UW Colleges
Senate, Senate Committee, and Council Meetings
February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley
Minutes of UW Colleges Senate Meeting………………………….………..…………………....5
Minutes of UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting…………………….....…..……17
Minutes of UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting ………………...…..…..20
Notice Regarding UW Colleges University Staff Council of Senators Meeting ………..…..…..21
Attachment 1: UW Colleges Senate Schedule and Agenda…………………………………22-26
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators Meeting Agenda………...…………27
UW Colleges Academic Staff Council of Senators Meeting Agenda………......28
UW Colleges University Staff Council Senators Meeting Agenda.……..……...29
Attachment 2: Introduction: Proposed Amendment of UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 3
(“Campus Governance”)…………………………………………………………30
Attachment 3: Introduction: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate
Bylaws Committees”)……………………………………………………………33
Attachment 4: Introduction: Proposed New IP #409 (“Process for Changes to Department
Structure/Department Restructuring”)…………………………………………...35
Attachment 5: Supporting Material: Overview of Proposed Restructuring of Institutional
Curricular Policies……………………………………………………………….40
Attachment 6: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Associate Degrees”)…………………...47
Attachment 7: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Approval Process for an Associate
Degree Depth Sequence”)……………………………………………………….55
Attachment 8: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for High Impact Practice
Courses”)…………………………………………………………………………57
Attachment 9: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Curricular Approval Process”)………...65
Attachment 10: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for Curricular Proposals”)..70
Attachment 11: Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Curriculum Planning”)………73
Attachment 12: Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Course Cancellation
Policy.……..……………………………………………………………………76
Attachment 13: Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course
Considerations………………………………….………………………………78
Attachment 14: Supporting Material: UW Colleges Curriculum Planning Timeline (17-18)….81
Attachment 15: Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Processes for Reviewing
Curricular Offerings”)………………………………………………………….83
Attachment 16: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Processes for Deleting and Banking
Courses”)……………………………………………………………………….86
Attachment 17: Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Catalog and Schedule Course
Descriptions”)…………………………………………………………………..89
Attachment 18: Introduction: Proposed New IP #3xx (“Reporting for Grades and Academic
Performance”)…………………………………………………………………..91
Attachment 19: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student
Survey of Instruction”)…………………………………………………………94
Attachment 20: Introduction for Endorsement: Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding
Document……………………………………………………………………...103
Attachment 21: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #1xx (“Classification
of Disciplines Within Departments and Programs”)………………………….112
Attachment 22: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts and
Sciences Degree”)……………………………………………………………..115
Attachment 23: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141.01 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts
and Sciences Degree Guidelines for Professional Experience Courses”)…….122
Attachment 24: Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Courses Offered by Academic Staff
Not Affiliated with a Department”)…………………………………………...124
Attachment 25: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Grading Policies
for Students”)………………………………………………………………….127
Attachment 26: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Definition of
Credit”)………………………………………………………………………..131
Attachment 27: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Registration”)…133
Attachment 28: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Academic
Standing”)…………………………………………………………………..…138
2
Attachment 29: Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #4xx (“Dean’s List and Graduation
Honors”)……………………………………………………………………….143
Attachment 30: Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Changes to
Academic Policies for Students”)……………………………………………..145
Attachment 31: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #201 (“Admission to the Associate of
Arts and Sciences Degree Program”)…………………………………………146
Attachment 32: Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #206 (“UWS 14 Academic
Misconduct Institutional Procedures”)………………………………………..151
Attachment 33: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate
Bylaws Committees”)…………………………………………………………158
Attachment 34: Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate
Bylaws Committees”)…………………………………………………………161
Attachment 35: UW Colleges Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Report…...163
Attachment 36: UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Report……...167
Attachment 37: UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and
Enrollment Management Report……………………..…………………..……171
Attachment 38: Senate Steering Committee Chair/UW Colleges Faculty Representative
to UW System Administration Report……………….………………………..174
Attachment 39: UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator Report……………...…………..177
Attachment 40: UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration
Report.……………………………………………………….……..………..…178
Attachment 41: UW Colleges University Staff Lead Senator Report.………..….…………….182
Attachment 42: UW Colleges University Staff Representative to UW System Administration
Report.……………………………………………………….……..………..…183
Attachment 43: Student Governance Council President Report.………………………………184
Attachment 44: UW Colleges Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Report……….……185
Attachment 45: UW Colleges Senate Budget Committee Chair Report……………....…….…188
Attachment 46: UW Colleges Faculty Professional Standards Committee Report………........189
3
Attachment 47: UW Colleges Senate Assessment Committee Chair Report..…….…….….…191
Attachment 48: Introduction: Proposed New Policy FPP #5xx (“Faculty Appointments
Policy”)………………………………………………………………………..192
Attachment 49: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506 (“Faculty Post-Tenure
Review Procedures”)………………………………………………………….201
Attachment 50: Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506.01 (“Faculty Remediation
Procedures”)…………………………………………………………………...210
Attachment 51: Introduction: Introduction: Revision of ASPP #701 (“Academic Staff
Appointments and Titles”)…………………………………………………….217
Attachment 52: Academic Staff Supporting Materials….……………………………………..222
4
UW COLLEGES
Senate
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, Student Union
11:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
MINUTES
2016-2017 Senators Present: Annette Kuhlmann and Jason Schulte, UW-Baraboo/Sauk
County; Troy Kozma, UW-Barron County; Kevin Forgard and Nica Wilson, UW
Colleges Online; David Demezas, UW-Fond du Lac; Ane Carriveau, Evan Kreider,
Bethany Reilly, and Kim Schatz, UW-Fox Valley; Joanne Giordano, Holly Hassel, and
Penny Workman, UW-Marathon County; Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Brandon Fetterly,
UW-Richland; Michael Gorman and Ken Brosky, UW-Rock County; Christi Larson and
Lee Wagner, UW-Washington County; Ron Gulotta and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UWWaukesha; Cris Mendoza and Alec Smith, Student Senators
2016-2017 Senators Present via Skype: Justeen Mallo, UW-Marathon County; Lynnette
Kopetsky, Jeff Verona, and Kelly Wilz, UW-Marshfield/Wood County; Rick Hanson,
UW-Rock County; Tricia Wessel-Blaski, UW-Washington County
2016-2017 Senators Absent: Jessica Van Slooten, UW-Manitowoc; Valerie Murrenus Pilmaier,
UW-Sheboygan; Julianna Alitto, UW-Waukesha
2016-2017 Alternates Present: Greg Ahrenhoerster, UW-Waukesha (Alitto); Jonathan Goss,
UW-Fox Valley (student senator)
Others Present: Jamie Douglas, UW-Fox Valley; Caroline Geary, UW-Fox Valley; Martin
Rudd, Deans’ Representative; Melissa Stutz, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student
Affairs and Enrollment Management; Linda Baum, Assistant to the UWC Senate
Others Absent: Mike Bartlett, Dean of UW Colleges Online and Distance Education; Colleen
Godfriaux, Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance; Suzanne Joneson,
UW-Waukesha; Tony Millevolte, UW Colleges Online; Ed Stredulinsky, UW Colleges
Online
1) The February 24, 2017 meeting of the 2016-2017 UW Colleges Senate was called to order at
11:00 a.m. by UW Colleges Senate Steering Committee (SSC) Chair Holly Hassel.
2) Northeast Region Executive Officer and Dean Martin Rudd welcomed the assembled Senate
to UW-Fox Valley, noting he hoped they enjoyed the lunch that would be served later. He
offered assistance in the afternoon with scraping off windshields while expressing his
pleasure that so many had been able to safely make their way to campus that morning in the
questionable weather conditions. REO/Dean Martin Rudd then wished everyone safe travels
home after completion of the day’s meetings.
5
3) Assistant to the UW Colleges Senate Linda Baum circulated the attendance sheet. SSC Chair
Holly Hassel introduced new Academic Staff Senator Rick Hanson (UW-Rock County).
Hassel pointed out the alternate for the SGC Financial Director, SGC First Year Officer
Jonathan Goss (UW-Fox Valley), and announced Greg Ahrenhoerster would be serving as
alternate for Julianna Alitto (UW-Waukesha) as well as acting as the Chairs’ Rep. SSC Chair
Hassel then acknowledged Jamie Douglas (UW-Fox Valley) who had participated in the UW
Colleges Online discussion earlier, Melissa Stutz (Associate Vice Chancellor of Student
Affairs and Enrollment Management) attending her first Senate meeting, and Caroline Geary
(UW-Fox Valley), the AAS Reimagining Coordinator.
4) The agenda (Attachment 1) for the February 24, 2017 meeting of the UW Colleges Senate
was unanimously approved [Kozma/Zanichkowsky].
5) The minutes of the November 4, 2016 meeting of the UWC Senate held at UW-Marinette
(posted in Public Folders and http://www.uwc.edu/employees/senate/meetings) were
approved after an emendation to the student report [Kozma/Mendoza].
6) New Institutional Business
a) Introduction: Proposed Amendment of UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 3 (“Campus
Governance”) [SSC] clarify language and committee structure in 3.05 (Attachment 2).
SSC Chair Hassel introduced the amendment, saying the changes were originally to make
clear which committees advise which administrator. Senator Kozma added that language
was clarified throughout the section; as to the campus collegium committees, the six
original standing committee categories were left, but another section created so additional
committees could be formed as necessary. The word “uniform” was added in the first
sentence of the second paragraph of 3.05 to match the title of the section, “Each uniform
standing committee…” following floor discussion. Student Senator Alec Smith suggested
that “Other Campus Committees” was not the spot to say that the student government
will create a committee. It was agreed that if the sentence was changed to state “A
committee for student life and interests and for the dispensation of segregated university
fees will be created by the campus student government,” it would be acceptable. With
those changes, the proposed amendment was unanimously moved [Kreider/Brosky].
b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] lengthening student IRB membership term (Attachment 3). Chair
Hassel explained that the Institutional Review Board had brought the requested change to
lengthen the student committee terms from one to two-years to Steering. She added that
there is training and a learning curve, so it is believed it will work better; SGC also
supports the change. It was asked if students willing to serve two years can be found, to
which Senate Assistant Linda Baum replied that for the several years the IRB has been
locating students, some of them BAAS students, who have all served two years. It was
asked if the change was necessary, when a student could be reappointed; Baum replied
that there has historically been a lag at the beginning of each year in which the SGC is
quite slow to start up and appoint that person, even if there is someone willing to serve.
IRB is also planning to request that the SGC start appointing the student member in the
fall instead of in the spring. Hassel added that the IRB wants to make sure they have a
6
student for the increasing amount of SOTL review the committee does, and that the IRB
feels the change is necessary.
c) Introduction: Proposed New IP #409 (“Process for Changes to Department
Structure/Department Restructuring”) [SSC] create policy for changes to departmental
structure, how to make sure structure works, and evaluate workload of new format
(Attachment 4). The policy to make changes to departmental structures came out of the
budget cut charge made to department chairs, including potentially consolidating
departments. Academic department chairs had determined that if such changes were to be
made, there should be a policy in place guiding them first. An ad hoc group consisting of
representatives from SSC, Faculty Professional Standards Committee (FPSC), Senate
Academic Policy Committee (SAPC), several department chairs, and representatives
from the Office of Academic Affairs had met throughout Fall 2016 and created the
proposed policy. Chair of Chairs Greg Ahrenhoerster suggested that there might need to
be additional language changes, as the policy was written for changes involving two
departments, but there could in theory be more than two involved. He also pointed out
language in III.D about assessing market demand that he thought was an unreasonable
expectation for UW Colleges to carry out, saying it would be difficult and expensive,
possibly requiring the institution to hire someone. It was agreed that the introduction
would be pulled and taken back for further revision.

Supporting Material: Overview of Proposed Restructuring of Institutional Curricular
Policies (Attachment 5).
SSC Chair Hassel explained that an ad hoc group of representatives from SAPC,
FPSC, University Staff Council, Academic Staff Council, and herself had met to
discuss wide-scale reorganization of Senate policies. Many policies are enormous
with information on various topics included. The policy reorganization process will
separate out the pieces, rename the policies, and rearrange policies into divisions to
keep related policy together with an eye to creating a more easily navigable and user
friendly organizational structure. FPSC Chair Ron Gulotta elaborated that the 100
level would be General Institutional Policies, 200 Curricular, 300 Instructional, 400
Policies Regarding Students, 500 Policies for Teaching Staff, 600 Faculty Personnel
Policies, 700 Instructional Academic Staff Personnel Policies, 800 Administrative
Academic Staff Personnel Policies, and 900 University Staff Policies. There will also,
he said, be divisions within those sections to group policies. Senate Assistant Linda
Baum had researched the process followed the last time policy was reorganized and
renumbered in 2002. She explained that Steering approved the plan and sent it to the
Senate to endorse the framework. Hassel clarified that it did not go out to all of the
campuses for feedback. Baum agreed, noting that it was endorsed in the way a
resolution is at the same meeting at which it was brought up. Chair Hassel said that
the framework should be ready for the Senate in April.
Hassel then noted that with the policy introductions are the nuts and bolts needed to
be in place to implement the new degrees as well as some priorities items for Senate
Curriculum Committee and departments and student affairs. She stressed that if a
senator receives important feedback, that they get it to SAPC and to her right away—
7
by April 1 at the latest—so there is time for the committee to review the feedback and
supply answers or make any necessary changes to the policy in time to recirculate it
as allowed for in policy. SSC Chair Hassel reminded the senators that if changes are
made to an introduction and it is circulated at least two weeks prior to the Senate
meeting so senators can share it with their constituents, it meets the terms of policy
and can go forward for adoption. She further noted that many of the policies being
introduced need to be adopted so as to be in place for the roll out of the degree, so
cautioned that if anyone has questions or feedback, to please contact SAPC as soon as
possible instead of waiting for the April meeting.
Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Joanne Giordano then explained the
proposed restructuring of IP #101.02, noting it was a monster-sized document that
would be split up according to topic. The committee, she said, would also be taking
bits and pieces from other policies and putting them together to create single,
cohesive policies on different subjects. Giordano reminded the Senate that even after
these items were all hopefully adopted there would be more work as the old policies
would have to be rescinded. She briefly went through the annotated document,
pointing out which pieces would be moved where.
d) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Associate Degrees”) [SAPC] outline degree
requirements for three new associate degrees (Attachment 6). SAPC Chair Joanne
Giordano stated that the committee had taken the AAS framework endorsed by Senate,
UW System policies, existing Colleges policies, and national standards all into
consideration in order to write the new policy. She pointed out that it did not have a
number, as many other introductions would not today, until the reorganization process
had progressed and was ready for April. Giordano then gave brief explanations for each
section of the policy, noting where different language or standards came from.
Conversation led to the deletion of the last sentence of section VIII, and the addition of
“natural and physical” in the second sentence “LS courses are offered as part of or in
connection with a lecture/discussion natural and physical science course….”
At 12:00 p.m. a motion was made and carried unanimously to recess the meeting until
12:45 p.m. [Fetterly/Wagner].
A motion to move out of recess at 12:50 p.m. carried by unanimous vote
[Kozma/Klemp].
There was lengthy conversation during the section on high impact practices (HIPs).
Senators asked questions about adding new HIPs and the process to get one approved.
There was some concern expressed that team taught classes will cease to be offered, and
that current IS classes that will not be designated thusly with the new degree will be
dropped because of low enrollment. AAS Project Leader Caroline Geary said that courses
will potentially be mapped in new ways unavailable before. Another senator stated that
on his campus, it was too difficult to identify IS courses, so having lots of options seems
great. It was agreed that the name of the section on learning communities/integrated
studies, should have integrated studies removed to help clear some confusion.
8
e) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Approval Process for an Associate Degree Depth
Sequence”) [SAPC] provide guidelines for implementing the depth requirement for the
new associate degrees (Attachment 7). The SAPC Chair informed the Senate that the new
policy is to note the procedures necessary to receive approval to offer an associate degree
depth sequence and how to go about removing a depth sequence. It was pointed out that
multiple related depth sequences can be submitted in one proposal. It is up to the registrar
as to how sequences are listed in the course catalog. As to whether depth sequences are
protected from low enrollment cancellation, Giordano said that there will be many depth
sequences—and that there would be sequences offered at large campuses that would not
be at smaller campuses. It was also suggested that options for fulfilling the sequence such
as completing it online might have to be examined.
f) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses”)
[SAPC] provide criteria for curricular proposals for the new High Impact Practice
associate degree designator (Attachment 8). SAPC Chair Giordano explained that the
new policy looked to existing policy for various HIPs. Existing practices were compared
to nationally recognized definitions, AAC&U guidelines, and research regarding
increasing student engagement and learning. More HIP categories could be defined in the
future as further research into enhancing student success is published. The proposal needs
to pass now as part of the AAS policy to allow courses to move through Senate
Curriculum Courses and to have degree designators attached when the courses go live for
registration. After it is approved, since large portions of the policy come from existing
policies, the old policies will be restructured or rescinded. Giordano went through the
overview and the description of HIPs from the policy, then mentioned and briefly noted
something about each type of HIP. The Learning Communities HIP included two linking
courses under the old policy and creates another path with this policy without the linking
seminar. Giordano stated that these are the courses that fit this definition. The Service
Learning HIP contained the same UWS guidelines for credit hours as the old policy;
some processes were simplified. It was suggested that senators discuss this policy with
their constituents as soon as possible and let SAPC know about any feedback quickly,
understanding that the policy could be updated with new HIPs as the AAS Team’s HIP
groups work.
g) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Curricular Approval Process”) [SAPC] synthesize
and simplify guidelines from multiple policies that explain the institutional curricular
approval process (Attachment 9). It was stated that some typographical corrections would
be made prior to this being shared after the meeting. Pieces of this proposed policy are
taken from various sections of IP #101.02 and current practice included in order to create
a single curricular approval process. Campus curriculum committees would not be
needed to review and approve certain proposals any longer; the local campus committee
would be consulted as to whether to develop the course, but no paperwork filing or policy
review would be required so as to streamline the process.
h) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for Curricular Proposals”) [SAPC]
synthesize and revise information from multiple policies about how to create a curricular
proposal for a new or revised course (Attachment 10). SAPC Chair Giordano noted that
9
the proposal pulled together various parts of policies to create a single document
explaining the requirements of a curricular proposal. Course proposals would no longer
need different guidelines and forms dependent on the degree designator or type of course.
i) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Curriculum Planning”) [SAPC] move
information about curricular planning from IP 101.02 and add guidelines for lowenrolled courses (Attachment 11). Giordano reported that the policy language had been
pulled from IP #101.02 and updated as necessary for regionalization. A section was
added around low-enrolled courses.



Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Course Cancellation Policy
Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course
Considerations
Supporting Material: UW Colleges Curriculum Planning Timeline (2017-2018)
(a) (Attachment 12). (Attachment 13). (Attachment 14).
The three protocol documents that administration uses to guide curriculum
planning (a timeline, course cancellation protocol, and protocol for addressing
low-enrolled courses) were included with the introduction to add to the
knowledge of senators. It was questioned as to whether the Senate would be asked
to endorse the protocols in the future. Senate Steering Committee Chair Hassel
noted that these documents would be posted on the Senate SharePoint site where
they would be accessible to everyone. Concerns were raised about how to handle
the apprehensions and issues around cutting low-enrolled courses. It was
discussed whether Steering could be asked to work with Academic Affairs to
revise and bring the protocols to Senate to endorse, or charge SAPC to work the
protocols into policy. It was noted that looking at curriculum breadth had been
suggested as a task for SAPC, but there has not yet been a Steering charge for that
review.
j) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Processes for Reviewing Curricular
Offerings”) [SAPC] move information about curricular review and audit from IP
#101.02 with revisions for current practice (Attachment 15). SAPC Chair Giordano
briefly summarized the included rationale. She noted the committee had pulled out
language from IP #101.02 and changed it to reflect the BAAS, the new degrees, and the
five-year review of curricular offerings.
k) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses”)
[SAPC] move information about deleting and banking courses with revisions for clarity
and completeness (Attachment 16). This policy language was also taken from IP #101.02.
Wording was added to clarify deleting and banking courses, and to include the Senate
BAAS Curriculum Committee (SBCC) in reviewing curricular requests for BAAS
courses.
l) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Catalog and Schedule Course
Descriptions”) [SAPC] move policy language from IP #101.02 and add information
about the process for changing catalog and schedule (timetable) information (Attachment
10
17). This proposed policy regarding catalog and course descriptions was moved from IP
#101.02 and updated with information on how to make changes to that information.
m) Introduction: Proposed New IP #3xx (“Reporting for Grades and Academic
Performance”) [SAPC] move information about grade reporting from IP 202 to a new
policy for teaching staff; change procedures for reporting student progress prior to the
drop deadline and create a single deadline for final grade reporting (Attachment 18).
This language was removed from IP #202 and placed in the section of instructional
policies as a standalone policy. SAPC Chair Joanne Giordano explained one of the
proposed changes: rather than reporting midterm grades in PRISM, instructors would
take part in the early alert system two times a semester, allowing students the necessary
time to drop or withdraw. SAPC had also learned that official midterms are not standard
at many institutions. Some Colleges campuses had moved the midterm date earlier, and
though the committee examined that as a way to possibly give advisors more time to
discuss options with students, it was thought to not give an accurate view of their
progress. There was discussion regarding the pros and cons of early alerts and midterms.
It was argued that the first early alert is too early for truly useful information. Giordano
countered that while it is early for information on academic performance, it catches the
students who have not shown up or have stopped attending. It was argued that the true
assessment of grade at midterm is very helpful to those who advise students. A
suggestion was made to have early alerts for advisors and midterms for students, but
Giordano responded that students do not access their midterms in PRISM. It was
maintained that early alerts, used consistently across modes, could be very helpful, and
provide necessary information for academic actions. It was mentioned that early alerts
can be perceived as discussions held “behind the backs” of students. SAPC Chair
Giordano concluded that the purpose of midterm grades is to advise students on whether
or not to drop/withdraw from a class, but with the current structure there is not enough
time for that to take place. Another important change to note, said Giordano, is making
all final grades due four days after the last scheduled final exam rather than four days
after the instructor’s last final; a single deadline for all instructors to submit grades will
allow instructors some flexibility and eliminate some confusion for them and for
students.
n) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of
Instruction”) [SAPC] update administration of SSIs for regionalization and
consolidation; move student evaluations online with guidelines for administering surveys
during class time; change the frequency of administering SSIs (Attachment 19). SSC
Chair Hassel reminded the Senate that a group had been charged with reviewing the
Student Survey of Instruction (SSI): validity of questions, if it was assessing what was
wanted, the frequency with which it should be completed, and the mechanism for
completing the SSI. The working group had shared their report in the fall, and it included
a document noting guidelines for using the SSI and new questions. SAPC Chair Giordano
shared that the report had been used when crafting changes to the policy. Two issues
undergoing change were highlighted: completing the SSI online, and the frequency of
evaluating instructors. It was noted that more students have devices that would allow
them to complete the survey in the classroom. The cycle of review every three semesters
11
could leave some who are never evaluated; completing the SSI every semester would
give additional information. SAPC Chair Joanne Giordano said that when discussing the
changes with constituents, the option of splitting the question could be given in order to
determine where thoughts were settling. However, the option of doing paper evaluations
every semester would not be an option. A question was asked about policies and
completing the SSI every semester to which Giordano replied that other policies will be
changed following this proposal. One senator was concerned that students would be
deluged with SSIs and not provide meaningful feedback. The previous pilot of online
SSIs was brought up, declaiming the low return rate, and expressed that all would be
stuck with it if the revision passes. SSC Chair Hassel reminded the Senate of studies that
had been shared around return rates and what constitutes a valid response rate, and that it
was discovered many face to face courses were not achieving valid returns. Chairs’ Rep
Ahrenhoerster stated that he had been on the SSI Working Group known as SSIWG
several years ago that did the pilot referenced earlier. He said that their research had
determined that the SSI should be completed every semester so it becomes part of the
culture and increases the response rate. Further, the pilot was not a full pilot, but a
random test of different scenarios. It was noted that many institutions complete their
student evaluations in just the manner this proposes. A question was asked why the SSI
was not required to be completed in class, to which Giordano responded that it could be
done in class, but there is a window of time for cases when it is not or for students who
were not in class a particular day. Another senator echoed the idea of student burnout
from completing several SSIs, and worried about getting the information back in a
timelier way. Hassel explained that the problem with slow returns is because they are
completed on paper and there is not enough staff to deal with a very cumbersome
process. A senator offered that they had been in a system that utilized student evaluations
every semester and there was no burnout. It was pointed out that all students would not
be completing them at the exact same time as some would take advantage of the twoweek window. Another suggested that a colleague could be posted in the computer lab
and students be sent there by class in waves to complete the SSI.
o) Introduction for Endorsement: Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document
[SAPC] endorse guidelines for the use of SSIs and propose new questions for the survey
(Attachment 20). A senator pointed to section four of the document and the information
about quantitative results not being reliable if less than 50% of the students respond and
the guiding document continuing on to say ideally there should be at least ten
respondents, but given small class sizes, restricting results based on number of responses
is not feasible, though they urged caution when using the information. That section, the
senator said, should be changed—if data is not valid, it is the same as not having data and
should not be used; comments would be okay, but no numbers. The senator further
suggested that that language be included in policy. SAPC Chair Giordano responded that
certain small classes would never make the cut and that there is no magic validity
threshold. A senator asked how the guiding document was to be shared with constituents,
and Hassel replied that senators should treat it similarly to an introduction and get
feedback on it, noting it should help people understand how to use SSIs and the
information they impart. Senators were reminded that the document will not be part of
policy, but will be endorsed and posted where it will be accessible to all.
12
p) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #1xx (“Classification of Disciplines
Within Departments and Programs”) [SAPC] move the list of disciplines within
departments and programs from the AAS and BAAS degree policies to a separate policy
(Attachment 21). SAPC Chair Giordano stated that this policy simply moved the list of
departments and their disciplines out of IP #101 and updated it as necessary. It was asked
if the list of divisions and departments from the Bylaws could be included in this piece.
SAPC will look into listing divisions.
q) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences
Degree”) [SAPC] update policy to reflect existing BAAS program practices and
agreements with partner institutions (Attachment 22). Senate Academic Policy
Committee member Penny Workman explained that the revisions were to ensure the
BAAS proficiencies were consistent and to move back to a single degree pathway that
was agreed on by the four-year partner institutions and a select group of institutions
within the Wisconsin Technical College System. The final change was removing the list
of departments and disciplines as noted in the previous policy. Responding to a question
about the reduced number of credits in III.D, SAPC Chair Giordano said that the changes
align with the agreements with the comprehensive institutions and give students more
flexibility in what courses are taken with UW Colleges.
r) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141.01 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences
Degree Guidelines for Professional Experience Courses”) [SAPC] change credit
requirements for BAAS experiential learning courses (Attachment 23). SAPC Chair
Giordano reported that changes to this policy aligned it with changes in IP 141.
s) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Courses Offered by Academic Staff Not Affiliated
with a Department”) [SAPC] synthesize curricular guidelines for academic staff who
don’t normally teach in a department from other policies; update policy to reflect new
HLC credentialing guidelines (Attachment 24). Giordano noted that this proposed policy
gathered relevant parts of policies into one and clarified the process of having an
academic staff person who is not part of a department or program teach a course. The
policy also includes HLC accreditation guidelines for credentialing an instructor. AS
Lead Senator Verona asked if academic staff under this then fell under all applicable IAS
policies.
t) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Grading Policies for
Students”) [SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language
for regionalization and consolidated services; make revisions for clarity (Attachment 25).
Policy language had been pulled from IP #202, and a major change, said SAPC Chair
Giordano, was to the section on incomplete grades. Rather than “near the end of the
semester,” policy states that an incomplete is possible “after the course withdrawal
deadline.” A standardized date will be helpful to students, instructors, and the registrar,
and is similar to what is in use at other UW institutions.
u) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Definition of Credit”)
13
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language for
regionalization and consolidated services; add credit definitions for courses offered
outside a face-to-face classroom setting (Attachment 26). SAPC Chair Joanne Giordano
related that the language had been moved from IP #202 and defined types of credit
courses offered outside of the traditional classroom structure. One change reflected a
possible variance in the number of hours per credit required by a lab or studio course.
Other changes were to reflect regionalization and consolidation.
v) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Registration”) [SAPC] move
existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language for regionalization and
consolidated services; revise to reflect current practices (Attachment 27). Again, said
SAPC Chair Giordano, the policy language was taken from IP #202 and updated to
reflect regionalization and consolidated services. The section in VI about financial aid is
the law and had to be added. It was pointed out that there is no mention of doing
add/drops in PRISM where they are listed in II. Giordano replied that they had added
online language wherever they were directed to, but something might have been
overlooked; if it is standard practice across UW Colleges it can be revised, and the
committee will check. Giordano was then asked if the next to the last sentence in II
should be deleted; it will be removed.
w) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Academic Standing”)
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; base probation on cumulative GPA;
create an advisory warning category for students with a semester GPA below 2.0 but
with a satisfactory overall GPA (Attachment 28). It had been discovered that the UWC
policy for probation was more restrictive than that of many UW System four-year
institutions. Proposed changes include modifying probation to be based on the cumulative
GPA, and adding an at-risk advisory category for students whose semester GPA falls
below a 2.0, but who have a cumulative GPA over 2.0. Probationary and at-risk advisory
students may have to take part in mandatory advising or other activities to improve their
academic success. Student senators expressed that they are very much in favor of the
changes; another senator agreed, noting the changes protect students who had a difficult
semester.
x) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #4xx (“Dean’s List and Graduation Honors”)
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202 without revision to wording
(Attachment 29). SAPC Chair Giordano reported that the language had been removed
from IP #202 and not changed. Then there was a request from the provost to have a
BAAS honors policy. The committee thought this policy applied, but added “associate or
bachelor’s” to II so both degrees were clearly included.
y) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Changes to Academic
Policies for Students”) [SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; add
clarification about procedures for changing policies regarding students (Attachment 30).
This proposed policy also came from language existing in IP #202. The SAPC added
language to clarify what changes are referred to and what processes should be followed
(standard changes through shared governance versus changes to state or federal law that
14
are immediately put into implementation and policy updated afterwards).
z) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #201 (“Admission to the Associate of Arts and
Sciences Degree Program”) [SAPC] update policy to reflect practice; make changes to
wording for clarity and completeness (Attachment 31). SAPC Chair Joanne Giordano
explained that the revisions to this policy reflect the centralized admissions process and
clarify the language to reflect current practices and operations across UW Colleges. It
was questioned why the last sentence of the introduction was eliminated. The response
was that campuses cannot, because of the mission of the institution, restrict admission. A
senator who serves as a faculty advisor shared that it is difficult to discern the difference
between being denied and being admitted as high risk—they cannot see a reason why,
yes or no. Section II.B.3 refers to possible options for special programming for high risk
students “at discretion of the campus.” There was a question of who makes that
determination and how. Giordano replied that the language provides flexibility for the
campus in assisting an at risk student. She said that the placement process flags those
with issues.
aa) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #206 (“UWS 14 Academic Misconduct
Institutional Procedures”) [SAPC] revise academic misconduct procedures to reflect UW
System guidelines and current practices (Attachment 32). The SAPC Chair said that
Director of Conduct and Compliance Kristine McCaslin identified where the policy did
not work because of changes to state or federal law or UW System policy. System Legal
will probably review the policy when it goes to the chancellor. SAPC Chair Giordano
related that Kris McCaslin should be contacted with any questions about this policy
revision.
bb) Discussion: Strategies for collecting and timeline for reporting feedback. Steering
Committee Chair Holly Hassel acknowledged the large number of introductions, but said
that a senator could not take over collegium. Her campus has arranged listening sessions
during the common hour where similar policy introductions will be grouped for
discussion. Email can be used for feedback. Qualtrix surveys are used for input on some
campuses. Hassel reminded the Senate that only the change to Chapter 3 of the UWC
Constitution requires a formal vote of collegium to be taken and results sent to Linda
Baum. The policy revisions will be posted as individual pdfs for ease of access; Chair
Hassel will send the link information shortly after all of the policies revised on the floor
today have been sent to Senate Assistant Baum.
cc) Other. There was no additional New Business brought forth.
