolution.
In the second set of the three initial
presentations, Professors George Brown (Chair,Committee on Educational Policy)
and David Belanger (Chair, Graduate Council) made the following points in
recommending that the Senate refer the main motion to CEP and the Graduate
Council.
The process for this legislation on student
performance evaluation, one of the most important parts of the Academic Manual,
is rushed and at variance with the fundamental principal of collegial discourse
that should govern this university. The rush agenda for the Special Meeting
violates the spirit of Robert's Rules of Order. The argument that the grading issue cannot be resolved in any
other way is false. Note that the present grading system, comprising a
substantial reform of the previous system, required a year of CEP work in
1995-96, in extensive consultation with faculty, students, and alumni. Moreover, starting early in the fall of
1999, CEP had begun a full review of campus grading policy - by working with
the Registrar to compile information on best practices of other campuses and
with Vice Provost Goff to solicit information from department chairs. CEP had
planned to schedule a major debate at the regular winter quarter Senate meeting
on February 23, 2000, with the intent of forming detailed legislation as was
done in 1995-96. The Graduate Council
has also already been considering narrative evaluations and the grading system
with respect to graduate students.
The resolution before the senate is ambiguous,
incomplete, and inconsistent. Significant effort will be needed before it is
suitable for a vote by the Senate and systemwide committees. For example, the proposed resolution
confuses the type of student (undergraduate or graduate) with the level of the
course (undergraduate or graduate), so that, under this legislation, an undergraduate
student taking a graduate course would not be eligible for any grade notation.
The language addressing the transition period is ambiguous. The algorithm to
calculate the grade point average does not conform to UC practice. The
resolution is silent on determining student academic standing, a set of complex
regulations that are deeply entwined with grading policy. Although the
resolution does not address grading policy for graduate students, faculty
generally favor narrative evaluations for graduate students. In some
undergraduate courses, such as upper division laboratory courses or writing
intensive courses that are similar to graduate courses, narrative evaluations
may still be appropriate - yet the
resolution does not take this into account. Collective bargaining negotiations
with teaching assistants are currently underway, so changing the grading system
now, and thus graduate student teaching assistant working conditions, could
impact those negotiations. For all the above reasons, the resolution with its
amendments should be referred to the Committee on Educational Policy and the
Graduate Council.
In the third set of initial presentations,
student representatives Kirti Srivastrara, Manuel Schwab, and Kenny Burch made
the following points. The resolution was brought to the Senate without student
input. Students recognize the value of narrative evaluations as a genuine
indicator of academic competence. The
current regulations on grades and evaluations already allow for a grade option,
so students are not impeded from fair consideration when applying to graduate
schools. The state of the current NES,
with its burdensome workload due to increased class size and enrollments, calls
for revision. Letter grades and narrative evaluation can be made automatic,
deferring the responsibility to students if they prefer not to take a letter
grade. Making revisions responsibly and deliberately can turn the NES into a
system of the future, not a holdover from the past. Signed by 4,391 students, a
petition was presented that requested the matter be sent to a Special Committee
on Narrative Evaluations, so that all members of the campus community have an
opportunity to discuss the issue.
After the initial presentations, the floor was
opened for debate on the main motion to adopt the resolution with its two
amendments. Professor Daniel Press was the first speaker and made a subsidiary
motion, which was seconded:
To
refer the resolution to the Committee on Educational Policy and the Graduate
Council.
His original motion included a request for a
report from CEP and Graduate Council, but this was dropped after the Chair
agreed with a point of order that such a stipulation would violate an UCR&J
legislative ruling (8.95B).
Chair Anderson originally stated that Senators
could address the merits of the main motion (the resolution and its two
amendments) under the debate on the motion to refer to CEP and Graduate
Council. But this decision was later changed after the Chair's agreement with
another point of order that only the merits of the referral can be debated.
Speaking
for the Motion to Refer Speaking Against the Motion to Refer
George Blumenthal Margaret Brose
Brent Haddad Lincoln
Taiz
Donna Haraway Manfred
Warmuth
Robert Meister
Emily Moberg*
Helene Moglen Others Speaking on the Main Motion
Chris Polster* Sandra
Faber
Mary Beth Pudup Kirsten
Gruesz
Pamela Roby Bruce
Rosenblum
Barbara Rogoff David
Swanger
Aradhna Tripati* Michael
Urban
John Wilkes
*Students with Privilege of the Floor
Professor Allen Van Gelder made a procedural
request for Professor Press to withdraw his motion, but he did not.
