Running Head: CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

Critical Analysis Educational Affairs Committee Meeting

Cheryl DePaolo
Georgia Southern University
EDLD 7431

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

2

The Educational Affairs Committee at the University of Georgia is a 13-member

committee of the University Council that considers and recommends educational policies to the
University Council and also hears student appeals on academic matters. (Educational Affairs
Committee) I attended their recent meeting on Monday, March 24, 2014 at 3:30 pm.
The meeting was called to order at 3:35 pm. The first order of business was the approval
of the minutes from the November 18, 2013 meeting. Following the approval of the minutes, Dr.
Rodney Mauricio, as Chair, discussed that there was a petition subcommittee meeting earlier, in
which there were fourteen subcommittee requests. He indicated that only four were denied. He
did not reveal the requests. There were four items on the agenda under the title New Business.
New business consisted of the 2015-2016 academic calendar, the Graduation Honors
Subcommittee report, instructor input into hardship withdrawal grading, and the delivery of
appeals to the Petitions Subcommittee. Dr. Mauricio asked the committee to draw their attention
to the bottom two.
Dr. Mauricio began by explaining that last month there were 40 total petitions for
academic appeal, half of which were related to hardship. He wanted the committee to vote on
whether or not they would prefer to receive the hardship petitions as they come in, or all at once.
He clarified this by stating that the committee could vote on these petitions as one by one, or
vote on all of them at once. He commented that last month, the petitions were loaded one by
one, and no one voted until the weekend before the committee meeting. The committee
discussed the pros and cons of Dr. Mauricios proposal. One committee member posited that as
these were retroactive hardship cases, wasnt time of the essence? In most cases, there was no
need to have an answer before the committee meeting. The issue was whether or not the
committee wanted to review 40 petitions at once. Another committee member replied that last

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

3

month was unusual and that they typically do not receive that many petitions in one month. She
reminded the committee that there was also the possibility that the completed documentation
would not be available immediately. After some deliberation, it was decided that if there were a
large amount of petitions for review, they would like to be warned. The committee also decided
that they would like as complete a file as possible to be uploaded, and they would review when
ready. There would not be any guarantees of the petition being voted on until the committee
meeting.
The committee moved on to the next order of business, which was instructor input into
hardship withdrawal grading. Dr. Mauricio outlined the university policy with regards to
withdrawal grades. He explained that if a student is experiencing a documented hardship,
Student Support Services contacts the instructor to determine if the student will receive a WP
(withdraw passing) or a WF (withdraw failing). Dr. Mauricio reminded the committee that
Student Support Services is handling withdrawals that are after the midpoint in the semester.
Withdrawals must be completed by 5 pm on the last day of class.
The Educational Affairs Committee (EAC) handles retroactive withdrawals, as well
hardship appeals. Dr. Mauricio commented that the committee would not always ask for
instructor input regarding grades. He went on to say that in some cases, the class was taught by a
graduate student, or the professor was no longer available. In these cases, the committee
assigned a grade of WP, without consulting with faculty. He stated that the committee was
violating university policy by not asking for faculty input. The committee was asked for their
opinion and input on this policy. One committee member felt that it was unfair of a professor to
assign a grade of WF to a student with a documented hardship. Dr. Mauricio explained that the
professor did not have access to hardship documentation, and therefore generally made the

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

4

grading decision based on their experience with the student. Another committee member
believed that if the professor was unable to view the students documentation, they should not be
making the final decision regarding the grade. Under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (FERPA), as stated in Schloss (2013), In the postsecondary context, the rights of access to
and privacy for educational records belong to the student. (p. 266) If a student does not want to
divulge the reason for their hardship to their professor, they are protected under FERPA. With
this in mind, the overall consensus was that a student with a documented hardship should not be
penalized with a WF grade. The committee agreed that there needed to be a change in policy.
Based on that decision, the committee needed to decide whether the change in policy would be
applicable to those students withdrawing through Student Support Services. According the UGA
Office of the Registrar website,
If a student experiences significant personal hardship (e.g., medical or family emergency,
prolonged illness), the Office of the Vice President for Student Affairs (OVPSA) can
facilitate a hardship withdrawal from all courses for which a student is registered for the
term. A hardship withdrawal ordinarily cannot be used to withdraw selectively from some
courses while remaining enrolled in other courses. Selective withdrawal will be permitted
only under exceptional circumstances. If sufficient documentation is provided and a
hardship withdrawal is approved by OVPSA, the OVPSA will work with each instructor
to assign a withdrawal grade for each course. A hardship withdrawal does not guarantee a
grade of WP; it is each instructors prerogative to assign a grade of WP or WF. A WP
course grade assigned due to a hardship will not be counted in the application of this
policy. (Individual Course(s) & University Withdrawals, 2012)