7) Old Institutional Business
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] updating responsibilities of SIITC (Attachment 33). Chair Hassel
pointed out the revision to the Bylaws changing the responsibilities of the Senate
Informational and Instructional Technology Committee (SIITC). The motion carried by
unanimous vote [Fetterly/Kozma].
15
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] revising membership of SIEC (Attachment 34). Chair Hassel called
attention to the rationale for the proposal in the materials. Several senators stated that the
change to the Senate Inclusive Excellence Committee (SIEC) membership was a good
idea. The motion was made and carried unanimously [Kozma/Smith].
8) Reports
Considering the time, SSC Chair Hassel noted that the reports were all included in the Senate
materials that had been distributed. She suggested all read them thoroughly and direct any
questions to the appropriate reporter. The Senate concurred.
a) Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Greg Lampe (Attachment 35).
b) Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Foy (Attachment 36).
c) Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Enrollment Management Melissa Stutz
(Attachment 37).
d) Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Holly Hassel
(Attachment 38).
e) Academic Staff Lead Senator Jeff Verona (Attachment 39).
f) UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Kevin Forgard (Attachment 40).
g) University Staff Lead Senator Nica Wilson (Attachment 41).
h) UW Colleges University Staff Representative Lynnette Kopetsky (Attachment 42).
i) Student Governance Council President Cris Mendoza (Attachment 43).
j) Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Joanne Giordano (Attachment 44).
k) Senate Budget Committee Chair Mark Klemp (Attachment 45).
l) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta (Attachment 46).
m) Senate Assessment Committee Chair Sue Kalinka (Attachment 47).
8) Other Institutional Business
a) Other. There was no Other Institutional Business for the Senate.
9) Adjournment. The February 24, 2017 meeting of the UW Colleges Senate held at UW-Fox
Valley was adjourned by unanimous vote at 3:52 p.m. [Mendoza/Gulotta].
16
UW COLLEGES
Faculty Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, Student Union
3:40 p.m.
MINUTES
2016-2017 Faculty Senators Present: Annette Kuhlmann, UW-Baraboo/Sauk County; Troy
Kozma, UW-Barron County; David Demezas, UW-Fond du Lac; Evan Kreider and Kim
Schatz, UW-Fox Valley; Holly Hassel and Penny Workman, UW-Marathon County;
Mark Klemp, UW-Marinette; Brandon Fetterly, UW-Richland; Ken Brosky, UW-Rock
County; Ron Gulotta and Elizabeth Zanichkowsky, UW-Waukesha
2016-2017 Faculty Senators Present via Skype: Kelly Wilz, UW-Marshfield/Wood County
2016-2017 Faculty Senators Absent: Jessica Van Slooten, UW-Manitowoc; Valerie Murrenus
Pilmaier, UW-Sheboygan; Tricia Wessel-Blaski, UW-Washington County; Julianna
Alitto, UW-Waukesha
2016-2017 Faculty Alternates Present: Greg Ahrenhoerster, UW-Waukesha (Alitto)
Others Present: Linda Baum, Assistant to the UW Colleges Senate
Others Absent: Suzanne Joneson, UW-Waukesha
1. Call to Order 2016-2017 Faculty Council of Senators. The UW Colleges Faculty Council of
Senators (FCS) was called to order at 4:05 p.m. by UW Colleges Faculty Representative to
UW System Administration Holly Hassel.
2. Assistant to the Senate Linda Baum circulated the roll call of faculty senators.
3. The agenda for the meeting was approved unanimously [Workman/Zanichkowsky].
4. The minutes of the November 4, 2016 meeting of the Faculty Council held at UW-Marinette
and the November 14, 2016 meeting held via Skype (both posted in Public Folders and
http://www.uwc.edu/employees/senate/meetings) were approved by unanimous vote
[Schatz/Ahrenhoerster].
5. Reports
a) Chair Holly Hassel related her written report was in the provided Senate materials.
b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta stated that his report was
also in the materials.
17
6. Old Business. There was no Old Business for the Council to discuss.
7. New Business
a) Introduction: Proposed New Policy FPP #5xx (“Faculty Appointments Policy”) [FPSC]
combines faculty appointment policies (Attachment 47). Faculty Professional Standards
Committee (FPSC) Chair Gulotta explained that this policy would be located prior to the
PTR policies after reorganization. The policy gathers all policy related to faculty
appointments into one place. Most language remains as in the original policy, but
wording was added such as: clarifying service and professional development in split
appointments; discussing how service and professional development volunteered to a
secondary appointment should be considered; and noting that the chancellor should
provide letters of reappointment when changes are made. It was asked, noting the section
on academic ranks, if UW Colleges never hires full professors. Gulotta replied that the
language was taken from FPP 501, and full was not included. It may, he said, be
something that endowed, research level institutions do, but not UW Colleges. Another
question centered around voluntary transfer after just one year of employment. The
senator related that his campus has completed many searches only to lose the faculty
member to voluntary transfer after the first year. FPSC Chair Gulotta replied that the
option needs to be kept open or some faculty would leave the Colleges rather than wait
for the next chance to transfer to their campus of choice. The Council discussed and
generally agreed upon language that a new faculty member would not be eligible during
the first two years of appointment, but could ask the provost for a waiver due to
exceptional circumstances. Gulotta will send the new language. There was discussion
around the thought that if a search is approved for a campus and a person moves there,
the search money should be transferred to the campus where the faculty member left so
they can have a search. There will be policy for all instructional staff coming, said
Gulotta.
b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506 (“Faculty Post-Tenure Review
Procedures”) [FPSC] update and bring into BOR compliance (Attachment 48). Faculty
Rep Hassel explained that the Board of Regents had changed their policy to include a
substantive independent review. The policy is basically what was seen and approved
before; if not approved now, UW Colleges will fall under the Regent policy. There was
general agreement with the way the additional language had been written, noting the
provost would review and could look at the same materials as had been examined by the
PTR Committee. Hassel will send the Regent policy and the language adopted by other
UW System institutions to the Faculty Council.
c) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506.01 (“Faculty Remediation Procedures”)
[FPSC] revise and renumber (Attachment 49). FPSC Chair Ron Gulotta noted that the
number of days in the remediation plan timeline had been changed to make it work better.
The final section was modified to follow Legal’s assertion that the remediation due to
two unsatisfactory merit ratings does not have the same restrictions the PTR remediation
procedure does.
18
SSC Chair Hassel noted that a special meeting of the Faculty Council via Skype to adopt
the PTR policies would be scheduled at the end of March in order to accommodate the
deadlines to submit items for consideration at the April Board of Regents meeting.
d) Other. There was no further New Business for the Faculty Council to discuss.
8. Other Business
a) Other. FPSC Chair Gulotta shared the distribution of merit rankings following the
removal of the 40% restriction. Fully 2/3 were ranked either exceptional or highly
meritorious. Some departments were balanced close to their previous levels, but others
trended very high. His concern is how that might look for giving self-ratings. Gulotta
further wondered if meritorious was now considered a bad thing. SSC Chair Hassel asked
that he share the information with FPSC and FCS for conversation (should the policy stay
as it is or tighten up, are rankings accurate).
9. Adjournment. The February 24, 2017 meeting of the Faculty Council of Senators was
adjourned at 4:50 p.m. by UW Colleges Faculty Representative Holly Hassel.
19
UW COLLEGES
Academic Staff Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, 1346
3:40 p.m.
MINUTES
Present: Ane Carriveau, Richard Hanson, Jeff Verona, Bethany Reilly, Lee Wagner, Joanne
Giordano and Michael Gorman.
Not Present: Keven Forgard
Approve Agenda (Wagner/Gorman) approved by unanimous voice vote
Approval of Minutes from ASCS meeting of November 4, 2016 (Carriveau, Reilly) Approved by
unanimous voice vote
Reports
I. New Business

Introduction: Revision of ASPP #701, “Academic Staff Appointments and Titles”
(Carriveau) – Verona will send out to Academic Staff (Attachment 50).
II. Other Business






(Attachment 51).
Update: Pending revisions of ASPP #703 and 704 (Carriveau) – waiting for answers from
HR before we can proceed
Update: Pending revisions of ASPP #320 (Verona and Gorman) – discussion regarding
Professional Engagement work and how to record it without it being required. Hoping to
finalize for an introduction at the April meeting.
Discussion: Revising/Combining ASPP #321 and #323 (Verona and Gorman) – this is in
the early stages of discussion
Discussion: Potential revisions to ASPP #708 (Giordano) – Giordano, Gorman and Reilly
will be examining the policy. Needs deadlines and mechanism for applying for retitling in
a standardized way.
Update: Status of renumbering/reorganizing Senate policies – Verona gave an update,
more will be coming via Senate in April.
Reminder: Upcoming elections
Adjourned at 5:15 pm
Respectfully Submitted by Ane Carriveau
20
UW COLLEGES
University Staff Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, 1352
3:40 p.m.
Due to the weather and travel issues, the USCS meeting was postponed until February 28, 2017
when it will be held by Skype. The draft minutes will be posted separately.
21
Attachment 1
Schedule
UW COLLEGES
Meetings of Senate, Committees, and
Academic Staff, University Staff, and Faculty Councils of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW–Fox Valley
9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
Coffee and Collegiality
9:00 a.m. - 9:30 a.m.
Student Union
Committee Meetings
9:30 a.m. - 10:20 a.m.
Senate Academic Policy Committee
Senate Budget Committee
Faculty Professional Standards Committee
Senate Steering Committee
Online Campus Governance Documents
1346
1335
1551
Student Union
10:25 a.m. - 10:55 a.m.
UW Colleges Online associates
Student Union
UW Colleges Senate
11:00 a.m. - 11:55 a.m.
Student Union
Lunch
12:00 p.m. - 12:40 p.m.
Provided by the Senate
Student Union
UW Colleges Senate (reconvene)
12:45 p.m.
Student Union
Council Meetings
3:40 p.m.
Academic Staff Council of Senators
University Staff Council Senators
Faculty Council of Senators
1346
1551
Student Union
22
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Senate
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, Student Union
11:00 a.m. – 3:30 p.m.
1) Call to Order of 2016-2017 Senate
2) Welcome by Northeast Region Executive Officer and Dean Martin Rudd
3) Roll Call of 2016-2017 Senate and Introduction of Alternates
4) Approval of Agenda
5) Approval of Minutes: November 4, 2016, UW-Marinette (posted in Public Folders and
http://www.uwc.edu/employees/senate/meetings)
6) New Institutional Business
a) Introduction: Proposed Amendment of UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 3 (“Campus
Governance”) [SSC] clarify language and committee structure in 3.05 (p. 13)
b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] lengthening student IRB membership term (p. 16)
c) Introduction: Proposed New IP #409 (“Process for Changes to Department
Structure/Department Restructuring”) [SSC] create policy for changes to departmental
structure, how to make sure structure works, and evaluate workload of new format (p. 18)

Supporting Material: Overview of Proposed Restructuring of Institutional Curricular
Policies (p. 23)
d) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Associate Degrees”) [SAPC] outline degree
requirements for three new associate degrees (p. 30)
e) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Approval Process for an Associate Degree Depth
Sequence”) [SAPC] provide guidelines for implementing the depth requirement for the
new associate degrees (p. 38)
f) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses”)
[SAPC] provide criteria for curricular proposals for the new High Impact Practice
associate degree designator (p. 40)
g) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Curricular Approval Process”) [SAPC] synthesize
and simplify guidelines from multiple policies that explain the institutional curricular
approval process (p. 48)
23
h) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Guidelines for Curricular Proposals”) [SAPC]
synthesize and revise information from multiple policies about how to create a curricular
proposal for a new or revised course (p. 53)
i) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Curriculum Planning”) [SAPC] move
information about curricular planning from IP 101.02 and add guidelines for lowenrolled courses (p. 56)



Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Course Cancellation Policy (p. 59)
Supporting Material: UWC Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course
Considerations (p. 61)
Supporting Material: UW Colleges Curriculum Planning Timeline (2017-2018) (p. 64)
j) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Processes for Reviewing Curricular
Offerings”) [SAPC] move information about curricular review and audit from IP
#101.02 with revisions for current practice (p. 66)
k) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses”)
[SAPC] move information about deleting and banking courses with revisions for clarity
and completeness (p. 69)
l) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #2xx (“Catalog and Schedule Course
Descriptions”) [SAPC] move policy language from IP #101.02 and add information
about the process for changing catalog and schedule (timetable) information (p. 72)
m) Introduction: Proposed New IP #3xx (“Reporting for Grades and Academic
Performance”) [SAPC] move information about grade reporting from IP 202 to a new
policy for teaching staff; change procedures for reporting student progress prior to the
drop deadline and create a single deadline for final grade reporting (p. 74)
n) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #301.01 (“Administering the Student Survey of
Instruction”) [SAPC] update administration of SSIs for regionalization and
consolidation; move student evaluations online with guidelines for administering surveys
during class time; change the frequency of administering SSIs (p. 77)
o) Introduction for Endorsement: Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document
[SAPC] endorse guidelines for the use of SSIs and propose new questions for the survey (p. 86)
p) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #1xx (“Classification of Disciplines
Within Departments and Programs”) [SAPC] move the list of disciplines within departments
and programs from the AAS and BAAS degree policies to a separate policy (p. 95)
q) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences
Degree”) [SAPC] update policy to reflect existing BAAS program practices and
agreements with partner institutions (p. 98)
24
r) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #141.01 (“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences
Degree Guidelines for Professional Experience Courses”) [SAPC] change credit
requirements for BAAS experiential learning courses (p. 105)
s) Introduction: Proposed New IP #2xx (“Courses Offered by Academic Staff Not Affiliated
with a Department”) [SAPC] synthesize curricular guidelines for academic staff who
don’t normally teach in a department from other policies; update policy to reflect new
HLC credentialing guidelines (p. 107)
t) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Grading Policies for
Students”) [SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language
for regionalization and consolidated services; make revisions for clarity (p. 110)
u) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Definition of Credit”)
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language for
regionalization and consolidated services; add credit definitions for courses offered
outside a face-to-face classroom setting (p. 114)
v) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Registration”) [SAPC] move
existing policy language from IP 202; update policy language for regionalization and
consolidated services; revise to reflect current practices (p. 116)
w) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Academic Standing”)
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; base probation on cumulative GPA;
create an advisory warning category for students with a semester GPA below 2.0 but
with a satisfactory overall GPA (p. 121)
x) Introduction: Proposed Restructured IP #4xx (“Dean’s List and Graduation Honors”)
[SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202 without revision to wording (p. 126)
y) Introduction: Proposed Restructured and Revised IP #4xx (“Changes to Academic
Policies for Students”) [SAPC] move existing policy language from IP 202; add
clarification about procedures for changing policies regarding students (p. 128)
z) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #201 (“Admission to the Associate of Arts and
Sciences Degree Program”) [SAPC] update policy to reflect practice; make changes to
wording for clarity and completeness (p. 129)
aa) Introduction: Proposed Revision of IP #206 (“UWS 14 Academic Misconduct
Institutional Procedures”) [SAPC] revise academic misconduct procedures to reflect UW
System guidelines and current practices (p. 134)
bb) Discussion: Strategies for collecting and timeline for reporting feedback
cc) Other
25
7) Old Institutional Business
a) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] updating responsibilities of SIITC (p. 141)
b) Adoption: Proposed Revision of Senate Bylaws 7.0 (“Appointed Senate Bylaws
Committees”) [SSC] revising membership of SIEC (p. 144)
8) Reports
a) Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Greg Lampe (p. 147)
b) Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Foy (p. 151)
c) Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs & Enrollment Management Melissa Stutz (p. 155)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
l)
m)
Senate Steering Committee Chair & UWC Faculty Representative Holly Hassel (p. 158)
Academic Staff Lead Senator Jeff Verona (p. 161)
UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative Kevin Forgard (p. 162)
University Staff Lead Senator Nica Wilson (p. 166)
UW Colleges University Staff Representative Lynnette Kopetsky (p. 167)
Student Governance Council President Cris Mendoza (p. 168)
Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair Joanne Giordano (p. 169)
Senate Budget Committee Chair Mark Klemp (p. 172)
Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta (p. 173)
Senate Assessment Committee Chair Sue Kalinka (p. 175)
9) Other Institutional Business
a) Other
10) Adjournment
Lunch provided by the Senate approximately 12:00 p.m.
1700 1
26
TER code 103 03
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Faculty Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, Student Union
3:40 p.m.
1. Call to Order 2016-2017 Faculty Council of Senators
2. Roll Call of faculty senators and alternates
3. Approval of Agenda
4. Approval of Minutes: November 4, 2016, UW-Marinette and November 14, 2016, Skype
(both posted in Public Folders and http://www.uwc.edu/employees/senate/meetings)
5. Reports
a) Chair Holly Hassel
b) Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair Ron Gulotta
6. Old Business
7. New Business
a) Introduction: Proposed New Policy FPP #5xx (“Faculty Appointments Policy”) [FPSC]
combines faculty appointment policies
b) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506 (“Faculty Post-Tenure Review
Procedures”) [FPSC] update and bring into BOR compliance
c) Introduction: Proposed Revision of FPP #506.01 (“Faculty Remediation Procedures”)
[FPSC] revise and renumber
d) Other
8. Other Business
a) Other
9. Adjournment
27
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
Academic Staff Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, 1346
3:40 p.m.
Roll Call
Select Recorder
Approve Agenda
Approval of Minutes from ASCS meeting of November 4, 2016
Reports
I. New Business
 Introduction: Revision of ASPP #701, “Academic Staff Appointments and Titles”
(Carriveau)
II. Other Business
 Update: Pending revisions of ASPP #703 and 704 (Carriveau)
 Update: Pending revisions of ASPP #320 (Verona and Gorman)
 Discussion: Revising/Combining ASPP #321 and #323 (Verona and Gorman)
 Discussion: Potential revisions to ASPP #708 (Giordano)
 Update: Status of renumbering/reorganizing Senate policies
 Reminder: Upcoming elections
Adjourn
28
Draft Agenda
UW COLLEGES
University Staff Council of Senators
Friday, February 24, 2017
UW-Fox Valley, 1352
3:40 p.m.
1. Call to order
2. Approval of agenda
3. Approval of prior meeting minutes
4. Discussion – Proposed change to Bylaws and governance structure in light of regionalization.
5. Discussion – Membership and Elections
6. Discussion – Evaluation form review
7. Evaluation and Personnel Policy review
8. Other discussion items as needed
9. Adjourn
29
Attachment 2
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Amendment of UW Colleges Constitution Chapter 3
(“Campus Governance”)
Rationale:
In the wake of regionalization and the addition of University Staff to campus collegiums, Senate
Steering was asked to amend the committee structures. There were two areas in need of
clarification.
The phrase, “to the campus administrator and/or RADAA,” did not make clear which
committees were to advise which administrator. Additionally, recent changes which have given
the REO direct input into tenure, promotion and post-tenure review meant that this statement
needed to be revised. Because of the fluid nature of our administrative structure, the simplest
solution was to strike this phrase. The standing committees would remain advisory to the
campus but the reporting structure of each committee would be spelled out in campus
constitutions.
The second issue, in light of System Legal’s determination that faculty need not be a majority on
all campus standing committees, was to reevaluate the requirement that each standing
committee shall have a majority of faculty. It does not seem that all committees – the safety
committee, for instance – require a faculty majority but some do. Compounding this problem is
that the language in 3.05 only authorizes creating standing committees covered in the six listed
categories; a safety committee would not be authorized in the first place.
To clarify the language and to permit a more flexible committee structure, the following changes
were made:
1. The six original categories remain faculty majority committees.
2. A new section, 3.06, was added to authorize the creation of committees that did not fall
under the criteria mentioned in 3.05. These committees need not have a faculty
majority; the specific membership criteria would be decided by the campus collegium.
3. The section regarding the creation of a student life and interests committee was move to
3.06. This was to make clear that, unlike other committees, this one is under student
government control and not the creation of the campus collegium.
4. Broadened the language concerning evaluation of faculty and teaching staff from
“appropriate department executive committees” to” appropriate department
committees” to reflect current practice.
5. Rearranged wording in 3.05 to group ideas closer together. The membership rules are
now grouped together and the restrictions on hiring/evaluation/promotion are now
together.
Proposed additions are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font. Sections of language
proposed to be moved are in blue.
=================================================================
30
UW Colleges Constitution
Chapter 3 - Campus Governance
===============================================================
Approved by the UW Board of Regents 9/10/93
Revision adopted by the Senate 01/10/01
Revision adopted by the Senate April 27, 2007
Revision adopted by the Senate March 6, 2009
Revision adopted by the Senate (SGC) 2012-10-26
Revision adopted by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the SSC (2014-12-11) 2015-07-01
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2016-04-22
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2016-11-04
[…]
3.05 Other Uniform Campus Collegium Committees
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2012-10-26
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2016-04-22
Each campus collegium shall elect as many standing committees as it deems necessary to serve
the campus as major advisory bodies to the campus administrator and/or RADAA on the
following subjects:
1. Appointment of faculty and academic staff;
2. Evaluation of faculty and teaching academic staff;
3. Curriculum and course improvements;
4. Budget;
5. Academic actions;
6. Personnel grievances.
Each standing committee shall have a majority of faculty. Academic staff shall have the right to
representation and to select their own representatives on all committees except those designated
for faculty and university staff personnel issues. University staff shall have the right to
representation and to select their own representatives on all committees except those designated
for faculty and academic staff personnel issues. The committee charged with retention, tenure
and promotion decisions for faculty must consist only of tenured faculty members. Collegia
constitutions shall allow for student members on committees designated to consider all
professional appointments, curriculum, academic actions and on the budget committee
designated to advise the campus dean on the budget. The campus student government will be
the electing body for all student representatives on all campus governance committees.
There shall be no students on the committees designated to evaluate faculty and teaching
academic staff, or consider faculty grievances. However, student input must be sought in the
evaluation of faculty and teaching academic staff at least once every three years. The campus
student government will be responsible for creating a committee for student life and interests
and for the dispensation of segregated university fees.
The committee charged with retention, tenure and promotion decisions for faculty must
consist only of tenured faculty members. [from above] The committees providing advice on
31
faculty and teaching academic staff appointments and curriculum shall seek the advice of
appropriate department executive committees. The committee designated to evaluate faculty and
teaching academic staff shall seek the advice of the appropriate department executive
committees in its annual evaluation of all faculty and academic teaching staff. Appointments,
renewals, tenure, and promotions may be granted only after affirmative recommendations of the
appropriate campus committee(s) and academic department. There shall be no students on the
committees designated to evaluate faculty and teaching academic staff, or consider faculty
grievances. However, student input must be sought in the evaluation of faculty and teaching
academic staff at least once every three years. [from above]
3.06 Other Campus Committees
1. The campus student government will be responsible for creating a committee for student
life and interests and for the dispensation of segregated university fees. [from above]
2. If a campus requires advisory bodies to address issues beyond those listed in 3.05, they
may establish additional standing committees. The membership criteria of these
committees will be established by the campus collegium and, if a standing committee, set
out in the campus constitution.
[End]
32
Attachment 3
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 7.0
(“Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees”)
Rationale:
The IRB has requested a Bylaw revision to change the student’s term from 1 year to 2 years. The
student member serves an important role on IRB, considering that a great deal of UWC SOTL
research uses students as “subjects." Furthermore, the student can fill the requirement for a
“non-scientist” member. However, the SGC appointment process often moves slowly, which
typically results in stretches of time each year during which this position is unfilled. Changing
the term to two years will, by definition, reduce these stretches by half. The IRB feels that it will
not be a problem to find students to serve two-year terms.
Proposed additions are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font.
====================================================================
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
Established 11/12/94
Revised 3/18/95
Revised 1/11/96
Revised 5/4/96
Revised 3/8/97
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04
Revised 4/29/05
Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/16/08
Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised by the Senate 4-24-09
Revised by the Senate 10-23-09
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 1-13-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 3-5-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 4-23-10
Revised by the Senate (SIITC) 2010-10-22
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-01-12
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-04-29
Revised by the Senate (SOPC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2012-01-11
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-01-09
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-03-15
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the SSC 2014-03-24
Revised by the SSC 2014-08-28
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-10-24
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-03-20
Revised by the SSC (2014-12-11) 2015-07-01
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2016-02-19
[…]
7.0
Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
[…]
3) Institutional Review Board
Revised 1-16-08 Previously “Senate Research Review Committee”
Revised by the Senate 2012-01-11
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
33
The Institutional Review Board shall consist of seven voting members: two faculty
from Psychology/Education, one from Anthropology/Sociology, one from the
Humanities and one from Biological Sciences, one community member and one
student. The faculty and community member shall serve staggered three-year terms;
the student shall serve a two-year term. The Senate Steering Committee shall appoint
the Institutional Review Board from a slate of faculty nominees solicited from the
appropriate departments and community nominees solicited from campus deans. All
new members must complete a 2-3 hour training in the protection of human subjects
prior to beginning their term of service. The student shall be appointed annually by
the Student Governance Council. The UWC IRB Coordinator shall be a non-voting,
ex-officio member and shall represent the Office of Academic and Student Affairs.
The membership of the Institutional Review Board shall conform to the Code of
Federal Regulations in the Department of Health and Human Services that govern the
composition of institutional review boards (IRBs).1
The Institutional Review Board shall, prior to initiation, review all research projects
involving human subjects to ensure the protection of research subjects and
compliance of the UW Colleges with federal and state law. For these purposes,
research is defined as data collection with the intent to disseminate the results in some
scientific or otherwise public manner – convention presentations; publications in
books, journals, newspapers or newsletters; community talks. Data utilized solely
within the classroom would be exempt from this definition of research. The
Institutional Review Board shall review policy and procedures regarding research and
make recommendations regarding any changes to the Office of Academic and Student
Affairs.
UWCAP #15, Guidelines for Preparation of Protocols for Review by the Institutional
Review Board, provides the framework for both the researchers and the board.
The Institutional Review Board is, for the purposes of all Senate documents and
policies, a Senate Bylaws committee. Any references in Senate documents to Senate
committees are to be understood to include the Institutional Review Board.
1. As of October 19, 2007, this can be found in: United States Department of Health and Human Services Code
of Federal Regulations Title 45, Part 46, Section 46.107 – “IRB Membership”
[…]
[End]
34
Attachment 4
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New IP #409
(“Process for Changes to Department Structure”)
Rationale:
Most institutions in the UW System have a specific process identified for making changes to
department structures, including consolidation, decoupling, or dissolution. In 2016, faced with
budget reductions academic departments were charged with reducing their collective budget line
by $100,000, with cuts including potentially including department consolidation (or
administration by a single chair). Since no existing policy spelled out a process by which such
decisions would be made (or by whom), an ad hoc group was assembled and charged by
Steering. Their three-part charge was as follows; a) develop process, roles, and responsibilities
to combine, dissolve, or decouple academic departments; b) identify how and where the new
entities will ensure integrity and quality of the responsibilities of departments spelled out in
Chapter 4, including evaluation of personnel, management and maintenance of curriculum,
merit and retention/tenure/promotion decisions, and other routine work of academic
departments, and c) create a manageable tool for evaluating/assessing the work associated with
disciplinary and departmental maintenance, including assessing resources needs that take into
account factors beyond instructor FTE. The group met regularly during the Fall 2016 semester
and included representatives from Steering, Academic Affairs, Faculty Professional Standards
Committee, Senate Academic Policy Committee, and five department chairs.
The proposed policy emerged from these conversations and is the result of a review of research
into processes and policies used at other UW campuses, adapted for our own institutional
structure.
____________________________________________________________________________
UW Colleges Senate Policy
General Institutional Policy #409
Process for Changes to Department Structure
====================================================================
Adopted by the Senate (SAPC)
I. Introduction
A. The departmental structure of the UW Colleges is established by the faculty in
accordance with s. 36.09(4), ACIS 1.0, and the UW Colleges Constitution 4.00. This
policy provides a process for restructuring established departments.
B. A departmental restructuring involves altering the common field of knowledge or closely
related disciplinary or interdisciplinary interests that define one or more departments. IP
#410 contains the list of the disciplines within each department.
35
C. Departmental restructuring does not include normal departmental operations such as
faculty members or courses moving between departments or departments collaborating
on curricular changes within their existing disciplines.
D. Expected uses of this policy would be merging or splitting departments or transferring
entire disciplines between departments.
E. All the pathways shall comport with the following right outlined in Chapter 36,
acknowledging that Chapter 36 grants the following jurisdiction: "The faculty of each
institution shall have the right to determine their own faculty organizational structure and
to select representatives to participate in institutional governance, except that the faculty
of each institution shall ensure that faculty in academic disciplines related to science,
technology, engineering, and mathematics are adequately represented in the faculty
organizational structure,"
II. Initiation of Restructuring
There are two paths for initiation of a departmental restructuring; Internal and External
A. Internal
1. An internal initiation is indicated by the approval of a majority of the faculty within
each affected department.
2. The executive committees of the affected departments are responsible for creating the
proposal for the restructuring specified in section <III> of this policy.
3. The proposal is presented to the Senate Steering Committee only after it has been
approved by a majority vote of faculty in each department affected by the
restructuring. Any substantive change to the proposal after it is submitted to the
Senate Steering Committee must be approved by a majority of the faculty in each
affected department.
B. External
1. An external initiation does not have the approval of a majority of faculty within the
affected departments.
2. Expected sources would be the Office of Academic Affairs (OAA), the Chancellor, or
the Academic Department Chairs. It is a restructuring that is deemed necessary even
if the impacted faculty do not agree.
3. A request for restructuring is submitted to the Academic Department Chairs and the
Senate Steering Committee. The Department Chairs’ representative to the Senate and
the Senate Steering Committee will designate an ad hoc committee to generate the
proposal specified in section <III> of this policy.
4. The completed proposal is submitted to the Faculty Council of Senators and requires
a 2/3 majority vote to proceed.
5. Upon a 2/3 majority approval by the Faculty Council of Senators, the proposal will be
submitted to the Senate Steering Committee.
III. Components of the Proposal to Change a Department Structure
36
A. A description of the proposed/planned change to department restructuring, including a
revised organizational chart if appropriate. The proposal should offer potential structural
options for committees and department leadership. This might include models for
managing curriculum, personnel, assessment, and chairing the department (examples
might include chair/co-chair; vice-chair, or associate chair), or separate curriculum
committees for each discipline, etc. The proposal should also include a timeline and
advance communication plan.
B. A rationale which explains and supports the recommended organizational changes. This
should include an explanation of the precipitating circumstances or rationale for the
proposal. Such explanations may be based in the department's mission/focus and
consequent realignment of resources with those changes, substantial changes/redirection
of fields/courses of study, declining faculty and student interest in the field of study,
negative assessment of program or department quality and concern about the ability to
deliver programming of acceptable quality to students, budgetary considerations, or other
forces. Budgetary considerations shall not be the only substantive parts of the rationale.
C. An explanation and evidence of efforts made to confer with and to notify parties affected
by this change. This should include, but may not be limited to: faculty and staff who
contribute to the program, academic units that provide resources to support the program,
and other stakeholders.