Points made against the motion to refer to CEP
and Graduate Council
Sending the resolution to committee will cut off
the debate desired by many faculty. A mail ballot after a vote on the main
motion will allow two months of debate time on the grading issue. The motion to
refer should be withdrawn to allow debate on the main motion during this
meeting. NES has been under review already for a decade. The resolution puts
into legislation the wishes of the majority of the faculty.
Points made for the motion to refer to CEP and
Graduate Council
The resolution is flawed and should be perfected
by the committees before being presented systemwide. Reviewing grading policy is in the charge of both of these
committees. Since there was no apparent student input into the resolution, and
since CEP and Graduate Council do have student representation, both are
properly constituted to provide student input. Exclusion of students from the
process raises concerns that a pattern is developing at UCSC of non-democratic
decision-making about student education.
Graduate students contribute greatly to the production of narratives,
which are considered a condition of employment, so any changes to the NES must
be negotiated with the TA Union this has not occurred. Sending the resolution to committee will
help preserve the integrity of a professional process that has been a hallmark
of UC. It was the intent of many of the
180 who signed the petition to begin a process of reevaluating the grading
policy, not to vote on it this quarter. The process for considering and making
changes to the grading policy has been undermined by the request for a Special
Meeting so late in the quarter.
Critical phases of debating the proposal have been bypassed by the
proponents of the resolution who requested a quick vote. Approval of referral only stops a vote on
the resolution, and does not necessarily stop the debate on the main motion. A
mail ballot on the resolution, the stated intent of the proponents, would only
allow consideration of the options already on the floor. If the matter is sent to committee, there
will be time to consider alternatives, rather than polarizing the discussion.
Referral to committee will allow time to include provisions in any legislation,
such that if NES is abolished, it should also be accompanied by guarantees that
the ratio of the university's funds going into instruction shall not be
diminished.
During the debate on referral, many points in
favor and against the main resolution itself were also included.
Points made in favor of the main resolution
The amendment to the resolution includes
optional narrative evaluations and thus does not abolish the NES. The option
for narrative evaluations is at the discretion of the faculty. It is unrealistic to expect a faculty
refusal of a request for a narrative evaluation, since such refusals could
adversely effect their own evaluation on which their personnel actions are in
part based. Faculty are often reduced
to producing formula-based evaluations for large classes that are no more
meaningful than a letter grade. The average UCSC class size and student/faculty
ratio is much greater today than when NES was established. Since resources for
maintaining this ratio have not been maintained, NES no longer has the faculty
support to make it a viable assessment system. Lack of support for NES is
widespread, especially among faculty hired in the past five to ten years. Continuation of the system will produce a
divided faculty. Nationally and internationally, more attention is paid to the
debate about NES than to the excellent research and teaching at UCSC. The
issues of workload inequities are not justified by the benefits of NES.
Points made against the main resolution
The voluntary option amendment that has been
added to the resolution is of no benefit, as it is unlikely that faculty will
voluntarily comply. Mandatory grades
are indicative of an erosion of the quality of education at UCSC. The burden to produce an ever-increasing
number of narratives without increasing resources to do so has brought the
faculty to voluntarily consider abolishing narratives on grounds of workload
rather than on a pedagogical basis. The
resource implication for the quality of instruction has not been determined.
The quality of educational instruction may be compromised by the decline in the
proportion of the university's resources going into instruction. There has been
no rigorous study to determine if going to a mandatory grading system will
produce the objectives stated by the proponents of the resolution.
After
a motion to stop the debate was approved, the motion to refer the matter to CEP
and Graduate Council was then subjected to a counted rising vote. Those rising in favor were counted first,
and then those against. The chair
announced that there was a tie at 79-79 without any vote from the
officers. Professor William Sullivan
rose to state he had mistakenly risen for the motion and requested to change
his vote to against the motion. A point
of order was raised concerning whether a Senator can change his vote. No ruling was announced, but the Chair
proposed that the vote be conducted again.
An objection was raised on the grounds that some Senators had left the
hall. The Chair then suggested that the
officers should vote at the time. A
point of order was raised on the grounds that since the officers did not vote
when the count was taken, they had ipso facto abstained from voting. The Chair did not explicitly rule on this,
but announced that the count was tied at 79-79. He then announced that he would cast his own vote in favor of the
motion to commit. A Senator asked the
Chair what the ruling had been on the question of the change of vote, and the
Parliamentarian stated, It was cancelled.
Another point of order that a tie means the motion was not passed was
ruled to be dependent on the vote of the Chair. Chair Anderson, exercising the right to break a tie, voted for
the motion so that the motion passed 80-79.
Adjournment
Professor
George Blumenthal made a motion to adjourn that was seconded and approved. The
meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm.
ATTEST:
David
Koo
Secretary
January 27, 2000
Recording
Secretary: Mary-Beth Harhen