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

5

It was interesting to see how the committee responded to this topic. Most of the members felt
that Student Support Services should not be afforded the right to assign a WP grade without
faculty input. The committee felt that they were more qualified to decide the grade because they
were made up of faculty. One of the committee members reminded them that there was faculty
associated with Student Support Services. Another committee member brought up the fact that
Student Support Services handles withdrawals for the current semester, which makes it easier for
the professor to apply a grade that reflects the students coursework in that class. This debate
carried on for several minutes. It was finally decided that Dr. Mauricio would seek a change in
policy for all documented hardship withdrawals. The committee would help in formulating a
proposal to allow Student Support Services and EAC to assign grades without faculty input for
complete withdrawals due to documented hardship.
Another topic of discussion was the Graduation Honors Subcommittee report. It was
reported that there is an increase in students graduating with honors. Forty per cent of the
students were on schedule to graduate with honors. The subcommittee reviewed the data, and
compared it to other universities. They found that there were many different scenarios for honor
graduates. The consensus for the subcommittee was that the quality of the students accepted at
UGA had risen, so it was sensible that the percentage of honor graduates had risen, as well.
After deliberation, the subcommittee proposed a slight change in criteria, making it more
challenging to obtain honors. The subcommittee proposed that, for all incoming freshman,
possibly beginning with the incoming freshman of fall 2014, there would be an adjustment in the
requirements for honors graduates. It would make the recognition more meaningful to those
receiving it. It seemed fair to raise the requirements for graduating with honors. It is more
meaningful for the student to receive this recognition if there are fewer students receiving it. It

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

6

also seems fair that these criteria would be overseen by faculty on the Graduation Honors
Subcommittee. According to Altbach (2011), the assessment of student learning outcomes and
their implications for academic programs appear best accomplished within institutions, by
faculty, who are the ones with detailed knowledge of the students and their academic progress
and accomplishments. (p. 80)
The final topic on the agenda was the 2015-2016 calendar. There was much debate over
a semester that was 15 weeks instead of 16, and whether or not the 15 week semester would
include finals. One of the committee members felt that it has been unfair to the professors who
teach Monday, Wednesday, Friday classes because they have more class time than the TuesdayThursday classes. She said it seemed that the Tuesday-Thursday classes were gone before
breaks, while the other classes were still in class. The rest of the committee felt that the class
times were equal. The committee made a decision to review the Board of Regents Regulations,
Federal Regulations, as well as obtain faculty input before changing the calendar. A tentative
vote was passed to amend the calendar to 15 weeks in the fall, including finals, and to continue
with a 16 week semester in the spring. In reviewing the University System of Georgia Board of
Regents regulations regarding the semester system, Section 3.4.1 states,
The academic year shall consist of two (2) regular semesters, each not to be less than
fifteen (15) calendar weeks in length, excluding registration. A minimum of 750 minutes
of instruction or equivalent is required for each semester credit hour. (3.4 Calendar of
Academic Activities)
In my interpretation of the regulation, there should be no conflict with the Board of Regents
regarding a 15 week semester, as long as the appropriate hours of instruction is present.

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

7

It is important for the faculty to take an active role in academic affairs. It was evident to
me that these committees allow for there to be a meeting of the minds on campus, which allows
for a diverse and democratic administration. It allows for the faculty to take an active role in
setting policy, as well. Melear (as cited in Schloss, 2013) stated,
The role of the faculty in sharing academic governance was emphasized when the
American Association of University Professors (AAUP), founded in 1915, promoted the
concept in one of its early committees. The AAUP urged that faculties should share in
the process of administration and should be the controlling voice concerning academic
matters. (p. 51)

CRITICAL ANALYSIS EDUCATIONAL AFFAIRS COMMITTEE MEETING

8

References
3.4 Calendar of Academic Activities. (n.d.). Retrieved April 4, 2014, from University System
of Georgia Board of Regents Policy Manual:
http://www.usg.edu/policymanual/section3/policy/C339/#p3.4.1_semester_system
Altbach, P. G., Berdahl, R. O., & Gumport, P. J. (1999, 2005). American Higher Education in
the Twenty-First Century. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
Educational Affairs Committee. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2014, from University of
Georgia Office of the Vice President for Instruction: http://ovpi.uga.edu/faculty-staffresources/educational-affairs-committee
Individual Course(s) & University Withdrawals. (2012). Retrieved April 4, 2014, from
University of Georgia Office of the Registrar:
http://www.reg.uga.edu/policies/withdrawals
Schloss, P. J. (2013). Organization and Administration in Higher Education. New York:
Routledge.