D. An assessment of the impact of the change on current students, market demand for
students with this education that will not be met in the absence of the program, whether
other UW Colleges academic departments or programs provide a related educational
experience, whether there are similar or related programs offered at other colleges or
universities regionally or in the UW System, and what efforts have been made to resolve
the situation to allow the department's curriculum to continue, including the potential for
collaboration with other units. A review of any disparate impact on specific campuses
should also be included if relevant.
E. Description of how disciplinary integrity will be maintained within the proposed
reorganization, including curriculum planning and evaluation, and faculty/instructional
academic staff hiring and evaluation.
F. Description of the faculty or faculty lines that will be impacted by the reorganization.
G. Description of the potential impact on faculty, instructional academic staff, and university
staff in involved departments.
H. Courses and course descriptions that will be offered in reorganized units.
I. A statement of support or opposition from any and/or all university employees affected
by the proposed/planned reorganization.
J. Description of how success of reorganization will be evaluated.
37
IV. Approval Process
A. The Senate Steering Committee will direct the proposal to appropriate committees for
review; Senate Academic Policy Committee, Senate Budget Committee, Faculty
Professional Standards Committee, or any other committee appropriate for the specific
proposal.
B. Senate Steering will send the proposal to affected departments for review.
C. Upon completion of review, the proposal will be presented to the Faculty Council of
Senators as an introduction for voting.
D. The proposal will be sent to the campus collegia for review and upon completion of
review submitted to the Faculty Council for adoption.
E. In the event of an internally-initiated restructuring, an affirmative vote by 2/3 of the
voting members of Faculty Council sends the proposal on to the provost. A negative vote
by the Faculty Council of Senators ends the process.
F. In the event of an externally-initiated restructuring, an affirmative vote by 3/4 of the
voting members of Faculty Council sends the proposal on to the provost. A negative vote
by Faculty Council ends the process.
G. The provost can overturn an affirmative vote to restructure; if the provost affirms the vote
to restructure, then the proposal goes to the chancellor.
H. The Chancellor can override a veto by the provost or can overturn an affirmative vote to
restructure.
V. Criteria for Decision-Making
A. All bodies reviewing a proposal to change a department structure shall be guided by the
following criteria questions. Generally, all of the criteria implied in IP #408.II apply here,
but the following are mandatory or are given greater weight:
1. Does the proposed department "deal with a common field of knowledge or have a
common or closely related disciplinary or interdisciplinary interest"? (This is a
Constitutional requirement for departments, and cannot be waived or balanced by
other criteria.) [408:II.A]
2. Does the proposed department fulfill needs that are not addressed by current
departments or programs?
3. Does the proposed department’s leadership structure adequately and equitably
address (or improve) the ability to meet the needs of all disciplines within the
department?
4. Is the proposed department fiscally sustainable?
38
VI. Management and Assessment of Newly Merged or Reorganized Departments
A. Upon the completion of the reorganization process, the department would conduct an
election for a department chair. In the first year of the merger a departmental Vice Chair
from the other discipline would be compensated (stipend amount to be determined) to
help the Chair navigate the transition.
B. Even if the newly elected chair had been the current chair for one of the departments
involved, the chair’s term would be considered to be starting anew. Thus, the chair
would go through the usual department chair review process in the second year.
C. In addition to the existing processes for reviewing chairs and departments, the newly
reorganized department would conduct an assessment at the end of the first and third
years of its existence. This departmental assessment would include the following:
1. The department chair will complete a “Department Chair Tasks Assessment” to
determine how much of their work they were able to conduct without creating
excessive uncompensated labor for other department members. In order to have a
means of comparison, at least three other department chairs from
blended/interdisciplinary departments will be asked to conduct the Tasks Assessment
as well.
2. Members of the newly reorganized department will be asked to complete a brief
survey of their perceptions of the merger.
3. The department chair will discuss the results of these assessments at a meeting with
the Provost, the Department Chairs' Representative to the Senate, and the Chair of the
Senate Steering Committee with the goal of discussing ways for the newly merged
department to address any concerns that the assessment tools may raise.
4. If it is determined that the merger is not working and the issues cannot be addressed,
the process for unmerging the departments may be initiated.
[End]
39
Attachment 5
UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Overview of Proposed Restructuring of Institutional Curricular Policies
Supporting Document for Proposed Curricular Policy Changes
Overview
This document provides an overview of proposed restructuring of Senate curricular policies
through new Senate introductions in February and April 2017. During 2017, the Senate
Academic Policy Committee will introduce a series of curricular policy changes to support
implementation of the new associate degree, eliminate redundant policies, and restructure
policies so that they are easier for instructors and administrators to access.
Restructuring of IP #101.02
Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02: Curriculum Guidelines contains multiple policies written
for different institutional audiences and purposes. In preparation for the intensive curricular
redesign and proposal work for the new associate degrees, the Senate Academic Policy
Committee proposes a series of new curricular policies that would replace IP #101.02, streamline
the curricular approval process, and make it easier to find a curricular policy on a specific topic.
Instead of having information in a large curriculum policy and in various other curricular
policies, information related to each curricular topic will be organized into a unified policy that is
separate from policies on other topics.
If the proposed changes are adopted, the “Curriculum Guidelines” policy will be divided into six
new policies:
1. Curricular Approval Process (also eliminates redundant language in other policies)
2. Guidelines for Curricular Proposals (eliminates the need for multiple policies
explaining proposal guidelines)
3. Curriculum Planning
4. Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings
5. Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses
6. Catalog and Schedule Course Descriptions Policy
Additional Curricular Policy Introductions
These additional curricular policies (and potentially others) will contain information synthesized
from multiple other policies to relocate information on related curricular topics in the same
policy:
● Courses Offered by Academic Staff Not Affiliated with a Department
● Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses
● Curricular Approval Process for Individual Course Section Proposals (April introduction)
● Curricular Guidelines for Administrators (April introduction restructured from
instructional policy)
40
Annotated Guide to Restructuring of IP 101.02
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02
Curriculum Guidelines
Adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990, p.9, App.14
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990, p.3, App.9
Adopted amendment by the Senate, Mar. 2, 1991, p.3, 7.a.
Ratified amendment by the Senate, May 3, 1991, p.2.
Ratified revision by the Senate, September 28, 1991, p.4, App.10
Initiated by the Senate, May 7, 1994, p.7, App.10
Adopted by the Senate, October 1, 1994; see May 7, 1994, p.7, App.10
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 15, 1999, p.6, see App. 8, Nov. 13, 1998 minutes
Ratified by the Senate, October 8, 1999, p.5 App. 10
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006
Revised by the Senate April 24, 2009
Revised and Renumbered by the Senate (SAPC) April 23, 2010
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
I. Introduction
Added by the Senate 4-23-2010
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
A. Replaced by the introduction to the new “Curricular Approval Process” policy (section I). This
policy details the process for proposing new courses or for changing existing courses. All
proposals or changes must be reviewed to insure they meet this policy. We use this review
process to maintain course standards and so that course credits transfer smoothly to baccalaureate
programs beyond UW Colleges.
B. Replaced by “Curricular Approval Process” policy section B.1 (“Department or Program
Oversight for Curricular Proposals”). Course proposal requests can be initiated by individuals,
departments or campus curriculum committees but the department should be consulted early in
the process.
C. To be deleted (public folders do not exist). The starting point for developing a course is also in
Senate policies that detail curricular guidelines. Consult current curriculum committee
guidelines (in public folders) or current Senate Curriculum Committee chair for assistance before
you begin to plan or re-design a course.
D. Replaced by the introduction to the new “Curricular Approval Process” policy (sections III
“Curricular Approval Process Components” and IV “Overview of the Curricular Approval
Process”). General sequence of course proposal review is (1) department, (2) campus (not always
needed), (3) Senate Curriculum Committee, (4) Provost.
E. Moved to the new Curricular Approval Process policy (section IV.E). The review process will
typically take at least 4-6 weeks after proposals are submitted.
II. UW Colleges Curriculum Breadth
This entire section has been moved to a new “Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings”
policy and expanded. See Section II, “Review of Campus Curriculum Breadth.”
The curriculum at each UW Colleges campus shall be designed to provide a reasonable breadth of
liberal studies and necessary pre-professional course offerings.
Each UW Colleges campus shall offer a sufficient number of courses meeting AAS degree
requirements so that a student can earn an AAS degree during a two-year period.
41
III. Catalog and Timetable Course Descriptions
Revised 4-24-09
Revised 4-23-10
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Sections A and B have been moved to a new “Catalog and Timetable Descriptions” policy with
minor revisions for clarity.
A. Catalog and Timetable Descriptions
1. Catalog course descriptions should reflect the content of specific courses as they are taught
across the UW Colleges. Permissible variations in course content should be reflected by the use
of such phrases as “may include,” “optional topics,” etc. It is expected that faculty members will
teach each course in a manner consistent with the catalog description.
B. Each UW Colleges timetable must duplicate the UW Colleges Catalog description. The
following exceptions may be made:
1. If a course is to be offered in modules, this should be so stated, with appropriate information
added.
2. Logistical information, as in the case of field trips, may be added.
3. Course content which has been listed as optional and which will not be covered in a
particular course may be deleted from the timetable description.
4. For variable content courses, the timetable shall give a description of the specific subject
matter.
A revised version of section C is available in a new “Processes for Reviewing Curricular
Offerings.” Information about curricular changes is deleted (detailed information about curricular
changes is available in the new “Curricular Approval Process” policy).
C. Departments shall review UW Colleges Catalog descriptions biannually as part of the catalog
revision exercise. Requests for changes in the Catalog description may be submitted to the
Senate Curriculum Committee for review. If the request is approved by the Curriculum
Committee, that committee shall so inform the Provost. If the latter concurs with the change, the
Office of Academic and Student Affairs will inform the registrar, campus deans, assistant campus
deans for student affairs, department chairs and the chair of the Senate Curriculum Committee of
the change. Consult the current Curriculum Guidelines or SCC chair for correct forms to use
when requesting course description changes.
Information from section D has been moved to two separate policies.
D. The first half of section D is moved to a new “Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings”
with revision. The UW Colleges Catalog listing of courses shall include those courses offered on
a reasonably frequent basis at one or more UW Colleges campus. Departments are to review
their course offerings during the catalog preparation process to identify courses which are not
being offered or which need revision of some sort. Should a department identify a course which
is not being offered but which is a legitimate part of a freshman/sophomore curriculum for that
discipline, the course in question may be placed in a “course bank.” Information from the
second half of this paragraph is available in a new “Process for Banking and Deleting
Courses” policy. In this category it will not appear in the catalog, but may be drawn out by the
department, upon stipulation to the Provost of the need for the course, UW Colleges at which it
will be offered, faculty likely to teach it, and updated transferability data.
42
Section III.E is no longer necessary because campuses do not publish printed copies of course
schedules. They are available online for anyone in the institution to access.
E. Upon publication, the UW Colleges Online and each UW Colleges campus will make their
course schedule available to the Office of Academic and Student Affairs.
IV. Curricular Audit and Review Processes
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
This section has been moved to the new “Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings” policy
with revisions to reflect the BAAS degree and three different associate degrees.
A. Each UW Colleges department and each UW Colleges campus, at the direction of the Provost,
shall review its curricular offerings as part of the five-year audit and review cycle. This review
shall determine whether the department or UW Colleges course offerings are adequate in terms of
both number and frequency to permit students to earn the AAS degree and/or complete necessary
pre-professional requirements in a two-year period. UW Colleges which offer an evening and/or
weekend program shall determine what degree requirements can be satisfied by students over a
four-year period of time. In addition, the departmental review shall examine the transfer status of
each course to UW baccalaureate institutions. Furthermore, the review, through the examination
of syllabi, shall evaluate departmental offerings across UW Colleges with respect to consistency
with the catalog description and consistency with Associate of Arts and Science breadth category
and specific requirement designations.
B. The Provost, in consultation with the UWC Senate Curriculum Committee, shall conduct a
review of courses for the purposes of:
1. Recommending course deletions from the UW Colleges catalog;
2. Recommending changes in departmental alignment of courses (e.g., an INT course which,
over time, might have changed its emphasis such that a different departmental home than
originally agreed upon might be more appropriate);
3. Maintaining curricular balance and meeting AAS degree requirements;
4. Revising course numbering sequences;
5. Recommending cross-listing where deemed advisable; and
6. Recommending changes in course designations for the fulfillment of Associate Degree
distribution requirements.
V. Curriculum Planning
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
This section has been moved to the new “Curriculum Planning” Policy with revisions to reflect
regionalization and current practices.
Curriculum planning will be done annually. The planning will include the department chairs, the
campus deans, the faculty in each discipline on the campus, the campus curriculum committees, and
the Provost’s office. The process will include the following:
A. The faculty on each campus, in consultation with the campus curriculum committee, will
develop a curriculum plan, including available distance education course offerings. The plan
will be submitted to the chair of the department in the appropriate discipline.
B. In cases where there are no faculty on a campus in a discipline where offerings will be provided,
the campus dean and local campus curriculum committee will develop a curriculum plan and
43
submit the plan to the department chair.
C. After review by the department chair in the appropriate discipline, the plan will be submitted to
the campus dean and campus curriculum committee. If the curriculum plan is changed after the
department has reviewed it, the campus must consult the department chair.
D. The campus dean will submit the curriculum plan to the Provost’s office.
E. During any of the steps above, negotiation may take place, and consultation is encouraged,
among the faculty, the chair of the campus curriculum committee, the campus dean, the
department chair, and the Provost’s office on curricular, budget and staffing issues.
A specific timeline for the above will be developed annually by the Provost’s office.
VI. Policies for Curricular Change
Revised 4-23-10
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
This section has been replaced by the new “Curricular Approval Process” policy.
A. Addition and modification of courses.
1. With approval of the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee and the Provost, UW
Colleges academic departments may add new courses or revise existing courses. (Procedures
for submission of new course proposals and of requests for revision of existing courses are
described in VI.)
2. Separate processes for different types of courses will no longer be required with proposed
changes to curricular policies. Either academic departments or UW Colleges curriculum
committees may initiate the request to the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee to add
or modify interdisciplinary (INT) or lecture forum (LEC) courses. (Procedures for
submission of such requests are detailed in IP #106.)
3. When a new course or modification of an existing course has been approved, the Chair of the
UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee shall notify the Provost who, after
administrative approval has been granted, will inform a) the Registrar, b) Deans and assistant
campus deans for student affairs, c) the appropriate department chair, and d) the UW
Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee.
Section VI. B has been moved to a new “Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses” policy and
revised for clarity.
B. Deletion of Courses from the UW Colleges Catalog
1. Either the Provost or an academic department may initiate a request that a course be deleted
from the UW Colleges catalog.
a. If initiated by the Provost, the request shall be directed to the academic department
with a copy to the Senate Curriculum Committee. The academic department shall
forward its response to this request to the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum
Committee.
b. If initiated by the academic department, the request shall be directed to the UW
Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee.
c. The UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee shall return its recommendation to
the Provost.
2. Course banking is an alternative to deletion of a course from the permanent list of the UW
Colleges course offerings. (see III.D.4.)
44
C. Additions and Deletions of Course Offerings at a UW Colleges Campus
This section has been moved to the new “Curriculum Planning” policy, reformatted, and updated.
1. Course offerings at each UW Colleges campus must have the approval of the appropriate
academic departments, of the UW Colleges curriculum committee and the UW Colleges
Campus Dean.
2. Such approval requirements are intended to insure that :
a. faculty members are approved to teach assigned courses.
b. the UW Colleges curriculum has balance and meets the needs of students attempting
to fulfill Associate of Arts and Science degree and pre-professional requirements.
c. this process of approval will ordinarily occur as part of the four-semester curriculum
planning protocol.
d. when a disagreement between an academic department and UW Colleges cannot be
resolved informally, the matter shall be appealed to the Provost.
e. addition of a course for a specific semester with a writing/speaking emphasis
designation shall originate with the instructor. The dean, after consulting with the
local curriculum committee, may approve the offering, approve it with possible
restrictions, or reject it.
Section D has been moved to a new “Degree Designations” policy.
D. Assignment of Associate of Arts and Science Degree Designations
1. Definitions of and criteria for all AAS degree designations, including breadth and emphasis
requirements, shall be approved by the UW Colleges Senate.
2. Requests for ASS degree designations for individual sections shall be made to the UW
Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee, in accordance with procedures developed by that
committee.
3. When AAS degree designations have been approved for a specific course, the Chair of the
UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee shall notify the Provost, who after
administrative approval has been granted, will inform a) the Registrar, b) Deans and
assistant campus deans for student affairs; c) the appropriate department chair, and d) the
UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee.
VII.
Adding New Courses to the Colleges Curriculum and Changing Courses in the UW _
Colleges Curriculum
Revised 4-23-10
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
A. Adding New Courses to the Curriculum
Information in this section has been moved to the new “Guidelines for Curricular
Proposals” policy and revised.
1. A new course proposal should include the following:
a. A completed “UW Colleges New Course Proposal.”
b. A completed “UW Colleges Course Guide.”
2. This sentence has been copied directly to a cross-listed courses section of the
“Curricular Approval Process” policy. Cross-listed courses are the same course
cataloged with two or more different prefixes. All departments involved in a cross-listed
course must approve the course.
3. Procedures for new course approval
45
Information in this section has been moved to the new “Curricular Approval Process”
policy with some minor revisions for clarity and to reflect current practice.
a. New course proposals shall be submitted to the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum
Committee (SCC) by the sponsoring department.
b. With a positive recommendation by the SCC, the proposal shall be forwarded to the
Provost. If the recommendation of the SCC is negative, the proposal shall be
returned to the department with reasons for the decision.
c. A course may be offered following a positive recommendation from the SCC and
approval from the Provost. During the two semesters after approval, the Provost’s
Office (Transfer Coordinator) shall pursue transfer equivalencies and breadth
designations with the other UW System institutions. If substantial transfer problems
arise, the Provost may ask the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee to review
their positive designation.
Information in section B.1 has been moved to the new “Guidelines for Curricular
Proposals” policy and modified.
B. Changes in a course description or title (including cross-listing between departments), in the
number of credits for a course, or in the prerequisites for a course. Procedure for the above
changes:
1. A Course Change Proposal shall include:
a. A completed “UW Colleges Curricular Change Proposal Form”
b. A revised “Course Guide.”
c. A rationale for the proposed change.
d. A statement on the impact of the change on other courses within the discipline.
2. Procedures for course modifications.
This section duplicates information in the “Curricular Approval Process” policy moved
from other sections of this policy.
a. The Course Change Proposal shall be submitted to the UW Colleges Senate
Curriculum Committee (SCC) by the sponsoring department. If the course is crosslisted with two or more departments, all departments involved must approve the
changes.
b. With a positive recommendation by the SCC, the proposal shall be forwarded to the
Provost who shall make a final determination.
[End]
46
Attachment 6
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Institutional Curricular Policy
(“Associate Degrees”)
Rationale:
The University of Wisconsin System has developed a set of associate degree standards based on
system-wide shared learning goals. The proposed restructuring of the AAS degree would adopt
three new associate degrees based on those standards. Without revisions to the associate degree,
the UW Colleges would not be compliant with UW System guidelines, which are designed to
provide a general education that supports transfer to four-year universities. This proposed
policy would replace Institutional Curricular Policy 101, “Associate of Arts and Science
Degree.”
During the previous academic year, a team appointed by the Provost developed a framework for
the new degrees, which was endorsed by the Faculty Council of Senators in November 2016. The
Senate Academic Policy Committee used the endorsed framework to develop this institutional
policy that outlines the requirements for each of the three associate. As part of that work, SAPC
reviewed UW System policy and existing curricular policies and made revisions to the
framework to reflect those policies. The associate degree leadership team reviewed an initial
draft, and SAPC then developed a final policy draft.
The initial framework that the Faculty Council endorsed did not include definitions for High
Impact Practices, which are required for establishing curricular guidelines for degree
designators. Unlike other general education requirement in the associate degrees, which include
a focus on course content, the High Impact Practice (HIP) degree designator applies to active
learning courses that emphasize evidence-based teaching practices and that support student
engagement and retention. In developing HIP definitions for the associate degrees, SAPC used
AAC&U guidelines, along with existing Senate curricular policies (which already address some
of the practices in HIP categories). SAPC focused only on nationally recognized high impact
practices that have been extensively tested and shown to improve student engagement and
retention. When adopted in their final form, other degree requirements are not likely to change
for the foreseeable future, but other HIP designation courses might be added if research
demonstrates the effectiveness of other teaching practice on student engagement and retention.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Associate Degrees
=====================================================================
I. Purpose of UW Colleges Associate Degrees
The University of Wisconsin Colleges offers three associate degrees to fulfill the institutional
mission of providing access to higher education and a pathway to degree attainment for the
47
residents of Wisconsin. The associate degrees are transferrable to institutions across the UW
System and provide students with a liberal arts general education and a breadth of intellectual
and practical skills. The associate degrees also provide the foundation for the UW Colleges
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree.
II. The Three UW Colleges Associate Degrees
The UW Colleges offers three types of degrees that encompass a broad range of coursework and
that form a strong foundation for bachelor degree programs. They are guided by the University
of Wisconsin System Associate Degree Standards.
A. Associate of Arts (AA)
This degree provides a broad liberal arts background with an emphasis on the study of human
culture and society.
B. Associate of Science (AS)
This degree provides a basic liberal arts background with an enhanced focus on knowledge of
the physical and natural world and quantitative literacy.
C. Associate of Arts and Sciences (AAS)
This degree provides a broad, balanced liberal arts and sciences background.
III. General Degree Requirements
A. A student must complete a minimum of 60 credits to receive an associate degree. When
completing these 60 credits, students must satisfy one of the following requirements:
1. At least 36 of the 60 credits must be earned in the UW Colleges, or
2. At least 12 of the final 24 credits must be earned in the UW Colleges.
B. A student must have a cumulative grade point average (GPA) of 2.0 earned at the UW
Colleges and a 2.0 overall GPA in credits applied to the selected associate degree.
C. The UW Colleges general education requirements must be fulfilled for the associate degree
type that the student selects.
IV. Overview of Associate Degree Requirements
A. Distribution of Credit Requirements for Each Type of Associate Degree
Requirement
Knowledge of
Human Cultures
(HC)
Associate of Arts
12
Associate of Science
6
48
Associate of Arts
and Science
9
Knowledge of the
Natural World (NW)
6
14
Additional HC or
NW Coursework
9
3
Critical and
Creative Thinking
(CC)
3
6
3
Effective
Communication
(EC)*
English 102 +
3 additional credits
English 102 +
3 additional credits
English 102 +
3 additional credits
Intercultural
Knowledge and
Competence (IK)
6
3
3
Individual, Social,
and Environmental
Responsibility (ER)
6
6
6
Total General
Education Credits
39
41
39
Electives (leading to
an emphasis or
baccalaureate
degree)
21
19
21
Total Required
Credits to Degree
60
60
60
*English 102 is a required EC designation course for all associate degrees. Students who
receive exemption from English 102 must complete a total of 6 EC credits by taking other
Effective Communication courses.
B. Additional Degree Requirements
A student must fulfill the following degree requirements through general education breadth
requirements and/or elective coursework:
1. Depth sequence (two courses of three or more credits each)
2. Three credits of Quantitative Literacy coursework (QL)
3. An ethnic studies course (ES)
4. A laboratory science course (LS)
5. A High Impact Practice course (HIP)
49
V. General Education Breadth Requirements
A student must complete general education coursework in a variety of different disciplines based
on breadth categories established by the University of Wisconsin System shared learning goals.
A student must complete coursework in six different breath categories. Each course is limited to
only one breadth category.
A. Knowledge of Human Cultures (HC)
Courses focus on analysis of the human condition, culture, and society. This typically
includes coursework that requires students to engage with and analyze human interaction and
culture, social organization and institutions, historical contexts, and/or complex
interdependent systems. The HC requirement typically includes coursework in social
sciences, humanities, fine arts, and world languages. Students in HC courses can expect to 1)
describe and evaluate existing knowledge of human cultures; 2) interpret and analyze data,
texts, and/or artifacts; and/or 3) apply concepts across disciplines.
B. Knowledge of the Natural World (NW)
Courses focus on concepts and applications related to the natural and physical sciences and
mathematics. The NW requirement typically includes coursework in the sciences and
mathematics. Students in NW courses can expect to 1) describe and evaluate existing
knowledge of the natural world; 2) interpret, analyze and communicate data, results, and
conclusions; and/or 3) apply concepts across disciplines.
C. Critical and Creative Thinking (CC)
Courses extend students’ abilities to analyze issues and produce responses that are both
logical and innovative. The CC requirement can be fulfilled with qualifying coursework in
any discipline. Students in CC classes can expect to 1) investigate problems; 2) execute
analytical, practical, or creative tasks; and/or 3) combine or synthesize existing ideas, images,
or expertise in original ways.
D. Effective Communication (EC)
Courses support and assess students’ development of reading, listening, speaking,
information literacy, and/or writing proficiencies. The EC requirement typically includes
coursework in multiple communication modes, including speaking/listening, writing,
communication, and media studies. Students in EC courses will be asked to demonstrate 1)
effective reading, listening, speaking, and/or writing skills, for a variety of purposes and
audiences; 2) use language effectively to construct scholarly, evidence-based arguments.
A required part of the Effective Communication requirement is a research-intensive
composition course or demonstration of equivalent proficiency. A student can fulfill this
requirement through one of two options:
1. Complete English 102 (or an equivalent transfer course) with a grade of C or higher, or
2. Attain exemption from English 102 by receiving qualifying scores on the Wisconsin
Placement Test and demonstrating achievement of English 102 course learning outcomes
through the English Department’s portfolio exemption process. A student who
successfully completes the English 102 exemption process does not receive college
50
transcript credit for the course and must complete additional coursework to fulfill the
required six EC credits for an associate degree.
E. Intercultural Knowledge and Competence (IK)
Courses prepare students to live and work in diverse contexts. Courses with this degree
designation focus on building cross‐cultural communication, interaction, and empathy with
people from diverse backgrounds and cultures. The IK requirement typically includes
coursework in the social sciences, humanities, fine arts, foreign languages, and ethnic
studies. Students in IK courses can expect to 1) develop cultural self‐awareness in the context
of diverse human cultures; and/or 2) develop strategies for effectively and appropriately
negotiating intercultural interactions.
F. Individual, Social and Environmental Responsibility (ER)
Courses provide the foundation for lifelong learning and the intellectual tools for engaging
ethically as members of society. The ER requirement can be fulfilled with qualifying
coursework in any discipline and often includes high impact teaching practices or other
active learning strategies. Students in ER courses can expect to: 1) engage in active learning
to explore ethical, social, and/or environmental issues; and/or 2) apply knowledge and skills
for the purpose of civic engagement.
VI. Depth Requirement
The UW System Associate Degree Standards require each student to complete “a two-course
sequence in which the first course provides the foundation for the second.” A student fulfills this
requirement by taking a disciplinary depth sequence identified by an academic department or
program. One or both courses may be transferred in from another institution.
Sets of courses in a depth sequence must meet the following criteria:
a. Both courses are in the same discipline (and not just in the same department or program).
b. Both courses are at least three credits.
c. Learning from the first course lays a foundation for learning in the second course.
However, the foundation course does not need to be a prerequisite for the second course.
d. A student takes the second course in a different semester after taking the foundation
course. The semesters do not need to be contiguous.
e. The depth requirement does not include skills courses that lay a foundation for academic
literacy degree requirements (developmental education, non-degree ESL, Math 105, and
English 101) or lecture forum courses.
VII. Quantitative Literacy (QL)
A student must complete a minimum of three credits of a quantitative literacy (QL) course that
focuses on college-level algebraic reasoning, probability, and/or statistics and that has Math 105
as a prerequisite. A student must fulfill one of these requirements:
1. Complete a quantitative literacy course (or equivalent transfer course) with a grade of C
or higher,
2. Complete a mathematics course that has a quantitative literacy (QL) course as a
prerequisite with a grade of C or higher, or
3. Place into a 200-level mathematics course through the math placement process.
51
Quantitative literacy courses may fulfill breadth and depth degree requirements.
VIII. Laboratory Science (LS)
A student must complete at least one laboratory science course. LS courses are offered as
part of or in connection with a lecture/discussion science course, and they normally fulfill a
general education breadth requirement. In laboratory science courses, a student engages in
empirical study of the natural world to enhance learning. The LS designation can only be
attached to courses that transfer to other UW System institutions to fulfill science
requirements.
To carry the LS degree designation, a science course must have at least one of the following
active learning components as a regularly scheduled part of the course:
1. Learning activities in a laboratory or field setting;
2. Extensive use of scientific methods for student investigation, experimentation, and/or
observation;
3. Active student participation in analysis and interpretation of data, using scientific tools,
methods, conceptual frameworks, theories, and/or models.
For courses that do not have separately scheduled laboratory sections, at least one credit’s
worth of work in the course must come from learning activities that meet the criteria for an
LS designation.
IX. Ethnic studies (ES)
A student must take one ethnic studies course. Courses fulfilling the ethnic studies requirement
have a substantial emphasis on cultural diversity issues and ethnic minorities within the United
States. Curricular requirements for ES courses are available in Institutional Curricular Policy
#101.04: Ethnic Studies Policy for the Associate of Arts and Science Degree.
X. High Impact Practices Requirement (HIP)
A High Impact Practice course focuses on teaching and learning that increase a student’s social
and intellectual engagement in higher education. These active learning courses challenge
students to engage in higher order thinking, including analysis, synthesis, evaluation, application,
and/or creation of original work. Students spend significant time on purposeful tasks, receive and
respond to substantial feedback, and engage in interaction with instructors and other students.
Curricular requirements for HIP courses are available in “Guidelines for High Impact Practice
Courses” (IP 2XX).
A student must take one high impact practice course to receive a UW Colleges associate degree.
All versions of a course or individual sections may carry a high impact practice designation. The
following types of courses fulfill the High Impact Practices degree requirement.
A. First-Year Seminars (HIP/FY)
First-year seminars (also called first-year experience courses) help students make a transition
to college-level learning. Courses focus on a disciplinary or interdisciplinary subject of
inquiry with emphasis on student engagement and disciplinary literacy. First-year seminar
courses are normally taken in the first semester. To count toward the toward the HIP degree
52
designation, a first-year seminar and must be completed before a student completes 30
college credits, not including college credits taken in high school.
B. Learning Communities/Integrated Studies (HIP/LC)
A learning community refers to two or more linked courses organized around shared goals
for student learning and engagement. LC courses support integrated learning across courses
and disciplines. Learning communities provide students with increased opportunities for
collaborating, interacting with peers and instructors, and exploring issues through
interdisciplinary inquiry.
C. Writing Emphasis Courses (HIP/WE)
In a writing emphasis (or writing-intensive) course, students produce a variety of texts
written for different disciplinary purposes. Students complete substantial writing assignments
that challenge them to engage in higher order thinking and emphasize analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, and/or application. They receive substantial feedback and respond with revision.
D. Undergraduate Research (HIP/UR)
In an Undergraduate Research course, students have the opportunity to engage in significant,
systematic investigation and research to explore important disciplinary questions. A UR
course connects key disciplinary concepts to active and critical student inquiry. Any
discipline may offer an Undergraduate Research course.
E. Collaborative Learning (HIP/CL)
In a Collaborative Learning course, a significant portion of assigned coursework and other
learning comes from collaborative activities. Students work together to engage in
collaborative problem solving and active learning that leads to one or more projects.
F. Diversity/Global Learning Opportunities (HIP/DG)
The Diversity/Global Learning Opportunities designation applies to a course or linked sets of
courses that provide students with experiential learning to help them explore diverse cultures
and worldviews that are different from their own. Students receive DG credit for a) taking an
experience-based learning course that focuses on cultural diversity within the United States
or b) participate in a study abroad program, which may be completed at another institution.
G. Community-Based Learning/Service Learning (HIP/SL)
Service-learning integrates academic study and field-based experiential learning with
community partners. Students a) apply learning from community service to an academic
course and b) reflect on their service experiences through assignments and learning activities
in the course. Students gain direct experience with issues they are studying in the course and
engage in efforts to analyze community-related problems in the context of one or more
instructor-supervised projects.
H. Internships (HIP/IN)
53
Internships provide students with professional experience outside of a traditional classroom
in a work setting. Students work in a structured learning environment to apply concepts from
related coursework to practical experiences in a field of study.
I. Capstone Project (HIP/CP)
Students take a Capstone Project course in their final semester of the associate degree.
Students create an independent project that synthesizes, integrates, and applies what they
have learned in their associate degree experiences. To receive HIP credit, a student must
complete a minimum of 45 degree credits before enrolling in a Capstone Seminar course.
XI. Elective Credits
In addition to completing general education requirements, a student takes elective credits to
fulfill the required minimum 60 degree credits for an associate degree. Elective credits often
include courses that lead to an emphasis, a baccalaureate major or minor, or other degree
requirements related to a student’s educational goals. Students may take courses with an elective
(EL) designator and/or additional coursework from the associate degree breadth categories.
[End]
54
Attachment 7
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Institutional Curricular Policy
(“Approval Process for an Associate Degree Depth Sequence”)
Rationale:
A two-course disciplinary depth sequence is a required part of a UW System associate degree.
This policy describes procedures for a) receiving curricular approval to offer an associate
degree depth sequence and b) removing a depth sequence from the degree. The purpose of this
policy is to ensure that depth sequences match the criteria outlined in the proposed new
associate degree policy and to create a uniform set of guidelines to help departments and
programs receive curricular approval for their depth sequences.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Approval Process for an Associate Degree Depth Sequence
=====================================================================
I. Introduction
To receive an associate degree, students are required to complete a two-course sequence in
the same discipline. The first course provides a foundation for the second course. See
“Associate Degrees” (IP #2XX). This policy describes the process that academic departments
and programs use for receiving institutional curricular approval for a depth sequence.
II. Criteria for a Depth Sequence
Each depth sequence for an associate degree must meet the following criteria:
1. The depth sequence is a set of two courses.
2. Both courses are in the same discipline (and not just in the same department or
program). Normally, the two courses have the same disciplinary indicator in the UW
Colleges Course Catalog (for example, ART, BIO, or CHE).
3. Learning from the first course lays a foundation for learning in the second course.
4. Both courses are at least three credits.
5. A depth sequence cannot include basic and introductory literacy skills courses that lay
a foundation for other degree requirements (developmental education, non-degree
ESL, Math 105, and English 101) or lecture forum courses.
III. Requirements for a Depth Sequence Proposal
A. A curricular proposal for a depth sequence should include the following information:
1. The course number and title for both courses in the sequence;
2. A brief rationale explaining how disciplinary learning in the second course builds on
learning from the first course.
55
B. If the UW Colleges Catalog numbers for the two courses do not have the same
disciplinary indicator, then the proposal should also explain why the proposed depth
sequence meets the requirement for two courses in the same discipline.
IV. Procedures for Receiving Curricular Approval for a Depth Sequence
A. To receive curricular approval for a depth sequence, an academic department or program
should prepare a proposal for a depth sequence and submit it to the Senate Curriculum
Committee for review, followed by institutional approval from the Provost. See
“Curricular Proposal Process” (IP #2XX).
B. To facilitate curriculum development work within departments and programs, multiple
related depth sequences can be submitted together in the same proposal, provided that the
proposal clearly distinguishes between each different depth sequence.
V. Procedures for Removing a Depth Sequence from the Associate Degree Program
A. As part of regularly reviewing curricular offerings, departments and programs are
responsible for assessing their own disciplinary depth sequences. See “Processes for
Reviewing Curricular Offerings” (IP #2XX). A department or program must remove a
depth sequence from its curricular offerings under the following conditions:
1. When curricular changes result in the two courses no longer meeting the criteria for a
breadth sequence (for example, if the content or number of credits for a course
changes); or
2. One of the courses has been banked or deleted from the UW Colleges Course
Catalog.
B. A department or program may also choose to remove a depth sequence from the associate
degree for other reasons (for example, if a course is infrequently offered or difficult to
staff with a qualified instructor).
C. To remove a depth sequence from the associate degree, the department or program chair
should submit a brief request to the Senate Curriculum Committee and explain why the
department or program wishes to remove the depth sequence. After reviewing the
request, the SCC should send a recommendation to the Provost.
D. With approval from SCC and the Provost, the depth sequence will be removed from the
list of available depth sequences for the associate degree.
[End]
56
Attachment 8
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Institutional Curricular Policy
(“Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses”)
Rationale:
The proposed new UW Colleges associate degrees require students to take a High Impact
Practice (HIP) course. This policy describes guidelines for creating a curricular proposal to
attach the HIP designation to a course.
The purpose of high impact practice courses is to use teaching and learning practices that have
been extensively tested and shown to improve student engagement and retention for many
students from diverse backgrounds. In creating these curricular guidelines, the Senate Academic
Policy drew heavily from existing Senate curricular policies for experiential learning courses,
first-year seminars, writing intensive courses, interdisciplinary studies, and capstone courses.
Those policies were compared to widely recognized definitions of high impact practices and
AAC&U guidelines. Because the purpose of the HIP designation is to increase student
engagement and learning through evidence-based practices, SAPC revised existing curricular
policies to align the criteria for each HIP category with definitions of practices that are
nationally recognized and supported with research about what works in higher education. In the
future, the UW Colleges will likely be able to identify new HIP categories and enhance existing
ones (if approved) as new scholarship on student success emerges.
Because the HIP degree designator focuses on teaching and learning practices (and not course
content), most HIP courses will likely come from instructors who assess and then revise their
own courses after departments and programs map their courses to other general education
degree designators for the new associate degrees. However, departments and programs may be
able to identify courses or develop new ones that meet the criteria for the HIP degree
requirement. The proposed curricular guidelines address both types of HIP courses
(departmental and individual instructor section).
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses
=====================================================================
I.
II.
Overview
This policy explains the criteria for developing and proposing a course with a High Impact
Practice (HIP) degree designation for an associate degree. The degree designation
rationale of a curricular proposal for an HIP course should explain how the course meets
the requirements outlined in this policy. See “Guidelines for Curricular Proposals” (IP
2XX).
Description of a High Impact Practice Course
57
A High Impact Practice course focuses on teaching and learning practices that have been
shown through multiple research studies to increase students’ engagement and retention to
higher education. These active learning courses use teaching practices that challenge
students to engage in higher order thinking. Students spend significant time on purposeful
tasks, receive and respond to substantial feedback, and engage in interaction with
instructors, peers, and/or community members. While other general education courses focus
on breadth in course content and disciplinary skills, High Impact Practice courses focus on
teaching and learning practices that can be applied to diverse content and to course in any
discipline. Courses are normally aligned to other degree designators (or assigned elective
credit) prior to attaching an HIP designation.
III.
General Curricular Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses
1. Each HIP course is classified within a particular HIP category based on the teaching
practices that it uses to engage students in active learning. Course proposals for the
HIP designator must explain how the course meets requirements for both the HIP
designator and for a particular HIP category.
2. A course cannot carry the HIP designator without curricular approval to offer it
within an HIP category.
3. A course is assigned to a single HIP category. For courses that use more than one
HIP teaching practice, the course proposer(s) should identify the HIP category that
most closely reflects the emphases for course learning activities.
4. All sections of a course or individual sections may carry the HIP degree designator.
Course proposals for individual sections should follow the guidelines outlined in
“Curricular Approval Process for Individual Course Section Proposals” (IP #2XX)
5. The High Impact Practices (HIP) designator may be attached to courses that fulfill
other general education requirements or to courses offered for elective credit.
6. Departments and academic programs may develop HIP practice courses that are
variable credit (i.e., where the number of offered credits varies from section to
section).
IV.
Curricular Proposal Requirements for All High Impact Practice Courses
The HIP designation is attached to courses that use effective teaching practices to support
student engagement in higher education. To receive approval for the HIP degree designation,
a curricular proposal should include the following information about teaching and learning in
the course:
1. A brief overview of how the course emphasizes the following high impact teaching
practices:
a. Challenges students to engage in higher order thinking (analysis, synthesis,
evaluation, application, and/or creation of original work).
b. Promotes active learning through significant time on purposeful tasks
c. Engages students in substantive interaction with instructors, peers, or community
members
d. Provides students with frequent feedback.
2. An explanation of how the course meets the criteria for a particular HIP category (see
the guidelines outlined in this policy).
58
V. Curricular Proposal Requirements for First-Year Seminars (HIP/FY)
A. Types of First-Year Seminar Courses
Course proposers have two options for submitting proposals for the first-year seminar
designation:
1. A LEC 100: First-Year Seminar course offered through a sponsoring department
or academic program (for example, LEC 100: Intercultural Communication for
College Learning). This type of FY course is developed by an individual or a group of
instructors. Each unique version of the course requires a separate curricular proposal.
2. A first-year experience course that emphasizes disciplinary literacy and attaches the
FY designation to all offered sections of a unique course (for example, HIS 100:
First Year Seminar in History). This type of FY course is developed for an entire
department or academic program. The department or program submits a single
curricular proposal that applies to all future sections of the course.
B. Required Components of a First-Year Seminar Proposal
To receive approval for the FY designation, a curricular proposal must demonstrate how
the course incorporates the following components of a high impact practice first-year
experience course:
1. Students explore a focused disciplinary or interdisciplinary subject of critical inquiry;
2. Course learning activities help first-year students make a transition to college-level
learning, emphasize student engagement, and develop disciplinary or interdisciplinary
literacy skills;
3. The course challenges students to engage in higher order thinking through frequent
writing, information literacy, collaborative learning, and/or other learning strategies
that help students develop the intellectual skills for postsecondary success.
C. Curricular Approval Requirements for FY Subjects of Inquiry
1. Proposals for LEC 100 courses must identify a designated subject of critical inquiry.
Each section or version of LEC 100 requires a separate curricular proposal submitted
to the Senate Curriculum Committee.
2. Proposals for unique first-year experience courses offered through a department or
program should include examples of potential subjects of inquiry if the topic is
variable. After a variable topic FY course is approved, each separate version requires
its own curricular proposal when the course is structured so that a different title,
description, and/or topic appear in the course schedule (i.e., timetable).
3. When the topic for a first-year experience course is not variable, proposals should
identify a subject of inquiry. When this type of FY course is approved, instructors
offer it without submitting curricular proposals.
VI. Learning Communities/Integrated Studies (HIP/LC)
A. Required Components of a Learning Community Proposal
To receive approval for an LC designation, a curricular proposal should demonstrate the
following requirements for a learning community:
59
1. Two or more linked courses are organized around shared goals for student learning
and engagement.
2. The courses are structured to support integrated learning across courses and
disciplines. Course proposals should explain how learning activities help students
make interdisciplinary connections between the linked courses.
3. Learning communities use teaching practices that provide students with increased
opportunities for collaborating, interacting with peers and instructors, and exploring
of issues through interdisciplinary inquiry within a community of learners.
B. Additional Curricular Guidelines for Learning Communities
1. Learning communities may be offered in a cohort model (with all enrolled students
participating) or with a linking seminar connecting two or more courses.
2. Course proposals for the LC designation require approval from all participating
departments and/or academic programs.
3. Proposals should include a syllabus from each course included in the learning
community.
4. At least two of the linked courses must be from different disciplines. However,
courses may be from the same department or program when a department or program
offers courses in more than one discipline.
5. Learning communities provide students with opportunities to work with two or more
instructors. An individual instructor cannot be the only instructor for the courses in
the learning community.
6. Typically, the LC designation is attached to individual instructor versions of a
learning community. However, two or more departments and/or academic programs
may submit a proposal that would apply to all future versions of a structured learning
community. Proposals should clearly state whether the proposed LC designation
applies to a) individual sets of linked courses or b) to all versions of a set of courses
when offered together as a learning community.
7. To receive LC credit, a student must concurrently enroll in and pass all linked courses
in the same semester or term.
8. A campus may offer a learning community as part of a developmental education
program; however, the LC designation can only be attached to a credit-bearing
course.
VII. Writing Emphasis Courses (HIP/WE)
A. Required Components of a Writing Emphasis Proposal
To receive approval for the WE designation, a proposal and accompanying syllabus must
demonstrate how the course will incorporate the following components of a high impact
practice writing-intensive course:
1. Students complete three or more formal writing assignments totaling at least 3000
words of polished text.
2. Students demonstrate proficiency with disciplinary writing conventions by producing
at least three formal texts written for varying disciplinary purposes.
60
3. Writing assignments support critical inquiry, challenge students to engage in
independent inquiry, and emphasize analysis, synthesis, evaluation, and/or
application.
4. Students receive substantial feedback and respond with revision.
5. A significant portion of the course grade comes from assessment of student writing.
6. Students complete a writing-intensive final course project.
7. The minimal prerequisite is a) completion of English 101 with a grade of C or higher
or b) placement into English 102.
VIII. Undergraduate Research (HIP/UR)
A. Required Components of an Undergraduate Research Proposal
To receive approval for the UR designation, a course proposal and accompanying
syllabus must demonstrate how the course incorporates the following components of
undergraduate research:
1. Under the direction of a faculty member or other disciplinary expert, students actively
engage in original research through one of the following types of activities:
a. Working as an active participant on a scholarly research project organized and
conducted by one or more faculty members and/or IAS instructors;
b. Designing and conducting original research with the goal of eventually reporting
findings to an external audience (for example, an article submitted to an
undergraduate research journal, a poster session at an undergraduate research
event, or a proposal for a conference presentation), which may occur during a
course or after it ends;
c. Conducting research as part of a public scholarship project for a community
partner (for example, a nonprofit organization or local community group).
2. Students have the opportunity to engage in significant, systematic investigation and
research to explore important questions that connect key disciplinary concepts to
active and critical student inquiry.
3. A significant portion of the course grade comes from research activities.
4. The student completes one or more substantial course projects related to the research.
5. Prior to enrolling in the course, students demonstrate minimal proficiency in
foundational college research skills. The default prerequisite for a UR course is
normally a) completion of English 102 with a grade of C or higher or b) exemption
from English 102. Departments or academic programs may waive this prerequisite
and establish their own research proficiency requirements in a curricular proposal by
articulating a) the minimal requirements for research skills and disciplinary
knowledge required for enrolling in a course and/or b) the training that students will
receive in the course to build foundational research knowledge.
IX. Collaborative Learning (HIP/CL)
A. Required Components of a Collaborative Learning Proposal
61
To receive approval for the CL designation, a course proposal and accompanying
syllabus must demonstrate how the course incorporates the following components of high
impact practice collaborative learning:
1. Throughout much of the course, groups of two or more students work together to
engage in collaborative problem solving, active learning, and critical or creative
thinking.
2. Students engage in one or more substantial projects or team-based assignments that
demonstrate their collaborative inquiry or creative process.
3. Projects are student-driven rather than teacher-structured. Students create or explore
their own knowledge through guided activities or team work.
4. A significant portion of assigned coursework and other learning comes from
collaborative activities.
5. Students are individually accountable for their work and learning.
X. Diversity/Global Learning Opportunities (HIP/DG)
A. Required Components of a Diversity/Global Learning Opportunities Proposal
Students receive DG credit for a) taking an experience-based learning course that focuses
on cultural diversity within the United States or b) participate in a study abroad program.
To receive approval for the DG designation, a course proposal and accompanying
syllabus must demonstrate how the course incorporates the following components of a
diversity or global learning opportunity course:
1. The content, structure, learning activities, and assignments in the course provide
students with opportunities to a) study US diversity and/or world cultures and b)
explore worldviews and perspectives that are different from their own.
2. Students participate in field-based experiential learning to explore diverse cultures
and worldviews. A proposal should describe the experiential learning components of
the course and explain how they support the course learning objectives.
3. The experiential learning component accounts for at least 20% of the course content.
This requires ten of the 48 total hours per credit to be dedicated to field-based
learning. In a three-credit course, the experiential learning requirement would equal
30 hours of the total 144 hours. The syllabus should explain the time commitment, the
nature of the experiential learning, and required hours of work outside of regularly
scheduled class time (if any).
4. Students complete one or more assignments to connect their experiential learning to
course learning objectives or other components of the course.
XI. Community-Based Learning/Service Learning (HIP/SL)
A. Required Components of a Service Learning Proposal
To receive approval for the SL designation, a course proposal and accompanying syllabus
must demonstrate how the course incorporates the following components of service
learning:
1. Students participate in field-based experiential learning to gain direct experience with
issues they are studying in the course. A proposal should explain how service learning
62
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
with one or more community partners will be embedded into the course and support
the course learning objectives. The syllabus should indicate the target community that
will benefit from service learning project(s).
Service-learning contact hours must be clearly stated on the course proposal.
A service-learning component accounts for at least 20% of the course content. This
requires ten of the 48 total hours per credit to be dedicated to service-learning. In a
three-credit course, the service-learning requirement would equal 30 hours of the total
144 hours. The syllabus should explain the time commitment, the nature of the
service work, and required hours of work outside of class.
Students reflect on their service experiences through assignments and learning
activities in the course.
Students engage in efforts to analyze and solve community-related problems in the
context of one or more instructor-supervised projects. The syllabus should explain
how student work will be assessed for the project(s).
Students completing service-learning projects will be monitored and mentored by an
instructor who has been approved to teach in the disciplinary area of the servicelearning project.
B. Additional Guidelines for Standalone Service Learning Courses
The majority of service learning experiences are integrated into individual section of an
existing academic course; however, departments and academic programs may offer a
stand-alone service-learning course. A stand-alone service learning course requires 48
total hours of student engagement for each course credit. In a three-credit stand-alone
course, the service-learning requirement would equal 144 total hours. In addition to
require experiential learning, the 48 hours per credit can include time for class contact;
preparation and study; and the planning, execution, and reflection on the service-learning
experience.
XII.
Internships (HIP/IN)
A. Required Components of an Internship Proposal
To receive approval for an IN designation for an associate degree, a course proposal and
accompanying syllabus must demonstrate how the course fulfills the following
requirements for an internship course:
1. An internship course provides students with professional experience outside a
traditional classroom in a work setting.
2. An approved instructor and community partner work together to supervise students,
monitor their progress, and evaluate their learning. Internships offered in a work
setting within the UW Colleges do not require an external supervisor. Course
proposals should explain the role of community partners and briefly describe how
student learning will be monitored and assessed.
3. Students work in a structured learning environment to apply concepts from related
coursework to practical experiences in a field of study.
63
4. Internship courses require 48 hours of student involvement for each credit. In addition
to required experiential learning, the required 48 hours may include time for class
contact hours (if any), preparation, and assignments.
B. Numbering for Internship Courses
Associate degree internship courses have a course number of xxx-294 for consistency and
tracking purposes. BAAS internship courses have an xxx-394 number and have
additional curricular requirements.
XIII. Capstone Project (HIP/CP)
A. Options for Capstone Project Courses
Students take a capstone project course in their final semester of the degree to reflect on
and synthesize learning from their associate degree experiences. Departments and
academic programs have several options for developing and proposing capstone project
courses, including:
● A unique capstone seminar course
● A sophomore experience course (LEC 200)
● A standalone capstone independent study course
● A one-credit independent study course that can be attached as an extra credit to an
existing sophomore course
● A capstone project enrollment option that is stacked within another sophomore
course (i.e., some students in an existing course section enroll under a separate
PRISM number for capstone credit while others do not).
Departments may limit enrollment in capstone project courses to instructor permission
only.
B. Required Components of a Capstone Project Course
To receive approval for a CP designation, a course proposal and accompanying syllabus
must demonstrate how the course meets the following capstone project course
requirements:
1. Students complete a substantial independent project that:
a. Synthesizes, integrates, and applies what they have learned in their associate
degree experiences;
b. Builds on learning from multiple disciplines and courses;
c. Provides opportunities for reflection or self-assessment.
2. Capstone projects are designed individually by each student to reflect their learning in
associate degree experiences; they are not structured by the instructor.
3. The minimum prerequisite for enrollment is completion of 45 degree credits.
[End]
64
Attachment 9
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Curricular Policy
(“Curricular Approval Process”)
Rationale:
The existing curricular policies in IP #101.02 lack a clear, unified overview of the process for
receiving formal institutional approval for proposing or revising courses. Further, pieces of
information about the curricular approval process are scattered throughout other policies. This
proposed policy would create a single cohesive curricular process policy. Here is an overview of
how this policy would change written Senate guidelines for the curricular approval process:
1. This proposed policy describes the formal curricular approval process to help faculty
and instructional academic staff have a better understanding of how it works. Most of
this policy explains the process that is already in place to develop new courses and make
curricular changes to the UW Colleges Course Catalog. This policy would put that
information into writing for instructors who are unfamiliar with the curricular approval
process.
2. This policy would also replace language about curricular process included in other
policies so that course proposal initiators and curriculum committees will be able to get
an overview of the curricular approval process in a single document instead of looking
through multiple Senate policies and forms.
3. Guidelines for some types of atypical courses have varying descriptions of the curricular
approval process. This policy would create a single process for all types of curricular
changes and courses.
4. If this policy is adopted, campus curriculum committees would no longer be required to
review and approve completed curricular proposals. (Currently, they evaluate select
types of proposals.) Instead, course proposers would consult with the campus curriculum
committee and associate dean to determining whether the campus supports developing a
course that would be offered only on that campus, but they won’t be required to complete
paperwork as part of the consultation process. A key role of a campus curriculum
committee is to approve the curricular array of courses offered on a campus (i.e., which
courses will be offered for a particular semester or term) after courses have already
received institutional approval. There isn’t a clear need for campuses to also review
whether a proposal complies with curricular policies because department chairs and the
relevant Senate Curriculum Committee do that work for each proposal. This change
would eliminate work for campus curriculum committees, simplify required formal steps
for course proposal initiators, and speed up the process for receiving curricular approval
for atypical courses.
Some sections of this policy were moved from IP #101.02. Proposed changes to those sections
are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for text in existing
policy to be removed in this new policy. In all other sections, plain black text is used for new
policy language.
65
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Curricular Approval Process
=====================================================================
I.
II.
Introduction
This policy provides an overview of the required UW Colleges process for making
curricular changes and receiving formal institutional approval to offer a new or revised
course. The purpose of this policy is to provide initiators of course proposals, academic
department and program chairs, and shared governance curriculum committees with clear
guidelines for curricular approval process procedures. The curricular approval process
insures that UW Colleges courses maintain disciplinary standards, meet the educational
needs of students, and transfer smoothly to baccalaureate programs.
[Section II moved from IP 101.02.VI.D. and modified.].]
Assignment of Associate of Arts and Science Degree Designations
Definitions of and criteria for all AAS degree designations, including breadth and emphasis
requirements, shall must be approved by the UW Colleges Senate.
III.
Curricular Changes That Require Institutional Approval
Formal curricular approval is required for the following changes to courses:
1. Adding new courses to the UW Colleges Course Catalog;
2. Changing information that appears in the Catalog, including the title (course
name), course number, description, and number of credits;
3. Assigning or revising the degree designator(s) for a course (i.e., the degree
requirements that a course fulfills);
4. Adding or revising course prerequisites;
5. Deleting or banking courses.
IV.
Curricular Approval Process Components
The process for creating new courses and revising existing courses requires three types of
curricular approvals:
1. An academic department (or program) disciplinary course design process with
oversight and proposal approval from the chair (or a designated committee);
2. A shared governance review by the Senate Curriculum Committee (SCC) or the
Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee (SBCC) to determine whether a proposal
complies with curricular policies;
3. A final review and institutional approval from Academic Affairs under the
direction of the Provost.
V. Overview of the Curricular Approval Process
A. Preliminary Campus Consultation for Courses Offered on a Single Campus
Course proposers should consult with the associate dean for academic affairs and the
campus curriculum committee before developing a formal curricular proposal for a
66
course that is likely to be offered only on that campus. At this early stage in the course
design process, tentative campus approval indicates support for developing or revising a
course but does not guarantee that it will be offered by the campus. Preliminary
consultation with a campus does not require an institutional curricular proposal form or
other paperwork. After a proposal receives institutional approval from the Provost, the
campus will determine whether to offer the course.
B. Department or Academic Program Course Design Process
1. Department or Program Oversight for Curricular Proposals
The process for developing a curricular proposal for a new or revised course is
disciplinary work that begins in an academic department or program. Individuals,
groups of instructors, or committees that wish to develop new courses must
receive permission from the sponsoring department or program before starting the
course design process. Department or program bylaws may establish processes (if
any) used for designing or revising courses and the work of related committees. In
the absence of relevant bylaws, the chair is responsible for overseeing course
design and approval procedures for the department or program. Instructors who
wish to propose a new course or revise an existing one should consult with the
chair before developing a proposal.
2. Course Design Process for New Courses
One or more academic department (or program) member designs or redesigns a
course and then prepares a formal course proposal with an accompanying course
guide. “Curricular Proposal Guidelines” (IP 2xx) describes the requirements for
preparing a curricular proposal for a new or revised course.
The design process for new courses typically includes the following activities,
which lead to a formal curricular proposal and course guide:
 Determining the need for a course and defining its purpose in relation to other
course offerings and degree requirements;
 Developing objectives, learning outcomes, major course components, teaching
guidelines, and methods for assessing student learning;
 Determining one or more degree designators for a course based on criteria
outlined in Senate curricular policies;
 Writing catalogue course information;
 Identifying prerequisites (if any);
 Evaluating the transferability of a course to other UW System institutions;
 Engaging in additional work (if any) required by a department or program for
maintaining disciplinary standards and/or the transferability of a course.
3. Process for Redesigning Existing Courses
Depending on the nature of a course revision, curricular changes to existing
courses include some or all of the activities for designing new courses. Part of the
redesign process should include assessing whether the changes will affect how the
course transfers to other institutions.
67
C. Academic Department or Program Curricular Change Approval
A course proposal initiator (or co-initiators) prepares a formal curricular proposal and
submits it to the department or program chair. The chair is responsible for reviewing and
approving each curricular proposal before it goes to the relevant Senate committee to
ensure that it meets department or program guidelines and disciplinary standards. Crosslisted and interdisciplinary courses require approval from all relevant department or
program chairs.
D. Approval for Cross-Listed Courses
[Moved from Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.VII.A.2 and modified.]
Cross-listed courses are the same course cataloged with two or more different prefixes
and offered through more than one department and/or program. All chairs of
departments and/or academic programs involved in a cross-listed course must approve
the course curricular change proposals.
E. Senate Curriculum Committee Shared Governance Review
[Sections 2 and 3 are new policy language. Section 2 moved from IP 101.02.I.E
without modification. Section 3 moved and modified from parts of Institutional
Curricular Policy #101.02.IV.]
1. After a curricular proposal and course guide receive final approval from the
sponsoring department or program chair(s), a course proposal initiator submits
them to the relevant Senate committee. The Senate Curriculum Committee (SCC)
reviews proposals for general education courses, associate degree courses, and all
courses that are not unique to the BAAS degree. The Senate BAAS Curriculum
Committee (SBCC) reviews proposals that are unique to the BAAS degree.
2. The review process will typically take at least 4-6 weeks after proposals are
submitted.
3. SCC and SBCC assess submitted proposals to determine whether the proposed
new or revised course meets the requirements outlined in Senate curricular
policies. They also evaluate whether a proposed new course fulfills an
institutional need.
4. With a positive recommendation by the SCC or SBCC, the committee chair
forwards the proposal shall be forwarded to the Provost. If the recommendation
of the SCC or SBCC is negative, the committee chair returns the proposal shall
be returned to the department or program with reasons for the decision. SCC or
SBCC may also return a proposal to the initiator(s) with feedback for revision
and the opportunity to resubmit the proposal.
F. Institutional Administrative Review
[Language in this section moved and modified from Institutional Curricular Policy
#101.02.VI.3.]
When a new course or modification of an existing course has been approved, the Chair of
the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee or Senate BAAS Curriculum
Committee shall notify notifies the Provost, who oversees a final institutional review of
all curricular changes. who, aAfter administrative approval has been granted, the
68
Provost will inform a) the Registrar, b) Ddeans and associate deans for academic
affairs, and assistant associate campus deans for student affairs, c) the appropriate
department or program chair, and d) the UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee.
Department or program chairs are responsible for notifying department members who
participated in the course proposal process.
VI. Evaluating Curricular Changes for Transfer
[Language in this section moved and modified from Curricular Policy #101.02.VII.3c]
A course may be offered following a positive recommendation from the SCC or SBCC and
approval from the Provost. During the two semesters after approval, the Provost’s Office
(Transfer Coordinator) shall pursues transfer equivalencies and breadth designations with the
other UW System institutions. If substantial transfer problems arise, the Provost will notify
the department or program chairs(s) and may ask the relevant UW Colleges Senate
Curriculum Committee or Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee to review their positive
designation.
[End]
69
Attachment 10
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
New Proposed Policy
(“Guidelines for Curricular Proposals”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Curriculum Guidelines” (IP #101.02) into separate
policies organized by topic. This policy synthesizes information from different parts of IP
#101.02 and other curricular policies. The purpose of this policy is to provide course proposers
with a single document that explains the requirements for a curricular proposal. If approved,
this policy would also provide course proposal guidelines to the Senate Curriculum Committee
and Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee that have been reviewed through the shared
governance process. SAPC plans to write a guiding document later this year that will provide
additional support to instructors who are new to developing course proposals.
This proposal makes a major change to existing Senate policies. Course proposals will no longer
require different sets of guidelines and forms based on the degree designator or type of course.
All proposals will use a single set of guidelines with a unified requirement for explaining the
rationale for a particular degree designator. The Senate Curriculum Committee recommends
including assessments of student learning in course guides because that work is disciplinary and
difficult for members of SCC to assess; therefore, assessment information has been left out of
requirements for curricular proposals.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Guidelines for Curricular Proposals
=====================================================================
I. Introduction
This policy outlines the major requirements for creating a curricular proposal for a new or
revised course. The purpose of this policy is to provide a set of guidelines for course
proposers that will help them develop a proposal that meets institutional guidelines,
effectively describes the course, creates consistency in how the course is taught across the
institution, and supports transfer of the course to other institutions. “Curricular Approval
Process” (IP 2XX) for an overview of the required steps for receiving institutional approval
to offer a course or make curricular changes.
II. Overview of Curricular Proposal Components
A course proposal for a new course should a) include a clear course description and other
information for the UW Colleges Course Catalog, b) provide a rationale for offering the
course, c) identify one or more degree designators and explain why the course meets the
criteria for a particular designator, and d) include a course guide that provides teaching
guidelines and supports transfer of the course to other institutions. A proposal for a change to
an existing course includes some or all of these components, depending on the revisions.
70
In consultation with the Registrar, the Senate Curriculum Committee or Senate BAAS
Curriculum Committee may include additional components in curricular proposal forms to
clarify information provided in campus course schedules, adapt to policy changes, facilitate
transfer of courses, and/or assist in assessment of proposals.
III. Requirements for a New Course Proposal
A. Rationale for the Course
A curricular proposal for a new course should provide a brief rationale for offering the
course. The rationale should explain how the course meets the educational needs of
students and describe the role of the course (if any) in relation to other curricular
offerings.
B. UW Colleges Catalog Course Information
Catalog information should provide a clear description of the course for students,
instructors, advisors, and transfer institutions. The UW Colleges Course Catalog includes
the following information for each course:
1. Course Number (an abbreviation for a discipline, plus a three-digit number)
2. Course Title
3. Credits
4. Catalog Course Description
5. Degree Designator
6. Prerequisites (if any)
A course description must reflect the content of a course for all sections taught across the
institution. If the course has variable content that is not included in all sections, the
description should include language that clearly distinguishes between required content
and variable content (for example, “optional topics” or “may include”). See “Catalog and
Schedule Course Descriptions” (IP 2XX).
C. Assignment of One or More Degree Designators
A new course proposal should identify the degree designators for the course (i.e., one or
more degree requirements that the course will fulfill). The proposal should also include a
rationale explaining why the proposed course meets the requirements for a particular
degree designator. A degree designation rationale is optional for an elective credit (EL)
course. The Senate Curriculum Committee and Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee
assess course proposals to determine whether they meet the required criteria for the
proposed designator as described in Senate curricular policies.
Criteria for degree designators is available in the following policies:
1. “Associate Degrees” (IP 2XX)
a) Knowledge of Human Cultures (HC)
b) Knowledge of the Natural World (NW)
c) Critical and Creative Thinking (CC)
71
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Effective Communication (EC)
Intercultural Knowledge and Competence (IK)
Individual, Social and Environmental Responsibility (ER)
Quantitative Literacy coursework (QL)
Quantitative Learning (QL)—may be attached to another designator
Laboratory Science (LS)—may be attached to another designator
2. “Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses” (IP 2XX)
a) High Impact Practice (HIP)—may be attached to another designator
b) HIP Categories—may be attached to another designator
3. “Ethnic Studies Policy” (IP 2XX)
a) Ethnic Studies (ES)—maybe attached to another designator
4. “Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree” (IP 2XX)
a) Professional Experience Courses: Global Studies (GS)
b) Cognitive Skills (CS)
c) Capstone Seminar (CSS)
5. “BAAS Degree Guidelines for Professional Experience Courses” (IP 2XX)
a) Internship (IN)
b) Service-Learning (SL)
D. Course Guide
The purpose of an official UW Colleges course guide is to assist the UW Colleges in
making a transfer agreement for the course with other UW System institutions and to
establish clear instructional guidelines to make sure that the course is taught consistently
across the institution. A course guide repeats UW Colleges Course Catalog information,
lists learning objectives, describes teaching practices, and explains how student learning
is assessed in the course.
IV. Requirements for a Proposal to Revise and Existing Course
A curricular change proposal for a revise course provides a brief overview of the proposed
change(s) and includes the following components:
A. Catalog Course information (to provide a context for assessing the proposal)
B. The requested change(s)
C. A rationale for the change, including anticipated benefits and potential effects (if any) on
curricular offerings
D. An updated course guide
A request to change the degree designator(s) for a course must also explain how the course
meets the criteria for each requested degree designator.
[End]
72
Attachment 11
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured Curricular Policy
(‘Curriculum Planning”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Curriculum Guidelines” (IP #101.02) into separate
policies organized by topic. This policy addresses guidelines for annual curriculum planning.
Language in the “Annual Curriculum Planning” (section I) has been moved directly from IP
#101.02.V. The policy has been updated to reflect changes in regionalized leadership. Associate
deans are now responsible for curriculum planning. Additional language has been added to
clarify that instructional academic staff participate in the curriculum planning process when
there are no available faculty members in the discipline on a campus; this is already an
established practice on some campuses.
Language in “Additions and Deletions of Course Offerings at a UW Colleges Campus” (section
II) has been moved from IP #101.02.VI.C and updated for clarity and to reflect other curricular
policies.
The “Curricular Management for Low-Enrolled Courses” policy (section III) comes from
“Curriculum Planning and Management Working Group” recommendations. Policy language
has been modified slightly from the working group’s recommendations for sentence flow and to
eliminate references to regional associate deans so that this policy can apply to UWC Online.
The working group notes that campus curriculum committee chairs should normally be included
in decisions about low enrolling courses, but they are not expected to work if they are offcontract during the summer; therefore, they recommended adding the phrase “when
practicable” to account for times when curriculum committee chairs are unavailable.
Proposed changes to the language copied from IP #101.02.V in section II (“Annual Curriculum
Planning”) appears in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text in existing policy to be removed in this new policy. Section II is new policy language, which
appears in black text.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Curriculum Planning
=====================================================================
Moved from “Curriculum Guidelines (IP #101.02) adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
I. Annual Curriculum Planning
[Moved from IP #101.02.V and modified.]
73
Curriculum planning will be done annually. The planning will include the department and
program chairs, the campus associate deans for academic affairs, the faculty in each
discipline on the campus (which may also include instructional academic staff), the campus
curriculum committees, and the Provost’s office. The process will include the following:
A. The faculty on each campus, in consultation with the campus curriculum committee, will
develop a curriculum plan, including available distance education course offerings. The
plan will be submitted to the chair of the department or program in the appropriate
discipline. Plans for cross-listed courses should be submitted to chairs of all relevant
departments and/or programs.
B. In cases where there are no faculty on a campus in a discipline where offerings will be
provided, instructional academic staff members may represent a department or
program and participate in the curriculum planning process. In the absence of a
participating department or program member, the campus associate dean for academic
affairs and local campus curriculum committee will develop a curriculum plan and
submit the plan to the department or program chair.
C. After review by the department or program chair in the appropriate discipline(s), the plan
will be submitted to the campus associate dean for academic affairs and campus
curriculum committee. If the curriculum plan is changed after the department or
program has reviewed it, the campus must consult the department or program chair.
D. The associate dean for academic affairs will submit the curriculum plan to the Provost’s
office.
E. During any of the steps above, negotiation may take place, and consultation is
encouraged, among the faculty, the chair of the campus curriculum committee, the
campus associate dean for academic affairs, the department chair, and the Provost’s
office on curricular, budget and staffing issues.
A specific timeline for the above will be developed annually by the Provost’s office.
II. Additions and Deletions of Course Offerings at a UW Colleges Campus
[Moved from IP #101.02.VI.C, reformatted, and modified.]
A. Course offerings at each UW Colleges campus must have the approval of the appropriate
academic departments and programs, of the UW Colleges curriculum committee, and the
associate dean UW Colleges Campus Dean. The approval process occurs as part of the
curriculum planning protocol and when campuses review and adjust their course
offerings.
B. Such approval requirements are intended to insure ensure that:
1. Faculty members and instructional academic staff are approved to teach assigned
courses.
74
2. Curricular planning and staffing practices are aligned with accreditation
guidelines.
3. The UW Colleges curriculum has balance and meets the needs of students attempting
to fulfill Associate of Arts and Science degree and pre-professional requirements.
4. This process of approval will ordinarily occur as part of the four-semester curriculum
planning protocol.
5. addition of a course for a specific semester with a writing/speaking emphasis
designation shall originate with the instructor. The dean, after consulting with the
local curriculum committee, may approve the offering, approve it with possible
restrictions, or reject it. A course with a degree designator and/or variable content
for an individual section are taught by an approved instructor and match the
content reflected in the approved curricular proposal for the course.
C. [Moved from the list under B above.] When a disagreement between an academic
department or program and UW Colleges an associate dean for academic affairs and/or
curriculum committee cannot be resolved informally, the matter shall be appealed to the
Provost.
III. Curricular Management for Low-Enrolled Courses
[This section is new to this policy.]
A. In making determinations about whether to cancel a low-enrolled course, associate deans
for academic affairs, in consultation with chairs of relevant academic departments and/or
programs, and (when practicable) campus curriculum committee chairs, will employ
institutional “Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course Considerations.”
B. Once a determination to cancel a course has been made, the associate dean will be
responsible for assigning a rationale for the cancellation in the campus Curriculum and
Staffing Plan, which will be used for tracking and planning purposes.
C. The Chancellor (or Chancellor’s designee) has final authority over decisions to cancel
courses and over curricular management decisions.
[End]
75
Attachment 12
UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Document 1 for Review and Discussion
Related to the Proposed “Curricular Planning” Policy
University of Wisconsin Colleges
Protocol for Addressing Course Cancellation Policy
In an effort to increase transparency and consistency of operations across all campuses within
the UW Colleges, the following protocols have been established to define the processes for
identifying “at-risk” courses in danger of cancellation prior to the start of the semester due to
low enrollment, as well as the process for communicating and tracking once it is determined
that a course will be cancelled.
The principles underpinning this protocol are aligned with those that are valued across the UW
Colleges: respect for collaboration and shared governance, transparency, commitment to
students, and duty to the humane treatment of our staff and faculty even in the face of difficult
decision-making.
Prior to Course Cancellation (“At-Risk”)
Prior to cancelling a course, the Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs (RADAA) should
consult the “Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course Considerations.” If, after considering
the Protocol the RADAA determines the course remains at-risk for cancellation, s/he should
notify the instructor, academic department/program chair(s) and campus department
representative, campus curriculum committee, Regional Associate Dean for Student Affairs and
Enrollment Management, and Campus Information Specialist that a course has been identified
as being “at-risk.”
Course Cancellation Process
Once a determination has been made to cancel a class, the RADAA will contact the
instructor and department/program chair(s) to notify them of the change. The RADAA will
also send out a cancellation notification to the appropriate timetable list, which includes
campus advisors, Campus Information Specialist, campus curriculum committee,
Registrar/Admissions Office, and Regional Associate Dean for Student Affairs and
Enrollment Management. The email should contain the following information:
Department and Course/Section Number, Day/Time, Instructor, Note on cancellation
76
Ex. “POL 201-002, MWF 1-1:50, Foy, Note: Only 2 students enrolled/other SS options available
at same time”
Cancellations should be bundled and sent daily as needed.
Student Affairs staff will be informed so they can contact students about the cancellation and
suggest alternative classes. The RADAA may send a follow up email to campus advisors if there
are other options for student available. Advisors should track what courses students were
advised into and/or what courses they ended up taking following the cancellation. RADAAs will
also note the reason for cancellation in the notes for a course on the campus curriculum and
staffing plan for future planning.
[End]
77
Attachment 13
UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Document 2 for Review and Discussion
Related to the Proposed “Curricular Planning” Policy
University of Wisconsin Colleges
Protocol for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course Considerations
The following protocol for addressing low-enrolled courses is presented in the form of a
framework of questions to consider before deciding to run or to cancel a low-enrolled course.
The questions should be considered as comprehensive, with each question being taken into
consideration.
These questions can be asked as a Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Regional
Executive Officer and Dean, Academic Department Chair, Campus Curriculum Committee, or
others consider how to address a low-enrolled course. The questions apply to courses offered
in the academic year (Fall and Spring semesters, but not Winterim or Summer sessions) and are
intended to address the kinds of exceptions and other considerations that are commonly
expected. While this protocol is advisory in nature, the principles underpinning it continue to
guide the UW Colleges academic program: the primacy of the institutional mission, of academic
integrity, of balance in curricular array, and of continued respect for collaboration and shared
governance.
Academic considerations

How does the course contribute to the curricular array at the department and campus
levels? 
How does the course contribute to the institution’s liberal arts mission?

How will running or cancelling the course impact the students currently enrolled in the
course (e.g., course needed as a prerequisite for another course in the discipline, course
needed to graduate, needed for transfer, needed as part of a collaborative program)?

How does the course contribute to the curricular array available to students in terms of
content and when the course is scheduled to be offered? 
Have you considered long-term academic implications for running or cancelling a lowenrolled course (e.g., is the course a prerequisite or does it act as a gateway for
78
subsequent courses)? 
Is running this course critical for the academic needs of underprepared or special
student populations (for example, multilingual students in LEA 106)?

Will financial aid eligibility for any already-enrolled students be impacted by a decrease
in a student’s class load if the course is cancelled? 
Have alternative modes of delivery for the course (such as point-to-point offerings,
streaming, Wisline Web, Online, etc.) been considered? Are there unique reasons to
maintain the course as a face-to-face offering on campus? Has the instructor been given
training, or does the instructor have access to support for teaching in a distance
modality?
Team work

Have you conferred with the instructor of the course? 
Have you informed and/or consulted with the department chair? 
Have you conferred with campus team members (e.g., Campus Curriculum Committee
and Student Affairs)? 
Have you used all advising options to direct students into a low-enrolled course? 
Have you considered long-term, as well as short-term enrollment/financial implications
for the campus, of cancelling a low-enrolled course? 
Have you considered partnering with local high schools to offer low-enrolled courses, or
how the course cancellation might impact current collaborations (e.g., Youth
Options/Course Options programs, private schools, home schooling organizations?) 
Have you considered partnering with Continuing Education to cross-list credit and noncredit courses so as to draw community members to a lower enrolled course? Post-Decision Considerations

How might a campus and a department or department chair work together in
identifying a variety of factors that might contribute to “chronic low enrollment” (e.g.,
stale course titles or course descriptions)? 
How might a campus consider working with the department chair and faculty member
(or instructor) to address chronic low enrollment in a course or courses from a
79
personnel perspective (e.g., through professional development opportunities)? 
How might scheduling courses at alternate times address lower enrolled courses?
Sometimes courses from different disciplines can under-enroll if they are paired against
a similar course (for example, too many Social Science offerings during a single time
block), or perhaps a course might be better scheduled later or earlier in the day. 
How can a Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs best communicate with a
campus curriculum committee so that all parties understand how, when, and by whom
decisions with long-term curricular implications (such as running or cancelling lowenrolled courses) are made? 
How might the Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Regional Executive Officer
and Dean, department chairs, and faculty use their joint meetings, and the curriculum
and staffing process, to discuss a range of possible alternatives should a course underenroll? 
How are you tracking course cancellations to evaluate impact on students (e.g., what
other courses are they being placed into?) and assess short and long-term curricular
planning implications?
[End]
80
Attachment 14
UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Document 3 for Review and Discussion
Related to the Proposed “Curricular Planning” Policy
UW Colleges Curriculum Planning Timeline
(2017-2018)
0
ID PrID TID
Term
When
A
-
1 Fall/Spring Aug 29
B
A
1 Fall/Spring Sep 26
C
B
1 Fall/Spring
Nov 7
D
B
1 Fall/Spring
Nov 7
E
D
2
Fall
Dec 5
F
E
2
Fall
Dec 26
G
F
2
Fall
Jan 9
H
G
2
Fall
Feb 6
I
-
3
Spring
Jan 23
J
I
3
Spring
Feb 20
K
J
3
Spring
Mar 13
L
J
3
Spring
Mar 13
Send
What
Base curric,
CH target,
(Managed)
Courses,
CH target,
Managed
Courses,
Staff
Courses,
Subs
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Receive
What
When
Who
Weeks
Dept Rep &
Dept Chair
3 wk
Courses,
Staff
Sep 19
Curric Cmte
5 wk
Courses
Oct 31
Dept Chair
3 wk
Δ Courses
Nov 28
CAS
3 wk
Rooms
Nov 28
Dept Rep
& CAS
2 wk
Δ Staff,
Δ Sched,
Δ Rooms
Dec 19
Christmas
Courses,
Staff,
Sched,
Rooms,
Finals
Web sched
Spr Enrlmt
Δ Managed
Δ Courses
Courses,
Staff,
Sched,
Rooms,
Finals
Staff,
Courses
81
Jan 2
Registrar
3 wk
PRISM
Jan 30
Marketing
1 wk
Web link
Feb 13
Curric Cmte
3 wk
Δ Courses
Feb 13
Dept Chair &
Dept Rep &
CAS
2 wk
Δ Staff,
Δ Sched,
Δ Rooms
Mar 6
Registrar
3 wk
PRISM
Apr 3
HR
5 wk
Contracts,
Payroll
Apr 17
M
K
3
Spring
Apr 10
Web sched
N
A
4
Summer
Sep 19 Prev Summer
O
N
4
Summer
Oct 10
P
O
4
Summer
Nov 14
Q
O
4
Summer
Nov 14
R
Q
4
Summer
Nov 28
S
R
4
Summer
Dec 19
Courses,
CH Target
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Courses,
Staff,
Sched,
Rooms
Web sched
T
-
5
Winter
Jan 23
Prev Winter
U
T
5
Winter
Feb 13
V
U
5
Winter
Mar 6
W
U
5
Winter
Mar 6
X
W
5
Winter
Mar 20
Y
X
5
Winter
Apr 24
Courses,
CH Target
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Courses,
Staff,
Sched,
Rooms
Web sched
Marketing
1 wk
Web link
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Apr 17
Dept Rep &
Dept Chair
2 wk
Curric Cmte
4 wk
Courses
Nov 7
Dept Rep &
Dept Chair
1 wk
Δ Staff,
Δ Sched
Nov 21
CAS
1 wk
Rooms
Nov 21
Registrar
2 wk
PRISM
Dec 12
Marketing
1 wk
Dec 26
Dept Rep &
Dept Chair
2 wk
Web link
Courses,
Staff,
Sched
Curric Cmte
2 wk
Courses
Feb 27
Dept Rep &
Dept Chair
1 wk
Δ Staff,
Δ Sched
Mar 13
CAS
1 wk
Rooms
Mar 13
Registrar
4 wk
PRISM
Apr 17
Marketing
1 wk
Web link
May 1
[End]
82
Oct 3
Feb 6
Attachment 15
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured Curricular Policy
(“Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Curriculum Guidelines” (IP #101.02) into separate
policies organized by topic. Except for the introduction, the language in this policy was moved
from IP #101.02 (sections II and III) and modified. This policy addresses processes used at the
campus, department, and institutional levels for assessing curricular offerings. SAPC proposes
additions and revisions to a) clarify wording, b) refer more directly to the work of campuses in
reviewing their own course offerings, c) include the BAAS degree, and d) replace language for a
single AAS degree with more general wording that can refer to the three new proposed associate
degrees.
Black text is used for the introduction (which is new policy language). Proposed changes to the
sections moved from IP #101.02 are noted in bold, red, italicized and underlined font.
Strikethrough font is used for text in existing policy to be removed in this new policy.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings
=====================================================================
Moved from “Curriculum Guidelines (IP #101.02) adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990
I. Introduction
[The introduction is new to this policy; the other parts of the policy have been moved from
IP #101.02.]
This policy provides an overview of institutional processes for reviewing and assessing UW
Colleges course offerings at the campus, department or program, and institutional levels.
Regular assessment of course offerings in relation to curriculum breath and degree
requirements helps the UW Colleges maintain the academic integrity of programs and
courses while also supporting student retention and degree completion.
II. Review of UW Colleges Campus Curriculum Breadth
[Moved from Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.II and modified. Letters added.]
A. In making decisions about campus curricular offerings, faculty, associate deans for
academic affairs, and curriculum committees should review the campus curriculum
offered each academic year to assess 1) the breadth of course offerings and 2) whether
available courses support student retention, degree completion, and transfer.
B. The curriculum at each UW Colleges campus shall should be designed to provide a
reasonable breadth of liberal studies and necessary pre-professional course offerings.
83
C. Each UW Colleges campus shall offer a sufficient number of courses meeting AAS
associate degree requirements so that a student can earn an associate degree during a
two-year period.
D. Designated BAAS campuses should offer sufficient courses for students who have
already received an associate degree to complete a baccalaureate degree during a twoyear period.
E. In making decisions about cancelling low enrolling courses, administrators and
campus curriculum committees should assess curriculum breadth in relation to
retention, degree completion, and transfer.
III. Department and Program Review for the UW Colleges Catalog
[Moved and modified from sections of Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.III that
refer to the Catalog review and revision process.]
A. Departments shall review UW Colleges Catalog descriptions biannually as part of the
catalog revision exercise. Departments and academic programs should review their
curricular offerings, course descriptions, and other UW Colleges Catalog information
as part of the institutional catalog revision process.
B. Requests for changes in the Catalog description may be submitted to the Senate
Curriculum Committee for review. If the request is approved by the Curriculum
Committee, that committee shall so inform the Provost. If the latter concurs with the
change, the Office of Academic and Student Affairs will inform the registrar, campus
deans, assistant campus deans for student affairs, department chairs and the chair of the
Senate Curriculum Committee of the change. Consult the current Curriculum Guidelines
or SCC chair for correct forms to use when requesting course description changes. After
reviewing their courses in the UW Colleges Catalog, departments and programs may
revise catalog information for a course through the institutional process for making
curricular changes. See “Curricular Approval Process” (IP 2XX).
C. The UW Colleges Catalog listing of courses shall includes those courses offered on a
reasonably frequent basis at one or more UW Colleges campuses. Departments are to
review their course offerings during the catalog preparation process to identify courses
which are not being offered or which need revision of some sort. Should a department
identify a course which is not being offered but which is a legitimate part of a
freshman/sophomore curriculum for that discipline or for the BAAS program, the course
in question may be placed in a “course bank.” In this category it will Banked courses do
not appear in the catalog, but may be drawn out by the department in the future. See
“Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses” (IP 2XX).
IV. Five-Year Curricular Audit and Review Processes
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
A. Each UW Colleges department (or academic program) and each UW Colleges campus,
at the direction of the Provost, shall should review its curricular offerings as part of the
five-year audit and review cycle. This review shall should determine whether the
department or UW Colleges course offerings are adequate in terms of both number and
84
frequency to permit students to earn the AAS an associate degree, complete a BAAS
degree on a designated campus after earning an associate degree, and/or complete
necessary pre-professional requirements in a two-year period. UW Colleges campuses
which offer an evening and/or weekend programs for part-time students shall should
determine what degree requirements can be satisfied by students over a four-year period
of time. In addition, the departmental or program review shall should examine the
transfer status of each course to UW baccalaureate institutions. Furthermore, the review,
through the examination of syllabi, shall should evaluate departmental offerings across
the UW Colleges with respect to consistency with the catalog description and consistency
with Associate of Arts and Science associate degree breadth category and specific degree
requirement designations.
B. The Provost, in consultation with the UWC Senate Curriculum Committee and Senate
BAAS Curriculum Committee, shall conducts a review of courses for the purposes of:
1. Recommending course deletions from the UW Colleges catalog;
2. Recommending changes in departmental alignment of courses (e.g., an INT course
which, over time, might have changed its emphasis such that a different departmental
home than originally agreed upon might be more appropriate);
3. Maintaining curricular balance and meeting AAS degree requirements;
4. Revising course numbering sequences;
5. Recommending cross-listing where deemed advisable; and
6. Recommending changes in course designations for the fulfillment of Associate
Degree degree distribution requirements.
[End]
85
Attachment 16
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Policy
(“Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Curriculum Guidelines” (IP #101.02) into separate
policies organized by topic. This policy explains processes for permanently removing courses
from the UW Colleges Catalog or banking them. New language has been added to this policy to
explain what it means to delete or bank a course. New policy language has also been included to
explain the process for banking a course. Existing policy language explains how to add a banked
course back to the schedule without stating how to bank it. Wording has been updated to reflect
the role of the Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee in reviewing curricular requests for BAAS
courses.
Some sections of this policy were moved from IP #101.02. Proposed changes to those sections
are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font with a note in light blue to introduce them.
Strikethrough font is used for text in existing policy to be removed in this new policy. In all other
sections, plain black text is used for new policy language.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Processes for Deleting and Banking Courses
=====================================================================
Moved from “Curriculum Guidelines (IP #101.02) adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990
I. Introduction
This policy outlines curricular processes for removing courses that are no longer offered
from the UW Colleges Course Catalog and making courses available again after they are
banked. The Senate Curriculum Committee (SCC) approves most requests for deleting or
banking courses. The Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee (SBCC) approves requests for
deleting or banking courses that are unique to the BAAS degree program.
[Section II has been moved from Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.IV.B, renumbered,
and modified.]
II. Deletion of Courses from the UW Colleges Catalog
A. Deleting a course permanently removes it from the list of available UW Colleges course
offerings.
86
B. Either the Provost or an academic department or program may initiate a request that a
course be permanently deleted from the UW Colleges Course Catalog catalog.
1. If initiated by the Provost, the request should shall be directed to the academic
department or program with a copy to the Senate Curriculum Committee or Senate
BAAS Curriculum Committee. The academic department or program should shall
forward its response to this request to the SCC or SBCC UW Colleges Senate
Curriculum Committee.
2. If initiated by the academic department or program, the request should shall be
directed to the relevant UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee with a short
rationale.
3. After reviewing a response or request from the academic department or program,
the SCC or SBCC The UW Colleges Senate Curriculum Committee should shall
return provide its recommendation to the Provost and copy the relevant department or
program chair.
C. Course banking is an alternative to deletion of a course from the permanent list of the
UW Colleges course offerings.
D. To add a permanently deleted course back to the UW Colleges Course Catalog, a
department or program must submit a new course proposal.
III. Banked Courses
A. Banking a course refers to the process of removing a course from the UW Colleges
Course Catalog but retaining it as a potential future course offering.
B. A request to bank a course typically comes from an academic department or program.
1. After identifying a course that is no longer offered, an academic department or
program may submit a request for banking a course to the relevant Senate Curriculum
Committee (SCC or SBCC). The request should include a brief rationale for banking
the course.
2. After reviewing a request to bank a course, the SCC or SBCC should provide a
recommendation to the Provost and copy the relevant department or program chair.
3. With approval of the SCC or SBCC and the Provost, the course is banked and no
longer appears in the Catalog. However, it remains on a list of available course
offerings.
C. The Provost may ask a department or program to bank a course, using the process for
making a request to delete a course.
[III. D has been moved from Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.III.D and
modified.]
D. A banked course may be added back to the UW Colleges Course Catalog drawn out by
the through a written request from a department or program to the Provost., upon
stipulation to the Provost of Requests should include an explanation of the need for the
course, UW Colleges campuses at which it will be offered, faculty likely to teach it, and
87
updated transferability data. Because a banked course has already received curricular
approval for inclusion in the UW Colleges Course Catalog, a request to return a
banked course to the Catalog does not require submission of a curricular proposal to
SCC or SBCC.
IV. Deleting or Banking Cross-Listed Courses
All relevant departments and/or programs must be consulted when banking or removing a
cross-listed course from the UW Colleges Catalog. If a department or program decides to
bank or delete a cross-listed course, a sponsoring department or program has the option to
submit a curricular change proposal to SCC or SBCC to offer it as a course that is no longer
cross-listed.
[End]
88
Attachment 17
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured Institutional Curricular Policy
(“Catalog and Schedule Course Descriptions”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Curriculum Guidelines” (IP #101.02) into separate
policies organized by topic. This policy addresses guidelines for UW Colleges Course
Descriptions and the information that students see in the Timetable when registering for courses.
New information states how to make changes to catalog information and campus timetables.
This policy was moved from IP #101.02. Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and
underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for text in existing policy to be removed in this new
policy.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Catalog and Schedule Course Descriptions
=====================================================================
Moved from “Curriculum Guidelines (IP #101.02) adopted by the Senate, March 3, 1990
Ratified by the Senate, May 12, 1990
[Moved from Institutional Curricular Policy #101.02.III, reformatted and modified.]
I. Catalog Course and Timetable Descriptions
Catalog course descriptions should reflect the content of specific courses as they are taught
across the UW Colleges. Permissible variations in course content should be reflected by the
use of such phrases as “may include,” “optional topics,” etc. It is expected that faculty
members will teach each course in a manner consistent with the catalog description.
Changes to catalog course descriptions require approval through the institutional process
for making curricular changes. See IP 2xx Curricular Approval Process and IP 2xx
Curricular Proposal Guidelines.
II. Course Schedule/Timetable Descriptions
Each official UW Colleges course schedule (i.e., the timetable) must duplicate the UW
Colleges Catalog description. The following exceptions may be made:
A. If a course is to be offered in modules, this should be so stated, with appropriate
information added.
B. Logistical information, as in the case of field trips, may be added.
C. Course content which has been listed as optional and which will not be covered in a
particular course may be deleted from the timetable description.
89
D. For variable content courses, the timetable shall give a description of the specific subject
matter.
Changes to permitted variable timetable information are made under the direction of the
relevant Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the campus level in consultation with the
relevant academic department or program.
[End]
90
Attachment 18
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Instructional Policy
(‘Reporting for Grades and Academic Performance”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes moving information about grading from the “Academic Procedures and
Regulations” policy (IP #202) with substantial revisions to a new section of instructional
policies to make it easier for instructors to locate the policy. Information about grading in IP
#202 is more relevant to instructors than to students.
If adopted, this proposed new policy would make these major changes to grade reporting
deadlines:
1. Instructors would be required to notify students about where to access information
about their grades. The purpose of this policy change is to make sure that students are
informed about their academic performance and can make decisions about whether to
withdraw from a course before the deadline. Methods for grade reporting are left up to
the individual instructor to provide faculty and instructional academic staff with
flexibility in their grading procedures.
2. Instead of reporting mandatory midterm grades in PRISM, instructors would be
required to participate in early alert reporting twice during a semester. The purpose of
this change is to provide advisors and students with notification about academic
performance for students who might need to drop a course, using a deadline that
provides adequate time between notification and the deadline for withdrawing from a
course. Instructors would be required to provide students with information about their
performance in a course before the withdrawal deadline through the method(s) that they
normally use in a course to provide grades to students. SAPC was given a charge to
review the deadline for midterm grade reporting to determine whether it would be
possible to make the due date earlier to give Student Affairs more time to advise students
before the course withdrawal deadline. However, the SAPC committee for the previous
year also investigated this issue, and both groups of SAPC members determined that
earlier midterm grade reporting would not provide students with an accurate assessment
of their true midterm progress in the course and would be difficult to implement in some
types of courses. Students who are failing or at-risk of not passing a course already
receive notification through early alert prior to the deadline for withdrawing (which is
the purpose of the existing midterm grade reporting requirement). SAPC also determined
that that official midterm grade reporting is not a standard practice at many colleges.
3. The deadline for submitting final semester grades would be changed to four working
days after the last final exam on the academic calendar instead of four days after the
date of the instructor’s final exam. The main reason for this change is that varying final
grade reporting deadlines can be confusing for instructors and students, especially in
comparison to a single unified deadline for the entire institution. This change would give
91
instructors more flexibility in how they manage their time during the final grading period
and would sometimes permit them to accept late work for students who are ill or have an
emergency without requiring an incomplete grade. The Registrar’s Office does not need
final grades until four days after all final exams are completed; in other words, there is
no institutional need for instructors to submit grades earlier and at varying times. The
Provost (or an Academic Affairs designee) already sends a reminder to faculty and staff
about final grade reporting that includes a final deadline for all grades.
Sections I and II are new to this policy and appear in normal black font. Proposed changes to
section III moved from IP #202 are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough
font is used for text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Instructional Policy #3XX
Reporting for Grades and Academic Performance
===========================================================================
I. Grade Reporting to Students
A course syllabus should include a statement about grading procedures and explain how
grades will be reported to students during a semester or term (for example, through the D2L
gradebook, if used, or through grades distributed to students during class). Students should
receive sufficient information from the instructor about their standing in a course to make an
informed decision about whether to drop the course by the withdrawal deadline.
II. Early Alert Reporting for Academic Performance
Through scheduled early alert reporting, instructors should report students who are failing or
at-risk of not passing a course. Students and advisors have access to the information that an
instructor includes in an early alert report. Early alert reports are due twice each semester.
The first alert provides students an opportunity to withdraw from a course in time to receive a
partial tuition refund. The second alert helps students make a decision about whether to
withdraw from a course before the final withdrawal deadline. The Associate Dean of Student
Affairs & Enrollment Management (or a regional or campus designee) should provide
instructors with information about procedures and dates for early alert reporting prior to the
start of a semester. Instructors should receive a reminder at least once week before early alert
reporting is due.
[Section III has been moved from IP #202.II.G and modified.]
A. Mid-term and Final Grades. Instructors shall submit grades reflecting students'
progress in each course through such a portion of the semester that students can be
formally notified by the end of the ninth week of the regular semester or at least 3
working days before the withdrawal deadline published in the course schedule for courses
not offered in the traditional 16-week format. Midterm grades will be reported in the
same way as final grades. Unlike final grades, midterm grades will not become part of a
student’s official academic record.
92
III. Final Grade Reporting
For 16-week classes, Ffinal grades, regardless of the delivery method must be reported by
the instructor within four working days after the final examination last day of final exams
scheduled in the UW Colleges academic calendar. For shorter term courses, grades are
due four working days after the course ends.
Students can access their final grade reports electronically through PRISM. Final grade
reports are mailed to students at the end of each semester and at the end of the summer
session. Notification of any probationary or suspension action will be on the grade report.
[End]
93
Attachment 19
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of IP #301.01
(“Administering the Student Survey of Instruction”)
Rationale:
In considering proposed changes to the student survey of instruction, the Senate Academic
Policy Committee would like campuses to consider dividing the question in discussing and
approving this policy:
1. Should the UW Colleges adopt the proposed changes to the SSI policy?
2. Should the UW Colleges adopt the proposed changes to the SSI policy except for
revisions to how often student evaluations are administered (see section 1.A: “The
Student Survey of Instruction form approved by the UW Colleges shall be administered
whenever a course is taught)?
If a campus or Senator does not approve changing the frequency of administering SSIs, then
SAPC requests that the relevant Senator contact SAPC by March 31, 2017 so that the policy can
be revised and distributed to the Senate prior to voting at the April Senate meeting.
During the previous academic year, the Senate appointed a working group to research and
evaluate the use of student surveys of instruction. That working group made recommended
revisions to IP #301.01: “Administering the Student Surveys of Instruction” and created a
“Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document.” They also consulted with a separate
Senate working group that examined practices for evaluating instruction in online courses. Both
working groups. The Senate Academic Policy Committee reviewed the recommended policy
changes and guiding document, reorganized IP #301.01 to eliminate redundancies, and made
minor changes to the wording of recommendations for clarity.
If approved, revisions to IP 301.01 would make the following changes to guidelines for student
surveys of instruction:
1. Reassign some administrative responsibilities from campuses to account for
regionalized leadership.
2. Move the student surveys of instruction to an online, electronic survey. This
recommendation would reduce the cost of administering the survey, make processes more
efficient, and decrease the time that it takes for instructors, departments and programs,
and campuses to receive the results. With regionalization and consolidated campus
services, it has become difficult to provide instructors with their results for activity
reports and to provide them to merit committees in a timely way.
3. Change the timeline for administering SSIs from every third semester to every time that
a course has taught. If this policy is adopted, subsequent changes would need to be made
to policies governing evaluation of instruction for results to be used for tenure,
promotion, retention, IAS retitling, and IAS rehiring decisions. SAPC made this proposed
change after a request from Senate Steering to review the frequency of administering
SSIs. The current policy places more weight on an individual evaluated course section
because fewer courses and sections are evaluated. Frequent SSIs would mean that
departments, programs, and campuses could consider data collected from a range of
94
courses over time. The results can be problematic for instructors who teach a rotation of
different courses, some of which may never be evaluated. Instructional academic staff
who teach part-time, only in the fall, or have a limited spring schedule receive a low level
of evaluation for their courses. The SGA student representative on SAPC noted that this
policy means that some students never receive the opportunity to evaluate their
instructors. The current policy also does not provide a way for students in summer or
other short-term courses to evaluate their instructors.
4. Eliminate a provision that prevents results from first-year seminars and
interdisciplinary studies from being excluded from statistical summaries. After a
careful review, SAPC determined that students should be permitted to evaluate
instruction in all courses that they take, regardless of the degree designator or type of
course. Further, with the proposed new associate degree, first-year seminars will now
fulfill the HIP degree designation, which focuses on high impact teaching practices, so it
is important to evaluate those practices to determine whether they are effective. Firstyear seminars can also be offered through academic staff who normally do not teach
courses. If their results are exempt from the SSI process, then departments or programs
never receive a statistical summary of their results.
5. Adopt the “Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document” as a guide for
helping departments, programs, and campuses understand and adopt evidence-based
practices for using student surveys to evaluate instruction.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty and Academic Staff #301.01
Administering the Student Survey of Instruction
===============================================================
Revision Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 12 (corrected by Senate Minutes, May 16-17, 1986, p. 4)
Revision Ratified by the Senate, May 17, 1986, p. 4, 6
Ratified by the Senate, March 15, 1986, p. 7, 10-12 att. 9
Revision ratified by Senate Oct. 8, 1999, p. 5, att. 9
Revision ratified by Senate April 27, 2001, p. 8, att. 8
Revision ratified by Senate May 3, 2002, p.__, att. __
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Amended by the Senate May 2, 2003
Revised by the Senate May 7, 2004
Revised by the Senate, March 4, 2005
Revised by the Senate, April 29, 2005
Revised by the Senate, March 3, 2006
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2015-01-22
The purpose of the Student Survey of Instruction is to evaluate instructors for purposes of a)
tenure, promotion, merit, and retention for faculty and b) retitling, merit, and rehiring for
instructional academic staff. To ensure fairness and parity of treatment, no other student survey
regarding instruction shall be administered by administration, departments or campuses (with the
exception of course visitations surveys administered by a peer that become incorporated into the
visitation report and do not, in themselves, become part of the employee personnel file).
95
I. For Faculty General Guidelines
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
A. The Student Survey of Instruction form approved by the UW Colleges shall be
administered whenever a course is taught. for all faculty classes every third semester
(e.g. fall 1998, spring 2000, fall 2001, etc.). Additional student surveys will be
administered in the fall and spring semesters of classes taught by first-year probationary
faculty and in the spring semester of classes taught by second-year probationary faculty
and in the fall semester of classes taught by fifth-year probationary faculty.
B. Administration of the form shall be a shared responsibility of the Central Offices,
Regional Offices, UW Colleges Online, and Distance Education. campus responsibility,
or in the case of Online instruction, the responsibility of Distance Education. For Faceto-Face and Blended classes, forms shall be made available to the faculty at least three
full weeks before the end of the course. For those courses taught Online, the Distance
Education program shall consult with instructors and arrange for administration of the
survey as indicated in IV.B. The online questionnaire shall be made available to students
at least two full weeks before the end of the semester or one week before the end of an
accelerated course, with the understanding that students may take the questionnaire at any
time during that period.
C. Materials related to the implementation of the Student Survey of Instruction, including
the Student Survey of Instruction form; instructions to students; and statistical data
summary to be reported to campuses, departments, and faculty instructors, are located in
IP #301.01, Appendices 1 and 2.
D. In addition, instructors, departments, or campuses may request occasional student
evaluations of personnel in unscheduled semesters. If departments require additional
evaluations, the department chairs shall inform the campuses or Distance Education in a
timely manner of the need to set up administration.
E. Departments, programs, and/or individual faculty instructors can include up to ten
additional evaluation questions; the numbering for the additional questions will start at
number 21. The questions should be displayed on a separate page printed on a separate
sheet with the department and class clearly identified, and should be distributed at the
same time as the standard form. One copy of the additional questions should be sent to
the Regional Office or UW Colleges Online campus or Distance Education, and
department or academic program, and the processing center.
F. Courses with multiple instructors shall have one form for the class. The statistical
analysis and comments for team-taught courses will be available to departments,
campuses, and instructors. However, the results for multiple-instructor course
evaluations shall be separate from and not included in the statistical summary for the
instructor.
96
II. For Instructional Academic Staff, including Returning Retired Faculty
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
A. For rehiring, retention and merit purposes, the Student Survey of Instruction shall be
administered in the classes of instructional academic staff in accordance with the
schedule in IP #320. Administration of the form shall be a campus responsibility, or in
the case of Online instruction, the responsibility of Distance Education. Forms shall be
made available to the instructional academic staff at least three full weeks before the end
of the course. For those courses taught Online, the Distance Education program shall
consult with instructors and arrange for administration of the survey as indicated in IV.B.
III. II. For Distance Education, LEC 100, Online, Accelerated, Blended, Interdisciplinary
Studies, or Other Special Modes of Instruction Courses
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
A. Additional questions can be added using the procedures outlined in I.E. Questions used
for evaluation purposes must be limited to teaching performance and not a) the mode
of instruction or b) scaled course materials not developed by an individual instructor.
B. Courses with multiple instructors shall have one form for the class.
C. The statistical analysis and comments for all courses will be referred to the respective
departments, campuses, and instructors involved. However, the results of multipleinstructor, or other special courses (e.g. freshman seminar, one-credit Interdisciplinary
Studies linking seminar), shall be separate from and not included in the statistical
summary for the instructor.
D. Results for courses in the first semester taught in a mode (e.g. Instructional Television,
Compressed Video, Point-to-Point, Online, Blended or Accelerated) that is new to the
instructor shall not be used in personnel decisions. Results shall be separate from and not
included in the statistical summary for the instructor for that semester only.
E. Accelerated courses must adjust the time frame in which to offer the survey so that it
occurs within the last 20% of the class. (For seven or eight week classes, the evaluation
should take place in the final 10 days of class. For five week classes, the evaluation
should take place in the final week of class.) For courses offered in fewer than five
weeks, the evaluation period should remain open for three days following the last day
of class to allow for sufficient time for students to respond.
IV. III. Procedures for Administering the Survey
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2015-01-22
A. For Face-to-Face and Blended Instruction
A. An electronic version of the survey must be a component of all courses in which the
Student Survey of Instruction is required or requested.
97
B. Unless an instructor specifically decides to provide class time for students to complete
the Student Survey of Instruction, it is assumed that students will complete the survey
on their own time, using their own computer hardware or campus computer lbs.
C. C. Packets of Digital acces to survey forms shall be made available to all students in a
class scheduled instructors at least three two full weeks before the end of the course a
semester course or one week before the end of an accelerated course. (In special
circumstances, departments may request or approve of administration earlier in the
semester.) Students may complete evaluations at any point during a two-week period
for a semester course or a one-week period for an accelerated course. Because of the
length of the evaluation period, instructors may assign, collect, and return major
assignments during this period.
D. In the interest of efficient processing, no later than the fifth week of classes for the
semester in which all classes are scheduled to be evaluated, the processing campus shall
circulate information guiding campuses, departments, faculty and instructional academic
staff to the materials related to the implementation of the Student Survey of Instruction
located in IP #301.01.
E. The campus dean shall: i) provide for a secure drop-off point and temporary storage for 5.
At least one week before the evaluation period begins, instructors should inform
students of the evaluation time period and provide information about how to access the
survey electronically. Instructors in face-to-face and synchronous distance education
courses should notify students during class. Instructors in courses offered in other
modes of delivery should inform students of the evaluation time period through the
digital platform used to deliver course instruction. The instructor can request review
of the course syllabus prior to the evaluation, and in multiple-instructor courses can
inform students that only one survey will apply to the course and that comments on
individual instructors can be typed in the online forms provided.
F. The Central Office will make an electronic copy of electronically collect the forms and
be responsible for their distribution to respective department and program chairs.
Campuses, after After final grades have been submitted, Regional Offices shall distribute
results to individual instructors faculty. The original forms, following processing, shall
be retained by Central Office for six months. The statistical results shall be maintained in
a permanent personnel file for each instructor.
G. The instructor shall inform the students at least two days or one class period before the
evaluation is to be done. The instructor must conduct the evaluation during a class period
within the final 20% of the semester. The instructor shall not schedule the evaluation the
day a major assignment is conducted or returned. The instructor can request review of the
course syllabus prior to the evaluation, and in multiple-instructor courses can inform
students that only one form will apply to the course and that comments on individual
instructors can be written in the spaces provided.
98
H. Each faculty member shall designate a student from each class to administer the forms
and return the forms to the drop off point. The instructor will not be present during the
administration of the evaluation, although a colleague may be. At least ten minutes shall
be allowed for completion of the forms. Evaluations shall only be completed during the
class time in which they are distributed. Under no circumstances shall the instructor
collect or handle the completed forms be given access to the completed surveys until
after final grades have been submitted, nor shall the instructor lobby students by word or
deed for higher ratings.
I. The person administering the form shall read the following statement before
distributing the forms:
It is the policy of the University of Wisconsin that students be given the opportunity to
evaluate teaching faculty. You are not required to complete the evaluation, but your
participation is encouraged. Do not write your name on the form. Your instructor
will not have access to this document until the semester is over and your final course
grade is recorded. Do not talk with others while completing this form. Please write
freely and honestly.
The information obtained on this form will be considered when making decisions
regarding salary, promotion, or tenure. Your instructor will find your evaluations
helpful when improving his/her teaching and course content.
If any item does not apply to you or the course, mark the “not applicable” column.
Use a black or blue ball-point pen or thin felt tip pen, marking each box with an X.
Please write legibly. You will have at least 10 minutes to complete the evaluation.
1. The only attachments accompanying the student forms will be the instruction sheet and,
where applicable, a sheet listing additional questions.
B. For Online Instruction
Added by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2015-01-22
1. An electronic version of the survey must be a component of all Online courses in
which the Student Survey of Instruction is required or requested via IP Policy
#301.01.
2. Prior to the start of each semester, the Dean of UW Colleges Online and Distance
Education shall arrange for each section that is to be evaluated to be linked to an
electronic version of the Student Survey of Instruction.
3. The Dean of UW Colleges Online and Distance Education, in consultation with the
instructor, shall assign a three day period in which the evaluation shall take place.
The default period will be the last full three days of instruction. However, an
alternate evaluation time will be assigned if the default period would overlap with any
day in which a major assessment is conducted or returned. Additionally, an instructor
99
may request an alternate evaluation period, provided that it takes place within the last
20% of the semester and does not overlap with the giving or returning of a major
assessment. Evaluations shall only be completed during this three day period.
4. At least one week before the evaluation period is to begin, instructors shall inform
students of the evaluation time period via email and by posting the dates on the class
News page. The instructor can request review of the course syllabus prior to the
evaluation, and in multiple-instructor courses can inform students that only one
survey will apply to the course and that comments on individual instructors can be
typed in the online forms provided.
5. Under no circumstances shall the instructor be given access to the completed surveys
until after final grades have been submitted, nor shall the instructor lobby students by
word or deed for higher ratings.
6. The following statement will precede the Student Survey of Instruction:
It is the policy of the University of Wisconsin that students be given the opportunity to
evaluate teaching faculty. You are not required to complete the evaluation, but your
participation is encouraged. The survey will be anonymous. Your instructor will not
have access to this document until the semester is over and your final course grade is
recorded. Do not work with others while completing this survey. Please answer
freely and honestly.
The information obtained on this form will be considered when making decisions
regarding salary, promotion, or tenure. Your instructor will find your evaluations
helpful when improving his/her teaching and course content.
V. Guidelines for Using Dedicated Class Time for Evaluation
A. At their discretion, instructors have the option to provide time during a class period for
students to complete the online Student Survey of Instruction. If they do so, they must
follow the additional procedures in this section.
B. Instructors can encourage, but not require, students to complete evaluations during
the provided class time. Students can complete their evaluations at any time during the
two-week survey period, even if class time is provided by the instructor.
C. The instructor shall inform the students at least two days or one class period in
advance, if class time is allocated for evaluations. The provided class time must fall
within the two-week survey period. The instructor should not provide class time for
evaluations on the day a major assignment is conducted or returned. In multipleinstructor courses, instructors can inform students that only one form will apply to the
course and that comments on individual instructors can be typewritten in the spaces
provided.
100
D. To complete online evaluations, instructors may a) request that students use their own
computing devices, b) use classroom/lab computers, or c) reserve and use a campus
computer lab, if one is available. When using student devices, instructors should permit
students to leave the classroom to access computers elsewhere on the campus.
E. The instructor will not be present during the administration of the evaluation, although
a colleague may be. At least ten minutes shall be allowed for completion of the
evaluations.
V. VI.Processing, Distribuing, and Storing Results And Distribution Of Statistical Results
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
A. For Face-to-Face and Blended classes, completed evaluation packets, separated by class
and instructor, will be sent to the individuals authorized to process the forms. All packets
should be submitted no later than the end of the final exam period for the semester in
which the evaluation is conducted.
B. The statistical results and student comments will be electronically distributed to
individual instructors faculty members, to the relevant departments and/or academic
programs, and the campuses. For tenured faculty and instructional academic staff,
Central Office will retain the original forms for six months and electronic copies and
data, including statistical summaries, for at least five years. For probationary faculty,
Central Office will retain the original forms for six months, statistical summaries and
electronic copies and data for at least seven years. Departments are encouraged to retain
the electronic data, including statistical summaries, for tenured faculty at least five years
and for probationary faculty for seven years.
C. After the data processing is complete, the original forms will be retained by The Central
Office for six months and electronic data retains digital copies of the results for at least
ten years. Departments and academic programs are encouraged to retain the electronic
data for at least ten years.
D. Electronic data related to student evaluations for on faculty or instructional academic
staff who are no longer employees of the UW Colleges can be deleted from their
respective e-mail accounts 30 days after the data has been sent.
Revised by Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Appendix 1: Notes to Student: Instructions for Students
1. The only attachments accompanying the student forms will be this instruction sheet and,
where applicable, a sheet listing additional questions.
2. Under no circumstances may instructors see the survey forms until after the grades have
been turned in. The forms should be delivered to the drop off location by the student.
The following information should be included with a link to the electronic evaluation
survey for students to read prior to beginning the survey:
[Student instructions moved from section IV.A.7 and modified.]
101
It is the policy of the University of Wisconsin that students be given the opportunity
to evaluate instructors. You are not required to complete the evaluation, but your
participation is encouraged. The survey will be anonymous. Your instructor will not
have access to this document your evaluation or comments until after the semester
ends and the instructor submits your final grade is over and your final course grade
is recorded. Please respond freely and honestly.
The information obtained on this form will be considered when The UW Colleges
considers information from student evaluations in making decisions regarding
salary, promotion, and tenure. Instructors also use results from evaluations to
improve their teaching and course content. Your instructor will find your
evaluations helpful when improving his/her teaching and course content.
3. Instructors who bring the forms to class and students who circulate them should make only
those remarks about the forms which are pertinent to the task of gathering student reactions.
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Appendix 2: Statistical data to be reported to Campus, Department, and Faculty Reporting
and Use of Results
For each item:
1. Reporting of Statistical Data
SSI individual and summary data will be reported to the campus, department, and
instructor.
For each prompt, the following will be made available, along with a definition and
explanation of how to understand the results:
 Frequency distribution
 Mean
 Standard Deviation
 Correlation Matrix (to be sent to Instructor)
 Cross tabulations for some items
Summary data shall not include Interdisciplinary Studies or one-credit courses offered outside of
regular departments, such as Freshman Seminar. Departmental and campus merit committees
can request extraction of the “global instructor” (q. 17) or other small set of responses for each
faculty member under review. Compilation does not include summation.
2. Appropriate Use of Statistical Data
Departments, programs, and campuses should refer to the “Student Surveys of Instruction
(SSI) Guiding Document” for guidance in using statistical data to evaluate instruction.
[End]
102
Attachment 20
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction for Endorsement: February 24, 2017
Student Survey of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document
Student Surveys of Instruction (SSI) Guiding Document
Appendix to Senate Policy #301.01
Background
During Spring 2016, an appointed Senate working group researched best practices for student surveys of
instruction. They also consulted with a separate working group that examined practices for evaluating
instruction in online courses. The working group prepared a complete draft of this guiding document.
The Senate Academic Policy Committee made revisions to clarify some issues and to align the
recommendations with existing policies.
Purpose
The purpose of this document is to advise merit and retention, tenure, and promotion committees on
best practices and the most appropriate use of student surveys of instruction in evaluation processes. It
can also provide guidance to administrators in the appropriate use of SSIs in decisions related to rehiring and promoting instructional academic staff.
Audiences
Audiences for this guiding document include instructors; chairs of departments and academic programs;
associate deans and other administrators who deal with personnel issues; and committees that make
decisions about merit, retention, promotion, and/or tenure.
Contents:
1. Summary of Research
2. 2016 Revised Questions
3. Annotation and Rationale of Questions by Section
4. Uses of SSIs for Faculty/IAS Retention, Tenure, Promotion, and Merit
5. Uses of SSIs for Instructors
6. Bibliography of Research
1. Summary of Research
The current research on student evaluations focuses on the following two principles, which in turn have
informed the 2016 revisions to the SSI questions as well as their delivery and appropriate uses in our
institution.
Finding 1: Multiple Measures of Teaching Assessment
One of the major, repeated ideas throughout all of the research on student surveys of instruction
(Wright & Jenkins-Guarnieri, 2012; Barre, 2015) is that SSIs should not be used as the only or primary
way of assessing instructors for retention and promotion. SSIs should always be used in conjunction with
103
other methods of measurements. Therefore, the UW Colleges should never rely solely on SSIs as a
“measure,” but place it in context with multiple measures of evaluation, including, but not limited to
course materials, peer and self-assessments of instruction, grade distributions and other documents as
appropriately dictated by the context and purpose of assessment. More measures will be considerably
more reliable and valid than one measure alone.
Finding 2: Eliminating Bias by Focusing on What Students Can Assess
We reviewed a considerable amount of research concerning SSIs or Student Evaluations of Teaching
(SET). There has been much research in the area, but also a considerable amount of inconsistencies.
For example, one of the major concerns that research addresses is gender biases that may exist in SSI
questions and processes. Stark & Freishtat (2014) suggest that there may be gender biases in SSI
questions and results. However, in a meta-analysis by Wright & Jenkins-Guarnieri (2012), these gender
biases don’t hold up. Further research has suggested that the gender bias may not be as clear cut, but
may have more to do with a combination of gender and discipline/topic taught (Silverman, 2015).
Consequently, SSI questions should focus on issues that students are able to accurately evaluate
(Benton, & Cashin, 2011). Therefore, SSI questions should focus more on student learning (e.g. did the
assignments help students learn) and less on overall evaluations of the instructor (as these tend to be
influenced by liking of the instructor and other biases).
These two key findings informed our revision, reorganization, and replacement of many of the items in
the current SSI. Additionally, Arreola (2007) developed the organizational framework we incorporated.
These findings govern the guiding document and the committee’s recommendations for how SSIs should
be used in our institution.
2. Revised SSI Form Questions
Below are the recommended questions. The prompts will use the following Likert scale:
1
2
3
4
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
Frequently
Almost Always
N/A
1. Instructional Design Skills
a. The materials (e.g., texts, readings, videos…) were useful in helping me learn.
b. The activities (e.g., discussions, small groups, and problems) were useful in helping me
learn.
c. The instructor provided an adequate description of the course and its learning objectives.
d. This course challenged me.
2. Instructional Delivery Skills and Content Expertise
a. The instructor’s teaching enhanced my learning.
b. The instructor seemed well-prepared for class.
c. The instructor’s engagement with the subject helped me learn.
d. The instructor clearly explained concepts or ideas related to course material.
104
e. This instructor created an environment that supported my learning.
3. Instructional Assessment Skills
a. The assignments (e.g., homework, reports, and projects) were useful in helping me learn.
b. The expectations for the assignments were clear.
c. The tests, assignments and projects focused on the objectives of the course.
d. The instructor provided grading policies in the syllabus and followed them.
e. The instructor provided me with prompt feedback on my work that helped me understand
my progress.
4. Course management Skills
a. The instructor was responsive to requests for help and additional resources or support.
5. Other factors (Correlation Questions: Cross tabulate with 1d, 2a, and 2 c-e)
Identify your reasons for taking the course (select all that apply)
● it is required for my associate degree
● it is required for my college major or minor
● it is required by my intended transfer institution
● it fulfills other degree or certificate requirements
● the subject interested me
● I wanted to take a course from the instructor
● an advisor recommended it
● an instructor or another student suggested it
● it fit my schedule
● other personal reasons
● none of the above
Open-ended questions:
● Which assignments, activities, and materials were most useful for your learning?
● What might you suggest to improve the course or the instruction in order to enhance your
learning?
● What (other) comments would you like to share about this course or its instruction?
Questions for Nontraditional Course Deliveries:
Online Course Questions will use the same Likert scale and will be added as subsequent questions for all
online courses:
1
2
3
4
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
Frequently
Almost Always
VI. Online Course Questions
A. The instructor encouraged learning interaction.
B. The instructor was actively involved in the course.
C. The instructor’s feedback positively influenced my learning.
105
N/A
D. The instructor facilitated or encouraged interaction among students.
Non-Online Distance Education (NODE) Questions will use the same Likert scale and will be added as
subsequent questions for all NODE courses:
1
2
3
4
Hardly Ever
Occasionally
Frequently
Almost Always
N/A
VII. Non-Online Distance Education (NODE) Questions
A. The instructor encouraged learning interaction.
B. The instructor used available technology to communicate clearly with students.
C. The instructor allowed adequate time for learners to respond to questions.
D. Course materials were distributed effectively.
E. The instructor used media resources, such as document camera and computer, to
facilitate learning effectively.
3. Annotation and Rationale for SSI Questions (by Section)
The following information provides an overview of the rationale for revisions to the survey
questions. Most changes were recommended by the working group.
1. Instructional design questions
The items in this section were altered from the original SSI questions based on research
suggesting that students tend to be well aware of what type of assignments and activities have
helped them to learn the material/skills in the course (Benton & Cashin, 2011). We also tried to
make the questions more applicable to a wider range of teaching styles by eliminating
references that excluded different types of course delivery. Curriculum design questions are
important to assess, as they often correlated with student learning (Worthington, 2002).
2. Instructional delivery skills and content expertise
Some of the questions in this area were rewritten in order to reduce the amount of bias that
instructors with accents may face. For example, “speaking clearly” was in the previous SSI, and
this has been changed to “clearly explained” in order to focus less on potential biases. The
previous “enthusiasm” question on the SSI also seemed to invite bias, so this was also rewritten
to avoid that word, but still assess instructor engagement, which is influential in student
learning (Stark & Freishtat, 2014).
3. Instructional assessment skills
Some of these questions were also rewritten in order to make them more applicable to a variety
of teaching modalities and styles (e.g. dropping language that emphasizes in and out of class
differences). Instead, clarity of expectations, alignment with course objectives, and
communication are the focus of the questions in this section (Barre, 2015; Benton, & Cashin,
2011; Worthington, 2002). “McKeachie (1997) argued that, when it comes to personnel
decisions, student ratings of attainment of educational goals and objectives are preferable to
106
multiple dimensions or a single measure of overall teaching effectiveness.” (Benton, S. L., &
Cashin, W. E., 2011).
4. Course management skills
This question was revised from the past version to remove language about “outside of class,”
due to similar concerns about teaching modality differences. The committee did express some
concern about changing student expectations with the current technology level that many
student are accustomed to, and that they can’t expect their instructors to reply immediately at
all hours of the night. However, we ultimately retained a version of that question because
instructors’ support and availability are important (Benton & Cashin, 2011; Barre, 2015).
5. Correlation questions
The final category (Other Factors) will be used to cross tabulate with the other items, as much of
the research has suggested that these factors can influence student’s ratings (Barre, 2015;
Benton, & Cashin, 2011). These items are found to correlate and sometimes bias SSI results
(Benton & Cashin, 2011; Stark & Freishtat, 2014). These are not meant to be used in a
formative manner, but instead, should be used as a way to check for biases in the results.
Example of what a Cross-Tabulation looks like in the PDF Report:
6. Open-Ended Questions
All committee members agreed about the importance of retaining open-ended qualitative
questions. We again tried to draft questions that focused both on what students could actually
answer and their perception and experience of their learning.
7. Online Course Questions
These questions reflect the instructional concerns unique to the online environment and will be
added to all online SSIs.
107
8. Non-Online Distance Education (NODE) Questions
These questions reflect the instructional concerns unique to NODE courses and will be added to
all online SSIs.
9. Optional Added Questions (Per Senate Policy)
10. Frequency Likert Scale:
As noted above, research showed that students were able to provide the most meaningful
evaluations if the students were asked to respond to prompts that they could answer; hence the
frequency scales provided ask students for their assessment of how consistent an instructor was
on any given task that is a component of effective instruction (as detailed above). Likert scales
are often used to provide a “quantitative” data set, and while they generate an output of
numerical data (a mean, median, and mode) this should not be used in place of its correlating
meaning. The numerical representation of students’ responses is a student perception, and the
numbers in the scale itself do not represent numerical intervals: e.g., a mean score of 4.5
indicates students perceived a specific task of instruction happening somewhere between
“frequently” and “almost always.” This is neither “frequently and a half” nor meaningfully
different than a mean of 4.1 or 4.9. In other words, the meaning of numbers and the ranking of
instructors based on averages are much less meaningful than looking at the overall perception
that the students associate with their experience of instruction.
11. Additional Revisions from the Senate Academic Policy Committee
The above changes reflect the work of the SSI working group. The Senate Academic Policy
Committee made some changes to the recommended language for survey items provided by the
working group. They drafted a complete list of “other factors” to supplement suggestions from
the working group and eliminated a question about whether a student wanted to take a course
in a subject area (which was already included in the next section of the survey). SAPC also
eliminated a reference to effective online discussions because instructors in some scaled online
courses do not create their own discussions (they are written by course developers). A question
about clear communication “over the air” in the distance education section was modified to
account for a variety of technology that could potentially be used to deliver distance education
courses. A question about interaction between students in distance education courses was
eliminated because of concerns about problems with technology that can potentially limit
student interaction and, therefore, should not be used to evaluate instructors.
4. Uses of SSIs for Faculty Retention, Tenure, and Promotion, IAS Retention and Promotion, and
Merit
Prior to using SSIs for any purpose, readers should be familiar with both Senate Policy 301.01 and 503.1
and the research and rationale provided in this guiding document.
Standard of Validity
Validity of quantitative data is linked to the number of respondents and sample size. For student surveys
of instruction, the size of a class affects the reliability of the results. Quantitative results are not
considered reliable (and, therefore, should not be used) when less than 50% of the class has responded.
If this standard is not met, the quantitative data should not be used for retention, promotion, or merit
108
considerations. This is because if there are not enough student responses, the responses tend to be
biased (Goodman, Anson, & Belcheir, 2015; Barre, 2015). The qualitative responses (i.e., student
comments) could still be examined and used, but the quantitative data is no longer considered reliable
and valid. In a course with a small class size, student evaluations from a majority of students still might
not be valid because of the small sample size. Preferably there would be at least ten student responses,
but given the small class sizes at many campuses, restricting results based on this criterion is not
feasible. Committees and administrators should carefully consider sample size when using quantitative
data from student surveys of instruction.
Multiple Measures:
SSIs should be used in conjunction with other assessments of teaching effectiveness, as required and
defined by Senate and Department policies. Any one single measure is not sufficient for assessing
teaching effectiveness. Other possible assessment measures include, but are not limited to, peer
visits, self-reflections, teaching portfolios, student interviews, and teaching videos.
How to Read and Use SSIs:
Measures of central tendency, as well as cross tabulations (for some items) and item distributions will
be provided. The median for individual items seems to be the most appropriate measure of central
tendency for student evaluations (Berk, 2006) due to outliers have less of an impact on the median than
the mean.
Berk (2006) suggests that comparisons, especially between subject areas, are inherently flawed and
should be avoided. Instead, comparing one instructor’s scores to their own previous scores would be
more informative and would allow individuals to see how the instructor has improved or changed over
time.
Items in the “other factors” category are NOT for formative assessment. These are factors that have
been found to influence other ratings, so they will be cross tabulated with several of the other items.
This can be used to consider the influence of previous factors on the ratings. For example, if you look at
the graph provided in section three (above), age influenced opinion about the quality of technology
equipment. The youngest students predominantly selected the lowest levels of satisfaction, while the
middle age groups were more satisfied with the technology equipment. If the factors in the “other
factors” category strongly influence ratings in the selected items, this should be considered while
interpreting the results of the evaluation.
5. Uses of SSIs for Instructors: Self-Assessment and Formative Feedback
SSIs can be helpful for tracking trends in student responses and for assessing teaching strengths and
challenges over time across courses and semesters. The questions on the SSI should help instructors to
identify teaching practices that are effectively supporting student learning and areas that may need
improvement. It is important to consider what factors might influence students’ responses. For
example, if students indicate that the learning objectives of a course are not clear, then that response
might also influence their comments about the course or responses to other questions. Instructors can
use that information to clarify learning objectives in subsequent semesters and to help students better
understand the purpose of course emphases and assignments.
109
The cross tabulations can be helpful to see the perspective of where students are coming from and how
this may influence their experience in a course. This can help to improve course design.
Finally, instructors are encouraged to conduct their own, informal, formative assessments throughout
the semester to get feedback from students about how to improve instruction during the semester.
6. Bibliography of Research
Arreola, R. A. (2007). Developing a Comprehensive Faculty Evaluation System, 3rd, ed. San Francisco, CA,
Jossey-Bass.
Barre (2015). Rice CTE Student Ratings of Instruction Literature Review. Rice Center for Teaching
Excellence, http://cte.rice.edu/blogarchive/2015/02/01/studentratings. Accessed 1 May 2016.
Basow, S. A. (1995) Student Evaluations of College Professors: When Gender Matters Journal of
Educational Psychology 87(4), 656-665.
Benton, S. L., & Cashin, W. E. (2011). IDEA Paper No. 50: Student ratings of teaching: A summary of
research and literature. Manhattan, KS: The IDEA Center.
Berk, R. A. (2013). “Face-to-Face versus Online Course Evaluations: A "Consumer's Guide" to Seven
Strategies” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching.
Berk, R. A. (2006). Thirteen Strategies to Measure College Teaching. Stylus: Sterling, Virgina.
Berret, D. (2014). Scholars Take Aim at Student Evaluations’ ‘Air of Objectivity’ Chronicle of Higher
Education
Boring, A,. Ottoboni K., & Stark, P. B. (2016) Student Evaluations (Mostly) Do Not Measure Teaching
Effectiveness ScienceOpen Research
Carrell, S. E., & West, J. E. (2010). Does Professor Quality Matter? Evidence from Random Assignment of
Students to Professors.Journal Of Political Economy, 118(3), 409-432.
John A. Centra, J. A. & Gaubatz, N. B. (2000). Is There Gender Bias in Student Evaluations of Teaching?
The Journal of Higher Education 70(1)
Dukes, R. L., & Gay, V. (1989). The Effects of Gender, Status, and Effective Teaching on the Evaluation of
College Instruction. Teaching Sociology 17, 447-457.
Dommeyer, C. J., Baum, P., Hanna, R. W., & Chapman, K. S. (2004). Gathering faculty teaching evaluations
by in-class and online surveys: their effects on response rates and evaluations. Assessment &
Evaluation in Higher Education, 29(5), 611–623.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602930410001689171.
Flaherty, C. (2015). Flawed Evaluations InsiderHigherEd 10 June 2015. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.
110
Goodman, J., Anson, R. & Belcheir, M. (2015). The Effect of Incentives and Other Instructor-Driven
Strategies to Increase Online Student Evaluation Response Rates Assessment & Evaluation in
Higher Education, 40(7), 958-970. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2014.960364
Kidd, R. S., & Latif, D. A. (2004). Student Evaluations: Are They Valid Measures of Course Effectiveness?.
American Journal Of Pharmaceutical Education, 68(3), 1-5
https://ezproxy.uwc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthT
ype=cookie,ip,cpid&custid=s5805083&db=ehh&AN=14027718&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Knapp T. R. (1990). Treating Ordinal Scales as Interval Scales: An attempt to resolve the controversy.
Nursing Res 39,121–123.
Kuh G. D. (2002) The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual Framework and Overview of
Psychometric Properties
http://nsse.indiana.edu/2004_annual_report/pdf/2004_conceptual_framework.pdf
Kuzon, Jr. W. M., Urbanchek M. G., & McCabe S. (1996). The Seven Deadly Sins of Statistical Analysis. Ann
Plastic Surg 36, 265–72.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The Adequacy of Response Rates to Online and Paper Surveys: What can be done?
Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education 33(3), 301–314.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
Schmidt, B (2015). Gendered Language in Teacher Reviews. Ben Schmidt.
Silverman, R.l E. (2015) Gender Bias at Work Turns Up in Feedback The Wall Street Journal.
Sprague, J. & Massoni, K. (2005) Student Evaluations and Gendered Expectations: What We Can’t Count
Can Hurt Us Sex Roles 53(11/12)
Stark & Freishtat (2014). An Evaluation of Course Evaluations, ScienceOpen.
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~stark/Preprints/evaluations14.pdf
Worthington, Andrew C. "The Impact Of Student Perceptions And Characteristics On Teaching
Evaluations: A Case Study In Finance Education." Assessment & Evaluation In Higher Education
27.1 (2002): 49-64. Academic Search Premier. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
Wright, S. L., & Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A. (2012). Student evaluations of teaching: combining the metaanalyses and demonstrating further evidence for effective use. Assessment & Evaluation In
Higher Education, 37(6), 683-699.
Student Assessment of Learning Gains (SALG) http://www.salgsite.org/about
[End]
111
Attachment 21
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised General Institutional Policy
(“Classification of Disciplines Within Departments and Programs”)
Rationale:
The Senate is restructuring policies to make it easier for faculty, staff, and administrators to look
for and access particular policies for their work. This proposed policy pulls information about
classification of disciplines within academic departments and programs from the AAS degree
and BAAS degree policies. In discussions with the Senate Steering Chair and other Senate
leaders, the Senate Academic Policy Committee identified this particular section of the degree
policies as an especially difficult policy to find. Most people who want or need to access an
overview of disciplines organized by department and program use that information for purposes
other than reviewing requirements for degrees. The list has been updated to reflect out-of-date
information.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
General Institutional Policy #1XX
Classification of Disciplines Within Departments and Programs
===========================================================================
Moved from Institutional Curricular Policy 101; resolution approved by the Senate, January 24, 1998, p. 4, app. 5.
Revised by the Senate March 11, 2011
Revised by the Senate 2011-04-29
Revised by the SSC 2011-10-21
Revised by the SSC 2015-09-30
[Moved from IP #101.VII and modified.]
The following list includes all departments and academic programs and the disciplines included
within each department or program.
Anthropology and Sociology
Anthropology, Sociology
Art
Art
Biological Sciences
Biology
Business and Economics
Business, Economics
112
Chemistry
Chemistry
Communication and Theatre Arts
Communication, Theatre
Computer Science, Engineering, Physics and Astronomy
Astronomy, Computer Science, Engineering, Engineering Graphics, Engineering
Mechanics, Physics
Engineering, Engineering Graphics, and Engineering Mechanics count as the same
discipline for the AAS associate degree requirement.
English
English, Learning Resources (LEA) (non-degree credit classes), ESL
Geography and Geology
Geography, Geology, Meteorology
Geography and Meteorology count as the same discipline for the AAS degree
requirement.
Health, Exercise Science and Athletics
Exercise Science, Health, Physical Education
History
History
Mathematics
Mathematics
Music
Music, Music Applied
Philosophy
Philosophy, Religious Studies
Political Science
American Indian Studies, Political Science
Psychology
Education, Psychology
World Languages
French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian
113
Other Programs and Courses
American Indian Studies
Interdisciplinary Studies (INT)
Lecture Forum (LEC)
Gender, Sexuality, and Women’s Studies (GSW)
[End]
114
Attachment 22
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of Institutional Curricular Policy #141
(“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree”)
Rationale:
The following revisions are being proposed to this policy. First, the original proficiencies of the
BAAS degree borrowed language from the list of AAC&U Essential Learning Outcomes.
However, Senate policy defined the BAAS components as Professional Experience, Global
Studies, and Cognitive Skills. The initial policy revisions below are to co-name the BAAS
Proficiencies to insure BAAS curricular consistency and compliance.
Second, when the UW Colleges BAAS degree was first approved in 2013, the admission
requirement was a liberal arts associate degree. Over time, it became apparent that the UW
Colleges, seen as the institution of access and asked to address workforce needs in our local
communities, needed to consider admitting students with an applied associate degree from the
Wisconsin Technical College System (WTCS). Senate policies to expand our admission
requirement and to create a pathway for WTCS students with an applied associate degree were
approved in early 2014.
As the provost and the program manager of the BAAS degree completion program worked with
our six UW System four-year partner institutions on implementing this second pathway, it soon
became clear that having two pathways to a single degree was confusing to students and did not
honor our collaborative agreements with our four-year partners. In the latter part of 2014,
revised memorandum of understandings (MOUs) with our six partner institutions were drafted
and signed, effectively establishing one degree pathway with shared course credits from the fouryear partners as required by our degree authorization from UW System.
The suggested policy revisions below move the program back to a single degree pathway with
consistent degree requirements agreed to through six four-year partner MOUs and seven
Articulation Agreements with a select set of WTCS institutions.
A section on academic disciplines within academic departments and programs has been removed
because that information will be included in its own proposed new general institutional policy,
(“Classification of Disciplines Within Departments and Programs”).
Proposed revisions are in bold, red, italicized, underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #141
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree
=====================================================================
Adopted 2012-01-11
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-10-25
115
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
The Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree
I. Degree Description
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
The UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degree-completion program expands baccalaureate opportunities
for place-bound adults. It addresses the UW Colleges’ revised mission of “providing a single
baccalaureate degree that meets local and individual needs.” To fulfill the UW Colleges
mission of access to high quality academic programs and success at the baccalaureate level,
and to strengthen and enhance the institution’s commitment to the Wisconsin Idea, the UW
Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree includes four sequenced curricular
components that prepare students to apply theoretical knowledge, higher order intellectual
skills, and practical experience to achieve solutions to complex problems encountered in
contemporary workplace and community settings.
A. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Curricular Components
The four sequenced curricular components that make up the 60-credit degree-completion
program are defined as follows:
1. Professional Experience
Internship (IN)
The internship combines classroom-based education with workplace-based experiential
learning related to the degree-seeking student’s career-related skill and professional
development.
Service-Learning (SL)
The course-integrated project conducted as a volunteer in a local organization provides
an opportunity to analyze and solve work- or community-related problems. The central
feature of the service-learning component is service to others combined with reflection
upon its role in community and individual life.
Credit for Prior Experiential Learning
A degree-seeking student may present an experiential learning portfolio addressing
university-level knowledge of a subject acquired outside of a traditional classroom to a
UW Colleges department for evaluation for experiential learning credit.
2. Global Studies (GS)
A curricular component that will enable students to develop knowledge of global
cultures, the world economy, and the natural world needed to engage contemporary and
enduring problems from a global perspective.
3. Cognitive Skills (CS)
A curricular component that requires students to acquire higher order intellectual skills
in a variety of disciplines and contexts.
4. Capstone Senior Seminar (CSS)
A full academic year of individualized instruction in the student’s area of interest
working closely with an instructor on the student’s professional development. The
116
completion of the seminar should result in a tangible project/study/report that will help
the student into the next career stage.
II. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Proficiencies
To fulfill its mission, the UW Colleges expects all students who graduate with a UW
Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree to achieve and demonstrate the
following skill-based competencies:
A. Integrative Learning (Professional Experience)
Students must be able to:
 Integrate past work/life experience with the college experience,
 Identify, analyze, and develop strategies to meet local community and business needs,
 Understand the role of service in the development of healthy communities,
 Adapt to a continuously changing work world, and
 Demonstrate persistent learning through the capacity to apply research skills, critical
analysis, group discussion techniques, and disciplined writing in community and
work settings.
B. Knowledge of Human Cultures and the Natural World (Global Studies)
Students must be able to:
 Demonstrate a broad knowledge of global issues, processes, trends, and systems,
 Communicate effectively across contemporary cultural boundaries, and
 Work effectively in a variety of cross-cultural environments.
C. Practical and Cognitive Skills (Cognitive Skills)
Students must be able to:
 Demonstrate analysis, synthesis, evaluation, decision-making, and critical and
creative thinking skills,
 Identify, analyze, and evaluate arguments as they occur in one’s own and others’
work,
 Write coherent, organized, well-developed, and substantive texts that follow the
conventions of standard written English, and
 Apply effective leadership, teamwork, relationship management, and conflict
resolution skills in the workplace.
III. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Requirements
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-10-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
A. Liberal Arts Breadth Requirements Admission
Students entering the liberal arts pathway to the Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences
degree-completion program will have completed a UW Colleges Associate of Arts and
Science degree or equivalent, or liberal arts associate degree. Students entering the
applied pathway of the BAAS degree completion program will have completed an
applied associate’s degree.
117
B. Level of degree work
A minimum of 40 credits of junior/senior-level work is required for the UW Colleges
B.A.A.S. degree.
C. Residency
A total of 30 credits of the 60 credits of the UW Colleges liberal arts pathway to the
B.A.A.S. degree must be earned at the UW Colleges, including 15 Professional
Experience credits, a Global Studies core course, a Cognitive Skills core course, a 6credit Capstone Senior Seminar, and three additional credits of Global Studies, Cognitive
Skills, or Electives.
A student entering with an applied associate degree must fulfill A total of 60 credits of
the UW Colleges applied pathway to the BAAS degree must be earned at the UW
Colleges, fulfilling the core and breadth requirements of the UW Colleges Associate of
Arts and Science degree, and including a Global Studies core course, a Cognitive Skills
core course, credits in Global Studies, Cognitive Skills, and Professional Experience, and
a Senior Capstone Seminar.
D. Collaboration
A total of 30 At least 15 credits of the 60 credits of the UW Colleges liberal arts pathway
to the B.A.A.S. degree must be earned in UW partner approved Global Studies, Cognitive
Skills and/or Elective courses.
No UW partner collaborative credits are required in the UW Colleges applied pathway to
the BAAS degree.
E. GPA minimum
A minimum 2.0 cumulative grade point average (GPA) in all courses for the UW
Colleges B.A.A.S. degree, including all transfer credits necessary to complete the 60credit degree requirement.
IV. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Liberal Arts Pathway Curricular Requirements
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-10-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
A. Professional Experience Requirements
In these components of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 15 at least 6 credit hours of experiential learning integrated with
academic instruction, designated as Internship (IN) and Service-Learning (SL), and/or,
based on departmental assessment of a prior experiential learning portfolio, be awarded
up to six credits for university-level knowledge of a subject acquired outside of a
traditional classroom equivalent to approved UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degree course(s).
The ratio of Professional Experience components will vary by student; it will depend on
the nature of the student’s program and the number of experiential learning credits
awarded. Students in an internship will be jointly supervised by an instructor and a
118
designated workplace mentor. Service-learning activities will be course-integrated. The
Professional Experience component of the degree will be offered by the UW Colleges.
B. Global Studies Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 15 9 credit hours of courses designated as Global Studies (GS).
All students must complete a required UW Colleges three-credit GS core course. Juniorlevel standing is required for enrolling in this course. Nine to twelve Six to nine Global
Studies credits will be approved Global Studies courses offered by the UW-partner.
C. Cognitive Skills Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 15 9 credit hours of courses designated as Cognitive Skills (CS).
All students must complete a required UW Colleges three-credit CS core course. Juniorlevel standing is required for enrolling in this course. Nine to twelve Six to nine
Cognitive Skills credits will be approved Cognitive Skills courses offered by the UWpartner.
D. Capstone Senior Seminar Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete a full academic year of individualized instruction working alone
or in teams with a UW Colleges instructor on a project with regional impact and global
perspective and that uses higher order intellectual skills. Senior-level standing is required
for enrolling in this course.
E. Electives
The UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree includes nine additional
credits of approved UW partner and/or UW Colleges Electives apportioned so that the
total degree credits are a minimum of 30 60 credits at the UW Colleges and 30 credits at
the UW partner.
V. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Applied Pathway Curricular Requirements
VI. Added by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
A. Professional Experience Requirements
In these components of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 6-15 credit hours of experiential learning integrated with
academic instruction, designated as Internship (IN) and Service-Learning (SL), and/or,
based on faculty assessment of a prior experiential learning portfolio, be awarded up to
six credits for university-level knowledge of a subject acquired outside of a traditional
classroom equivalent to approved UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degree course(s). The ratio of
Professional Experience components will vary by student; it will depend on the nature of
the student’s program and the number of experiential learning credits awarded. Students
in an internship will be jointly supervised by a faculty member and a designated
workplace mentor. Service-learning activities will be course-integrated. The
Professional Experience component of the degree will be offered by the UW Colleges.
119
B. Global Studies Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 9-15 credit hours of courses designated as Global Studies (GS).
All students must complete a required UW Colleges three-credit core course, The World
in the 21st Century. Junior-level standing is required for enrolling in this course.
C. Cognitive Skills Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete 9-15 credit hours of courses designated as Cognitive Skills (CS).
All students must complete a required UW Colleges three-credit course, Creative
Problem Solving. Junior-level standing is required for enrolling in this course.
D. Capstone Senior Seminar Requirements
In this component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree,
students must complete a full academic year of individualized instruction working alone
or in teams with a UW Colleges faculty member on a project with regional impact and
global perspective and that uses higher order intellectual skills. Senior-level standing is
required for enrolling in this course.
E. Electives
The applied pathway of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences degree
completion program includes approved Elective credits.
VI. V. Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Course Degree Designations
A. UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Applied Studies
Applied Studies courses for the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences will
have the following degree designations: Internship (IN), Service-Learning (SL), Global
Studies (GS), Cognitive Skills (CS), Capstone Senior Seminar (CSS), and Elective (E).
VII. UW Colleges Departments and Disciplines
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
The following is a list of UW Colleges academic departments and programs, and the
disciplines or programs included within each of these academic departments:
Anthropology and Sociology
Anthropology, Sociology
Art
Art
Biological Sciences
Biology
Business and Economics
Business, Economics
Chemistry
Chemistry
Communication and Theatre Arts
120
Communication, Theatre
Computer Science, Engineering, Physics and Astronomy
Astronomy, Computer Science, Engineering, Engineering Graphics, Engineering
Mechanics, Physics
English
English, Learning Resources (LEA) (non-degree credit classes)
Geography and Geology
Geography, Geology, Meteorology
Health, Exercise Science, and Athletics
Exercise Science, Health, Physical Education
History
History
Mathematics
Mathematics
Music
Music, Music Applied
Philosophy
Philosophy, Religious Studies
Political Science
American Indian Studies, Political Science
Psychology
Education, Psychology
World Languages
French, German, Spanish, Chinese, Italian
Other Programs and Courses
Interdisciplinary Studies (INT)
Lecture Forum (LEC)
Women’s Studies (WOM)
[End]
121
Attachment 23
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of IP #141.01
(“Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Guidelines for Professional Experience
Courses”)
Rationale:
When the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) degree was first
developed in 2012, the Professional Experience component included 15 credit hours of
experiential learning integrated with academic instruction. As the degree evolved and Senate
policy was revised to admit students with applied associate degrees, the UW Colleges Senate
voted to expand the Professional Experience requirement to include a range of credit hours from
6-15. Now, with the endorsement of our UW four-year partner institutions, we are seeking
approval for the Professional Experience requirement to be a minimum of at least 6 credits,
regardless of whether a student is admitted to the BAAS degree completion program with a
liberal arts or an applied associate degree. Each student will complete at least one servicelearning and one internship course in order to earn the BAAS degree.
Proposed revisions are in bold, red, and italicized font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #141.01
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Guidelines for Professional
Experience Courses
=====================================================================
Adopted 2012-01-11
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
I. Description of B.A.A.S. Professional Experience Component
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
The Professional Experience component of the UW Colleges Bachelor of Applied Arts and
Sciences (B.A.A.S.) degree program includes a minimum of 6 credit hours of 15 credit hours
for the BAAS liberal arts pathway and 6-15 credit hours for the BAAS applied pathway of
experiential learning integrated with academic instruction, and university-level knowledge of a
subject acquired outside of a traditional classroom equivalent to an approved UW Colleges
B.A.A.S. degree course. The three elements of the professional experience component are
internships, service-learning and prior experiential learning in a workplace, workshop/seminar,
volunteer organization or a non-profit agency.
II. Guidelines for Professional Experience Courses
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
A. Internships
122
The internship component of the UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degree seeks to further develop
the student’s professional skills in an intellectually rigorous manner to merit academic
credit. These internships combine classroom-based education with career-related skill
development. The internship is arranged with a local business, agency, non-profit or other
type of organization. Over an entire academic term, the student’s work is jointly
supervised by the instructor offering the course and the employer or community
counterpart from the organization.
B. Service-Learning
The central feature of the service-learning component of the UW Colleges B.A.A.S.
degree is service to others combined with reflection upon the role of service in
community and individual life. Service-learning projects are integrated into a specific
course with variable models for the nature of the integration (e.g., throughout the
semester or at particular points in the semester). Students have an opportunity to gain
direct experience with issues they are studying in the course and engage in efforts to
analyze and solve work- or community-related problems in the context of an instructorsupervised project. Projects are often collaborative in nature. Service-learning projects
could include volunteer work within public or private schools, community service
programs, or agencies focusing on issues such as education, the environment, legal aid,
immigrant support, child care, domestic abuse, veteran support, and other socially
oriented services.
C. Prior Experiential Learning
This component provides UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degree-completion students an
opportunity to earn up to six credits toward the B.A.A.S. degree for prior experiential
learning equivalent to university-level learning. Any UW Colleges B.A.A.S. degreeseeking student will have the option to present a portfolio of university-level knowledge
of a subject acquired outside a traditional classroom to a UW Colleges department for
evaluation for credit. Evaluation for credit is based on the learning derived from the
experience rather than the experience itself. (See IP #141.02.)
[End]
123
Attachment 24
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
New Proposed Institutional Curricular Policy
(“Courses Offered by Academic Staff Not Affiliated with a Department”)
Rationale:
This policy describes procedures for offering courses through a qualified academic staff member
who does not belong to an academic department or program (i.e., staff with graduate degrees
who were hired for responsibilities other than teaching). It describes existing practices and
includes guidelines based on new 2016 Higher Learning Commission accreditation standards
for instructor credentialing. The purpose of this policy is to provide guidelines for credentialing,
working with a sponsoring department or academic program, and proposing courses in a single
document that academic staff, department and program chairs, and associate deans can use as a
reference.
Some of the procedures described in this proposed policy come from other Senate policies but
are repeated here for the benefit of academic staff who have limited or no experience with
curricular processes. Other information is available in Senate policies that will be eliminated if
Senate adopts the three proposed new associate degrees and approves the restructuring of other
curricular policies. For example, most sections of the “Atypical Course” policy (#106) and
“LEC 100 First-Year Seminar” (#106.01) will be replaced by a new policy for high impact
practices courses. Some parts of the atypical course policy will appear in other policies.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Curricular Policy #2xx
Courses Offered by Academic Staff Not Affiliated with a Department
=====================================================================
I. Introduction
This policy provides guidelines for assigning courses and/or curricular development
responsibilities to UW Colleges academic staff who were not hired to teach courses and who
do not belong to an academic department or program. This includes administrators who do
not have faculty status in a UW Colleges department or program. With permission from a
sponsoring department or academic program, qualified academic staff with graduate degrees
may propose, develop, and teach the following types of courses within their area(s) of
professional expertise:
 Lecture Forum (LEC) courses, including first-year and sophomore seminars
 Experiential learning courses (internship, community-based service learning, and
Diversity/Global Learning Opportunities courses)
For other types of courses, academic staff normally receive course assignments through
procedures used for instructional academic staff appointments.
II. Guidelines for Working with a Sponsoring Academic Department or Program
124
A. UW Colleges staff who are not already approved members of an academic department or
program must receive permission from a sponsoring academic department or program
before proposing, designing, and/or teaching a course.
B. Permission to offer and/or teach a course normally comes from the academic department
or program that is most closely aligned with the instructor’s credentials and the
disciplinary focus of the course.
C. All academic staff who teach courses or serve as instructors of record for experiential
learning courses must a) have their credentials approved through a sponsoring department
or program and b) meet credentialing criteria established by accreditation guidelines and
institutional policy.
D. If the disciplinary content of a course bridges more than one department or program, then
all relevant departments and/or programs must approve both the course and the instructor.
One department or program must be designated as the primary unit for overseeing and
evaluating the instructor. The primary department or program should normally be the one
that most closely reflects the academic staff member’s graduate training.
E. The Chair of the primary sponsoring department or program and Associate Dean for
Academic Affairs supervise the instructor for responsibilities related to the course.
F. Academic staff who are instructors of record for a course are classified as instructional
academic staff (IAS) for the purpose of teaching. They must follow all institutional
policies that apply to other instructors, along with additional instructional guidelines of
the primary sponsoring department or program.
G. The sponsoring department or program determines whether the academic staff member
receives any benefits of department or program membership.
III. Responsibilities of Sponsoring Departments
The primary sponsoring academic department or program has the following responsibilities
to provide oversight for the instructor and course:
A. Review and approve a curricular proposal for a new or revised course (in consultation
with one or more other departments for cross-listed courses);
B. Approve the scheduling of the course and information in the timetable;
C. Receive and review student surveys of instruction;
D. Include the instructor and the course in class visits, evaluations, instructional activity
reports, and assessment activities (if required).
IV. Process for Proposing New Courses
An academic staff member who is not a member of a department or academic program may
propose to develop and teach a new Lecture Forum or experiential learning course by
completing the following steps:
A. Receive tentative approval to offer the course from the Campus Curriculum Committee
and the relevant Associate Dean for Academic Affairs. Tentative campus approval does
not guarantee that the course will be offered but indicates a campus interest in supporting
the development of the course.
B. Identify a sponsoring department or program based on the disciplinary focus of the
course. Academic staff members should not propose a course if they lack the disciplinary
expertise required for teaching it.
125
C. Contact the department or program chair for permission to offer the course and for
approval of instructor credentials. Instructor credentialing typically requires submission
of a curriculum vitae and graduate transcripts but may include other materials requested
by an academic department or program.
D. With permission from a sponsoring department or program, prepare a course proposal,
following the procedures outlined in “Curricular Approval Process” (IP 2xx) and
“Guidelines for Curricular Proposals” (IP 2xx). The sponsoring department or program
may also provide additional guidelines for developing and proposing a course.
E. Submit the proposal to the Department or Program Chair for departmental review.
F. If the Chair or designated department committee approves the proposal, submit it to the
Senate Curriculum Committee or Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee, following the
guidelines outlined in the “Curricular Approval Process” policy (IP 2xx).
[End]
126
Attachment 25
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised Policy Regarding Students
(“Grading Policies for Students”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic. This policy focuses on grading information for
students. Parts of this policy have been revised to reflect current practice, to update policy for
consolidated Student Affairs services, or to change wording for clarity. The incomplete policy
has been revised to state that students are eligible for incomplete grades after the withdrawal
deadline, replacing “near the end of the semester.” This language provides students and
instructors with a more specific definition of what “near the end of the semester means” and
reflects a standard used at some other UW System institutions.
NOTE: The final and midterm grade reporting section of IP #202 has been moved to its own
policy for restructuring under a new section of instructional policies because the content of that
section of policy is for students, not instructors.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Grading Policies for Students
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 14, 2000
Revised 4-24-09
Revised 10-23-09
Revised 1-13-10
Revised 2011-04-29
Revised by SSC 2012-10-26
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Interim Adoption by the SSC (Flexible Option Cmte) 2013-11-22
Adopted by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-03-14
[Moved from IP #202.II, sections A-F, H, and K; modified and renumbered; headings have been
reformatted.]
I. Grading System
Semester grades are reported by letter only. Each letter grade carries a specified number of
grade points per credit; thus a B in a three-credit subject gives nine grade points.
II. Grade Points Per Credit
127
The scale of grades and grade points is:
A 4.00 (Excellent)
A- 3.67
B+ 3.33
B 3.00 (Good)
B- 2.67
C+ 2.33
C 2.00 (Fair)
C- 1.67
D+ 1.33
D 1.00 (Poor)
D- 0.67
F 0.00 (Fail)
III. Other Grading Symbols
The following symbols are used where grade points are not assigned:
CO Completed an audited course.
IA
Not completed an audited course.
I
Incomplete.
N
Used for non-degree credit courses
R
Repeat. Used in remedial English and Mathematics courses, and in ENG101
and MAT105 when the student is making progress but has not mastered the
subject and must repeat the course.
S
Satisfactory. A passing grade for courses taken on a pass/fail basis.
U
Unsatisfactory. A failing grade for courses taken on a pass/fail basis.
W
Withdrew.
IP
In Progress. Used in Flexible Option Program when a student is in progress
at the end of a subscription period.
IV. Grade Point Average
The general quality of a student's work is expressed in terms of a grade point average (GPA).
The highest possible grade point average is 4.0, which represents an A in every G.P.A. credit
course attempted; the lowest, 0.0, which represents an F in every G.P.A. credit course
attempted.
The grade point average is determined, whether for the semester or on a cumulative basis, by
dividing the total number of grade points earned by the total number of G.P.A. credits
128
attempted. Courses in which the student received a CO, IA, I, R, S, U, W, or IP will not be
included in determining the grade point average. When a student completes a course in which
an I or IP was received, the credits and grade points earned for that course will be included
when figuring the cumulative GPA.
V. Incompletes Incomplete Grade (When Given))
A. An incomplete grade may be reported for a student who has carried a subject with a
passing grade in a class until near the end of the semester after the course withdrawal
deadline, and then, because of substantiated cause beyond the student's control has been
unable to take the final examination or to complete a limited amount of term work
coursework.
B. The instructor also will submit a grade to be recorded as the permanent grade for the
course in case the incomplete is not removed. This tentative grade will be recorded by the
instructor, along with the incomplete.
C. Incompletes (Removal). It is the responsibility of the student to consult with the
instructor to reach an understanding regarding the work to be completed. The instructor
will then prepare an incomplete form, which includes file a detailed report of the work
which must be completed in order for the student to finish the course. The format of that
report and the place of filing will be determined by the individual UW Colleges campus.
The instructor will submit an official copy of the incomplete form to the campus
Information Specialist or to a designated representative of UW Colleges Online for
filing.
D. To remove an incomplete grade, a student must complete the required coursework
listed on the incomplete form and submit it to the instructor by the deadline stated on
the form.
E. A student must remove an incomplete before the end of the next semester. Exceptions to
this time limit may be made by mutual agreement of the instructor concerned and the
student, with written notification by the instructor to the Office of to a designated
campus Student Affairs representative. If the incomplete has not been removed within
the time limit, it will be replaced by the tentative grade reported by the instructor. The
student may elect to remove the incomplete by repeating the course, in which case the
regulations for repeating courses will apply.
VI. Pass/Fail
The UW Colleges offers the possibility of taking courses on a pass/fail basis. The purpose is
to permit the student to take elective courses to explore a field or subject without regard for
the letter grade earned in the course. Students who are undecided about a major should not
take courses on a pass/fail basis which might later become part of their major requirements.
Most universities do not permit courses taken on a pass/fail basis to count toward meeting
major or general studies requirements. Courses to be applied to the AAS associate degree
proficiency and general education requirements may not be taken on a pass-fail basis. The
results of any course taken on this basis will not affect a student's grade-point average.
129
All students are eligible to elect one degree-credit course on the pass/fail basis per semester
(including summer session) with a maximum of two such courses while a freshman and two
such courses while a sophomore. Students may take more than one pass-fail non-degree
credit course.
If a student elects to take a course on this basis, the decision must be made within the same
time as for adding a course. A student cannot change a course either to or from the pass/fail
basis after the deadline for adding a class.
The instructor of a non-degree credit course which is listed in the catalog and the instructor
of courses listed under LEC (lecture forum) in the catalog may grade an entire class on a
pass/fail basis. When an entire course is to be graded on the pass/fail basis, it shall be
indicated as such in the timetable.
Final grades for courses taken on a pass/fail basis will be indicated as pass (S) or fail (U)
without the computation of grade points for those courses into the semester or cumulative
grade-point average.
VII. Grade Changes
Grade changes to remove an incomplete or correct an error may be made only by the
instructor who gave the grade or the department or program chair acting for an instructor a
lecturer or department member who is no longer working for the UW Colleges or who is
unavailable for an extended period of time. Grade changes must be reported on the
appropriate form and signed by both the instructor or department chair and the associate dean
for academic affairs.
Copies of the UW Colleges Grade Appeal policy (IP #204) may be obtained in the Student
Affairs Office.
VIII. In Progress Grade for Flexible Option Students
If a Flexible Option-enrolled student is in progress at the end of a subscription period and has
completed at least one competency, a grade of IP can be assigned. IP grades may be
assigned only once for each competency set. It is the student's responsibility to complete the
competencies needed for credit during their next subscription period. However, the next
subscription period does not need to be contiguous with the subscription period for which the
IP grade was assigned. There is no default grade.
[End]
130
Attachment 26
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised Policy Regarding Students
(“Definition of Credit”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic. Revisions to this policy update existing definitions of
credit to reflect current practices (for example, some lab and studio courses are three hours per
credit, not two) and to account for types of course that are different from classroom
lecture/discussion classes. Additional changes have been made reflec regionalized leadership
and to clarify which courses are offered for non-degree credit.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Definition of Credit
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
[Moved from IP #202.I, modified, and renumbered; headings have been reformatted.]
I. Definition of Credit
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Credit is usually expressed in semester hours. A credit of one semester hour normally
represents one hour of classroom instruction lecture per week or an equivalent amount of
work two hours of laboratory or studio per week. A student should expect to spend
approximately two to three hours per week outside of class in preparation and study for each
credit.
Students spend an equivalent amount of time on learning activities in courses offered
through delivery methods outside of a traditional classroom:
1. Laboratory and studio courses normally require two to three hours per credit with
additional outside work.
2. Experiential learning and fieldwork courses normally require 48 hours of student
learning activities per credit.
3. Online and independent study courses typically require learning activities that are
equivalent to the time spent attending class and completing homework for a face-toface classroom course.
4. Hybrid/blended courses replace some face-to-face class time with equivalent online
learning activities.
131
5. In the Flexible Option Program, students enroll in competency-based courses that
measure credit through assessments of student learning instead of traditional
semester hours.
II. Credit Load
The maximum credit load is 18 credits. High school special students will be limited to 6
credits per semester. Credit restrictions may also be imposed on students designated as high
risk. In summer sessions, the maximum credit load is nine credits for any and all work taken
during the summer, whether in an eight-week session and/or any combination of shorter
sessions. For a four-week session, the maximum credit load is four credits. Students who
wish to exceed these limits must have approval of the Office of Student Affairs and/or the
advisor a designated campus Student Affairs representative.
.
III. Non-Degree Credit
Basic skills courses are offered for non-degree credit, including developmental math,
developmental English, learning resources, and English language learning courses.
Examples are Math 081, and 091, which are high school algebra and geometry. Such courses
will not be counted toward the associate degree and are not used in determining a grade point
average for any purpose. However, non-degree credits will count in determining whether a
student has completed sufficient course work to maintain satisfactory academic progress, and
as part of load for financial aid purposes.
IV. Credit Courses
Some courses are offered for 0 degree credits. If a student takes a course for 0 credits, a grade
will be recorded. The student is expected to do all of the assigned work in a course taken for
0 credits. Courses taken for 0 credit will count as one credit in the total credit load of a
student when determining assessment of fees.
[End]
132
Attachment 27
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised Policy Regarding Students
(“Registration”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic. This policy comes from the “Registration” policy in IP
#202. Policy language has been updated to reflect current practice and consolidated Student
Affairs services.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Registration
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
Revised 2012-04-27
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Interim Adoption by the SSC (Flexible Option) 2015-05-06
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2016-02-19
[Moved from IP #202.III, modified, and renumbered; headings have been reformatted.]
I. Calendar Week
The beginning of the calendar week to which certain academic regulations refer is
determined by the day of the week upon which first classes begin.
II. Adding Courses
A student may add a course(s) by completing the appropriate Change of Program (Add/Drop)
form during the first two weeks of a semester, the first week of an eight-week course, and
during a proportionate time for shorter courses. A campus may require the student to obtain
advisor and/or instructor signatures to make such a change official. The completed Change of
Program form must be returned to the appropriate campus office Information Specialist in
the Solution Center.
A course may be added after the second week of classes of a semester if the change of
program is necessitated by dropping a course and substituting a lower-level course in the
same discipline.
Exceptions to the time limit may be made only with the written consent of the instructor
concerned.
133
III. Late Registration
The student may register late under the same regulations as for adding courses, subject to any
fine for late registration which is in effect under Regent policy.
IV. Dropping Courses
A student may drop a course(s) by completing the Change of Program (Add/Drop) form
during the first ten weeks of a semester-long course, during the first five weeks of an eightweek-course, and proportionate time for shorter courses. Students enrolled in the UW
Colleges Flexible Option may drop a competency set within the first 23 days of the threemonth subscription period. A UW Colleges campus may require the student to obtain advisor
and/or instructor signatures. Merely discontinuing attendance in a course or courses may
result in an official grade of F being recorded for that course(s).
An appeal to withdraw from a course after the reporting of final grades requires the approval
of the campus academic actions committee. Any such appeal should be approved only for
cases in which the course instructor was consulted (when reasonably possible), and it was
substantiated that the failure to drop the course was beyond the student's control.
A grade of W (Withdraw) will be recorded for courses officially dropped (as described
above) after the end of the second week of classes for a semester course and after the end of
the first week for courses less than 12 weeks in length, but prior to the deadline for dropping
the courses. Students enrolled in the UW Colleges Flexible Option program may withdraw
from a competency set with a grade of W after the 23rd day and no later than the 60th day of
the three-month subscription period.
Refund of student tuition is governed by the Regent Fee Schedule which is issued on an
annual basis. The date upon which a student returns the completed Change of Program form
to the appropriate UW Colleges office is the date used to determine any applicable refund of
fees.
UW Colleges may establish procedures for administratively dropping students who do not
attend 1 or more of the first class sessions in a semester. The number of class sessions missed
before the implementation of an administrative drop is at the discretion of the campus. UW
Colleges campuses choosing to implement this administrative drop policy must provide
students with adequate notice of the policy.
V. Complete Withdrawals
Students may completely and officially withdraw from school through the online PRISM
System (preferred) or by completing the Withdrawal form during the first ten weeks of a
semester or the first five weeks of an eight-week session or the proportionate time for shorter
sessions. Students enrolled in the UW Colleges Flexible Option may completely and
officially withdraw from their competency sets by the 60th day of the three-month
subscription period.
The Withdrawal form must be signed by the student and other appropriate persons as
determined by each UW Colleges campus, and returned to the appropriate campus office.
134
Students who do not complete submit the Withdrawal form within the established deadline
and obtain the required signatures may receive grades of F in all courses for which they are
registered.
Refund of student tuition is governed by the Regent Fee Schedule which is issued on an
annual basis. The date upon which a student returns the completed Withdrawal form to the
appropriate campus office is the date used to determine any applicable refund of tuition.
Any student who withdraws from two consecutive semesters will not be eligible to enroll
without seeking readmission. (This does not affect students who enroll for an original credit
load of less than 6 credits in each of the two consecutive semesters.) Students should be
aware that any semester in which a withdrawal is made after the end of the time allowed for
adding courses will count as a semester of enrollment for academic progress standards and
may result in a probation action. If a student can provide evidence that a withdrawal is
necessary due to unforeseeable, extenuating circumstances, he/she may be allowed to
withdraw without a probation action if such evidence is provided at the time of withdrawal.
A student who believes he/she may have extenuating circumstances should consult the Office
of Student Affairs.
VI. Repeating Courses
A previous course may be repeated by reenrolling in either (a) the exact same course, (b) a
different course or courses that has replaced the previous course in the current catalog, or (c)
a course or courses that the department specifically identifies as covering all of the required
content of the previous course. Any other exceptions must be approved by both the
department chair and the registrar.
A student may not repeat a course after having completed a succeeding course in the
discipline. A "succeeding course" is one that lists the course the student wishes to repeat as a
prerequisite. Exceptions to the policy may be granted by the Assistant Campus Dean for
Student Affairs a designated campus Student Affairs representative.
There is no limit to the number of times that a course may be repeated; all attempted courses
and all grades earned will appear on the record or transcript, including all times that a
repeated course was taken. Students should be aware that some institutions will average the
grades of all courses attempted when computing a G.P.A. for admission purposes.
For financial aid recipients, students are eligible to receive aid only once for a previouslypassed course. For example: a student may take a course and receive a grade of D. If the
student repeats the course and does not receive the grade being sought (some courses
require a C or higher), the student is not eligible to receive aid for that course in any
future attempt.
If a student, upon registering, indicates that a course is a repeat then only Only the most
recent credits attempted and grade earned will be used in computing the grade point average
in the Colleges. If a student does not indicate that the course is a repeat, then all credits
135
attempted and grades earned will be used in determining the Colleges grade point average.
Courses repeated at institutions other than the UW Colleges will not affect a student's UW
Colleges grade point average.
Ordinarily, courses will not be counted twice toward the number of credits required for the
Associate Degree. For example, if a student takes History 101 twice for 3 credits each time,
that student will have earned only 3 credits toward a degree. There are a few courses such as
chorus and orchestra which students may take more than one time and count all credits
earned in those courses.
Students planning to repeat a course, especially those receiving benefits from the Veteran’s
Administration or Social Security, should consult with an advisor the Office of Student
Affairs.
VII. Concurrent Registration
Students may enroll in courses at more than one University of Wisconsin campus.
Students should consult with the UW Colleges Office of Student Affairs and Business Office
for information on concurrent registration.
A student may take an independent learning course by correspondence through University
Extension. Students who have paid full-time fees may take such a course at no additional cost
except for fees for text materials purchased through Extension and the registration fee
assessed by UW Extension. Students should contact the Office of Student Affairs for a list of
such courses and the appropriate form. Registration for such a course should take place no
later than the first week of classes. At present, this may be done during the regular academic
year but not as a part of the summer session.
VIII. Student Classification
A. Classification for Associate Degree Students
Freshman Standing: 0 - 29 degree credits
Sophomore Standing: 30 or more degree credits
B. Classification for BAAS Students
Junior Standing: 60 to 89 degree credits
Senior: 90 plus degree credits
IX. Auditing a Course
A student may wish to audit a course to enhance their learning by participating in a class
without enrolling for credit gain whatever knowledge and understanding is available by
sitting in on a class. A student who wishes to audit a course must have the consent of the
instructor concerned. Auditors will not be required to take examinations nor to have any
course work evaluated by an instructor.
136
Audited courses carry no degree credit and are not counted in the student's grade point
average. Audited courses do not count toward full-time attendance for financial aid purposes
such as certification of full-time attendance for Social Security or Veterans Administration or
other benefits.
Students may change from audit to credit status during the same time period as that allowed
for adding a course and may change from credit to audit status during the period allowed for
dropping a course.
A course which has been audited may be repeated for credit at a later time.
[End]
137
Attachment 28
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised Policy Regarding Students
(“Academic Standing”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic. This policy was moved from the “Academic Standing”
section of IP #202. The Associate Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management recommended changes and provided some language for sections of this policy
related to financial aid.
This policy also proposes a major change to probation standards. In reviewing academic
standing policies for other UW System institutions, SAPC determined that our standards were
stricter than many UW four-year universities, even though the UW Colleges is an access
institution that admits higher numbers of lower quartile high school students. If proposed
changes are adopted, students will not go on probation unless their semester GPA falls below a
2.0. Our current standard is that students can go on probation or final probation based entirely
on their semester GPA even if their cumulative GPA still puts them on track to receive an
associate degree, which can result in suspension for some students who would remain in school
at an institution that bases probation and suspension on cumulative GPA. Instead of a probation
action, students in this category would receive an at-risk advisory warning (which is used at
some UW institutions). Campuses could have students with a warning status participate in
advising or other programs to improve their academic success without the consequences of
probation or risk of suspension for students with a satisfactory cumulative GPA.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Academic Standing
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
[Moved from IP #202.IV, reformatted, and modified.]
I. Overview
Every student is expected to maintain certain standards of academic achievement in all work
carried at the University. The UW Colleges has established these standards in terms of
quality of the work, as measured by the semester and cumulative grade point averages, and
the quantity of work satisfactorily completed, as measured by the proportion of the credit
load completed each semester.
138
Certain exceptions are allowed for part-time students, but unless otherwise stated part-time
students are expected to meet the same standards of academic achievement as any other
student.
II. Definitions of Academic Standing Terms
A. Good Standing
--is a A status assigned when a student is making adequate academic progress and his/her
has a cumulative G.P.A. is of 2.0 or better.
B. At-Risk Advisory Warning
A status assigned when a student’s semester GPA falls below institutional standards for
academic performance, but the cumulative GPA remains above a 2.0. This status
indicates that a student is at-risk of academic probation or suspension.
C. Probation/Final Probation
--is a An advisory warning that improved performance is necessary to continue as a
student. Probation is a status assigned to a student for: (1) lack of academic progress as
measured by completed credits, or (2) inadequate performance as measured by the grade
point average.
D. Academic Suspension
--is a A status assigned when the record of academic progress and/or achievement is
unacceptable to the extent that the student is not permitted to continue to enroll in the
UW Colleges.
III. Probation and Suspension Status
A. The University is concerned about students whose academic achievements seem to
indicate that they are not able to meet the expectations of their instructors or are
experiencing other problems that may be interfering with their studies. A probation action
is an advisory warning that a students should take appropriate actions to improve his/her
their achievement. Students who are on probation or have an at-risk advisory warning
may be required to participate in mandatory advising or other campus programs
designed to improve their academic success. A suspension action is taken when the UW
Colleges faculty feel that the student's academic achievement record to date indicates a
need to interrupt enrolled status to reassess and reevaluate goals and plans. A student who
has been placed on probation or suspension status should give careful consideration to the
factors that may be involved. The UW Colleges encourages such students to seek
assistance from counselors, advisors and course instructors.
B. Every student is expected to maintain at least a C average (2.0 G.P.A.) on all G.P.A.
credit course work. Failure to achieve this minimum C average (2.0 G.P.A) in any
semester will result in an at-risk advisory warning, probation, final probation or
suspension action at the end of the semester.
C. Students receiving financial aid must meet federally-defined standards for Satisfactory
Academic Progress (SAP) to maintain aid eligibility. For a student failing to meet the
139
terms of aid-related SAP, a separate appeal process is involved. Additional information
is available in the UWC Catalog under Financial Aid, Academic Progress and
Withdrawal.
IV. Grade Point Requirements and Actions
The following actions are determined only at the end of a Fall or Spring semester. The three
factors used to determine the student’s standing are: the student’s standing at the beginning
of the semester, the student’s semester G.P.A., and the student’s cumulative G.P.A.
A. For Students in Good Standing
When a student is in good standing at the beginning of the semester,
* a semester G.P.A. below 1.999 with a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher will
result in an at-risk advisory warning.
* a semester G.P.A. of 1.5 to 1.999 with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 will result in
probation.
* a semester G.P.A. lower than 1.499 with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 will result
in final probation.
Action on a part-time student will be withheld until at least 6 credits have been
attempted in the UW Colleges.
B. For Students with an At-Risk Advisory Warning Status
When a student has an at-risk advisory warning status at the beginning of the
semester,
* a semester and cumulative G.P.A. of 2.0 or better will result in a return to good
standing.
* a semester G.P.A. below 1.999 with a cumulative GPA of 2.0 or higher will
result in continued at-risk advisory warning status.
* a semester G.P.A. of 1.5 to 1.999 with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 will result in
probation.
* a semester G.P.A. lower than 1.499 with a cumulative GPA below 2.0 will result
in final probation.
C. For Students on Probation
When a student is on probation at the beginning of the semester,
140
* a semester and cumulative G.P.A. of 2.0 or better will result in a return to good
standing.
* a semester G.P.A. of 2.0 or better but less than a 2.0 cumulative G.P.A. will result
in a continuation on probation.
* a semester G.P.A. of 1.5 to 1.999 will result in final probation.
* a semester G.P.A. of less than 1.5 will result in suspension.
* A student admitted to the UW Colleges on probation must earn a 2.00 G.P.A. on a
minimum of 15 G.P.A. credits attempted in the UW Colleges in order to attain
good standing.
D. For Students on Final Probation
When a student is on final probation at the beginning of the semester,
* a semester and cumulative G.P.A. of 2.0 or better will result in a return to good
standing.
* a semester G.P.A. of 2.0 or better but less than a 2.0 cumulative G.P.A. will
result in a continuation on final probation.
* a semester G.P.A. less than 2.0 will result in a suspension.
A student admitted to the UW Colleges on final probation must earn a 2.0 G.P.A.
on a minimum of 15 credits attempted in the UW Colleges in order to attain good
standing.
Students who are on final probation should be regarded as at risk and may be
required to limit their course credits and participate in special programming.
Special programming may include but is not limited to advising prior to
registration and a course load restriction normally not to exceed twelve credits
maximum. Students may appeal to the campus Academic Actions committee for
exceptions to the guidelines established by the campus.
V. Suspension Status
A. The first suspension will result in a suspension from the UW Colleges for one semester.
B. A subsequent suspension status will result in a suspension from the UW Colleges for two
semesters.
C. A suspended student may not enroll at any UW Colleges campus during the fall or spring
semesters for the duration of the suspension. A student in suspension status may register,
for a summer session or January interim only, with permission of the dean. Upon
successful completion of such courses, the student may request a re-evaluation of the
suspension status by the appropriate campus committee. A student who is readmitted will
141
be on final probation and will be subject to the normal standards of progress and
achievement and any other special conditions that may be designated by the committee.
VI. Readmission
Students who have stayed out of school for the period of suspension, whether one semester or
one year, are not automatically readmitted. Such students must file an application for
admission and secure permission to resume their education in the UW Colleges through the
Office of Admission or Office of Student Affairs at the UW Colleges campus they wish to
attend. A student who is readmitted will be on final probation and will be subject to the
normal standards of progress and achievement and any other special conditions that may be
designated.
If a student is re-entering college after an absence of at least three years, probationary
status based on prior academic work will be waived.
VII. Academic Progress.
A. Students are expected to make satisfactory progress in their course of study. Those who
do not complete at least half of the credits for which they are registered as of the end of
the period for adding classes in any one semester, shall be required to participate in an
academic counseling session, and may have conditions imposed by the campus Academic
Action Committee for the next semester in which they register. Credits completed, when
determining satisfactory progress, are the number of credits excluding audited credits, for
which a final grade, other than a temporary grade of incomplete, has been recorded.
Courses for which a grade of R has been received, and non-degree credit courses are
included.
B. Students receiving financial aid must meet federally-defined standards for Satisfactory
Academic Progress (SAP) to maintain aid eligibility. For a student failing to meet the
terms of aid-related SAP, a separate appeal process is involved. Additional information
is available in the UWC Catalog under Financial Aid, Academic Progress and
Withdrawal.
VIII. Appeals
A. Suspension is the only academic standing action that can be appealed.
B. A student in suspension status may appeal the suspension to the Academic Actions
committee at the UW Colleges campus. Any appeal must include a clear explanation of
the problems that resulted in the inadequate achievement and how the student proposes to
resolve those problems. A student who is allowed to continue will be placed on final
probation after appeal, which means if they are suspended again, it will be for a year, and
will be subject to any other special conditions that may be designated.
[End]
142
Attachment 29
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured Policy Regarding Students
(“Dean’s List and Graduation Honors”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic to make it easier to identify them by topic. This policy
outlines criteria for a dean’s list and graduation honors.
This policy comes word for word from IP #202. No changes were made to this policy except to
reformat the headings.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Dean’s List and Graduation Honors
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
[Moved from IP #202.II, sections I and J; headings have been reformatted.]
I. Honors or Dean’s List
Each UW Colleges campus may publish one or more Dean's Lists each semester to honor
students with high grade point averages. If part-time students are to be included on a Dean's
List, the designation as part-time students should be indicated. Students may request that
their names be deleted from the Dean's List.
FULL-TIME STUDENTS. Honors will be awarded to students carrying a minimum of 12
semester credits which are used in determining grade point average, as detailed below.
Honors will be awarded to full-time students carrying fewer than 12 semester GPA credits
who meet the conditions described for part-time students below.
PART-TIME STUDENTS. Honors will be awarded to students who have earned at least 15
GPA credits with an average of 3.5 and who carry a minimum of 3 semester credits which
are used in determining grade point average, and earn a semester grade point average, as
detailed below.
HONORS: Grade point average of 3.5 through 3.74
HIGH HONORS: Grade point average of 3.75 through 3.99
HIGHEST HONORS: Grade point average of 4.00
II. Graduation Honors
143
Each UW Colleges campus may award graduation honors to those students who are eligible
to graduate with a UW Colleges’ degree. The honor is awarded for the total cumulative GPA
for courses earned through the UW Colleges. The honors distinction is as follows:
CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.50 through 3.74
MAGNA CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.75 through 3.89
SUMMA CUM LAUDE: Grade point average of 3.90 through 4.00
[End]
144
Attachment 30
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Restructured and Revised Policy Regarding Students
(“Changes to Academic Polices for Students”)
Rationale:
SAPC proposes breaking up the policies in “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP #202)
into separate policies organized by topic. This policy addresses changes to academic policies for
students. A clarifying paragraph was added to a) explain the meaning of “subject to change” in
the first sentence and b) emphasize the distinction between mandatory policy changes in
response to federal law or state regulations and most other policy changes, which require
approval of the Senate before implementation.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #4XX
Changes to Academic Policies for Students
=====================================================================
Moved from “Academic Procedures and Regulations” (IP 201); ratified by the Senate - February 2, 1980
[Moved from IP #202.II.V and modified.].]
I. Change
The Academic Pprocedures and Rregulations for students are subject to change. The Office
of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management can provide specific and up-to-date
information.
Academic policies for students are created and revised through the UW Colleges Senate.
However, sometimes changes to federal law or state regulations require an immediate
change to policy or practice. When the Chancellor approves changes to academic policies
to comply with legal requirements, the Central Office should notify the Senate Steering
Chair, who will then work with appropriate Senate committees to revise relevant policies.
Other revisions to academic procedures for students should go through the Senate shared
governance process prior to implementation.
[End]
145
Attachment 31
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revisions to IP #201
(“Admission to the Associate of Arts and Sciences Degree Program”)
Rationale:
The proposed revisions to the admissions policy reflect a new centralized admissions process
and clarify current practices.
Introduction
1. Changes to the introductory paragraph are intended to a) clarify the access mission of
the UW Colleges in relation to admissions and b) provide an introduction to the high risk
admission policy that reflects current practices.
2. A sentence about campuses restricting admissions has been eliminated. Restricting
admissions for students who meet admissions criteria is not a current practice. Further,
campuses no longer make admissions decisions at the local level.
Admissions Criteria
The admissions criteria section has been revised to reflect a centralized admissions process.
High Risk Admissions
1. Wording has been changed in this part of the policy to clarify how the at-risk admissions
policy works.
2. A sentence about required basic skills coursework based on placement has been added to the
section on mandatory participation in support programs to separate it from campus-based
options. The next section on campuses requiring support coursework has been revised to
reflect that campuses have discretion to require additional support courses (but not
prerequisite courses). The existing policy language states that campuses have the discretion
to require basic skills coursework, but that is inaccurate. Students who are placed into basic
skills courses cannot attain an associate degree without completing prerequisite coursework
for math and English. The UW System Remedial Education Policy also gives the institution
(not campuses) responsibility for determining college readiness standards, and the UW
System classifies the UW Colleges as a single institution for placement purposes. A
subsequent section on campus-based required support coursework has been clarified to state
that campuses can decide to require additional coursework beyond classes required for
meeting prerequisite coursework.
3. A reference to meetings with an advisor has been changed to participation in advising
programs. The new wording permits a variety of possible approaches for supporting at-risk
students through Student Affairs programs while still retaining the option to require regular
advising meetings if resources and staffing permit.
4. References to required tutoring have been eliminated because that is a labor-intensive option
that is not feasible with reduced advising and limited developmental education tuition
revenue to support tutoring programs.
146
5. The section on appealing required support programs has been revised to reflect current
practice.
Placement Testing
The information about required placement testing has been updated to clarify that some students
are exempt from mandatory placement testing.
Transfer Students
The section on transfer students has been updated to reflect current admissions practices.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, italicized and underlined font. Strikethrough font is used for
text that will be removed with proposed changes.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #201
Admission to the Associate of Arts and Science Degree Program
==================================================================
Ratified by the Senate - Nov. 7, 1987, p. 8, App. 13
Amended, May 14, 1988, p. 11-12, App. 12
Revisions Adopted by the Senate, May 13, 1989, p. 13-14, App. 18
Revisions Ratified by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p. 7, App. 6
Revision adopted by the Senate, January 17, 1992, p. 4
Revisions adopted by the Senate, May 7-8, 1993, p. 4, App. 3
Revisions adopted by the Senate, March 2, 2001
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, March 4, 2005
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
The UW Colleges is an access institution for the University of Wisconsin System. provides
freshman and sophomore university course work. Anyone who has completed a high school
degree or an equivalency program may benefit from college study is considered for admission
to a UW Colleges campus as an associate degree seeking student. Applicants who are
underprepared for college learning with skill and knowledge weaknesses as indicated by class
previous coursework, standardized test scores, high school GPA, high school rank, placement
test scores or other college readiness measures will participate in special programs aimed at
remedying these difficulties and increasing their likelihood of success in college. Admission is
subject to enrollment limits established by the UW Board of Regents. To aid in enrollment
management, individual campuses may extend admissions restrictions to new freshmen
applicants based on factors which may include, but are not limited to, high school grade point
average or class rank, breadth and rigor of high school courses selected, standardized test scores,
and/or other indicators of academic achievement.
I. Admissions Criteria
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
To be admitted to the UW Colleges as a degree-seeking student an applicant must:
147
A. Have graduated from a recognized high school, have a GED/HSED, or present other
evidence of ability to begin college level work.
B. Meet the 17-college preparatory credit distribution. Thirteen of the 17 credits will be
distributed as follows:
English
4 credits
Social Science
3 credits
Mathematics
3 credits
Natural Science
3 credits
The three mathematics credits must include at least one credit of algebra and the
equivalent of one credit of geometry. The remaining 4 credits will be from the above
areas, foreign languages, fine arts, computer science, and other academic areas.
C. Have taken the ACT or the SAT I if at the time of their application they are age 21 or
under. The ACT is preferred. Students will not be advantaged in the admission process
by taking one test rather than the other. The ACT/SAT I scores must be received by a
UW Colleges Office of Student Affairs the UW Colleges Admissions Office before the
student will be permitted to register for classes.
Applicants who do not meet these requirements may appeal to the Director of
Admissions Campus Dean for Student Affairs at a UW Colleges campus for an
exemption. Particular consideration in admission will be given to: (1) applicants who
have been out of school for two or more years, (2) service veterans, as defined by state
and federal policies, and (3) students who have been disadvantaged as a result of
substandard education, family income level, or ethnic background.
The Assistant Campus Dean for Student Affairs (or his/her designee) shall be responsible
for reviewing high school courses and determining their acceptance toward satisfying the
new freshman college preparatory credit admission requirements. In cases where the
course does not fall under customary guidelines, the Assistant Campus Dean for Student
Affairs shall consult with the Registrar.
II. High Risk Admissions
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
A. Applicants with any of the following characteristics will be identified during the
admission process and required to participate in advising and/or academic support
special programming:
1. High school class rank in lowest quartile
2. GED/HSED
3. High school academic course deficiencies
4. Entering as a transfer student on probation
5. Results of the English or Mathematics Placement process fall below departmentally
designated standards.
B. Special programming for students admitted as high risk so identified will include:
148
1. Mandatory advising prior to initial registration and prior to registration every
semester until the student achieves a cumulative GPA of 2.0 with 12 or more credits.
2. Required basic skills coursework for students who do not meet prerequisites for
credit-bearing English and/or mathematics courses through either the placement
process or previous coursework.
3. At discretion of the campus:
a) Course load and course selection restrictions, guided by results of the placement
process.
b) Participation in required additional advising programs. Regular meetings with
an advisor throughout the semester or session.
c) Enrollment in appropriate basic skills additional learning support courses that
are separate from prerequisite basic skills coursework.
d) Participation in other campus academic support programs and/or tutoring.
C. Students who do not wish to register with required advising or academic support
programs under such conditions may appeal for an exemption to the appropriate
committee at the campus to the appropriate designated campus Student Affairs
representative. Students who do not wish to take required basic skills courses may
appeal to the relevant department. A student with a non-degree writing placement also
has the option to participate in the English Department’s writing course portfolio
exemption process.
III. Placement Testing
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2014-01-22
New, transfer, or returning students who have not completed English and Mathematics
degree requirements are required to participate in the English and Mathematics placement
process prior to registration in order to aid program advisors. Students are exempt from
participating in the placement process for English and/or Mathematics when they have
fulfilled relevant prerequisites through transferred coursework or credit by examination.
IV. Transfer Students
Students wishing to transfer to a UW Colleges campus who apply by the published
application deadline and have maintained a C average or better (2.00 semester and
cumulative GPA on a 4.00 scale) at previous colleges are likely to be admitted in good
standing. UW Colleges academic regulations (such as probation or suspension standards)
will be used to determine the probation status of students who are admitted with less than a
2.0 semester or cumulative GPA. Students are assessed under UW Colleges standards for
academic standing criteria. Students admitted on probation are automatically enrolled
under the high risk admissions policy. A transfer student’s application will not be
considered complete until official transcripts of all prior college work have been received and
evaluated. In the event of temporary unavailability of transcripts, other materials, such as
grade reports, may be submitted; however, admission based on such data is tentative and may
be revoked. Students who have been suspended from another institution will not be
admissible to a UW Colleges campus until the period of suspension elapses.
V. Returning Students
149
A student who wishes to re-enter the UW Colleges and was not enrolled the previous
semester (excluding summer session) must file a UW System Application for Undergraduate
Admission and submit official transcripts of any non-UWC college work attempted since last
enrolling in the UW Colleges. Students who have maintained a C average or better (2.00
semester and cumulative GPA on a 4.00 scale) are likely to be admitted in good standing.
Students who were dropped or suspended at the end of their last semester of enrollment at the
UW Colleges and/or those with less than a 2.00 semester or cumulative GPA may be placed
on a waiting list and will be reviewed according to the UW Colleges academic regulations to
determine their acceptance and probationary status. Students returning after an absence of
four or more consecutive semesters must meet the current degree requirements of the catalog
in effect upon their return or of a subsequent catalog.
[End]
150
Attachment 32
UW Colleges Senate
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revisions to IP #206
(“UWS 14 Academic Misconduct Institutional Procedures”)
Rationale:
This policy has been updated to comply with UW System guidelines, UWS 14, and the UW
Colleges Centralized process for Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct.
In January 2016, UW Colleges regionalized and centralized campus leadership, roles, and
processes. Student Academic and Non-Academic Misconduct were centralized under one office
of the Division of Student Affairs. As positions and resources were changed, it was necessary to
update the Academic Misconduct Institutional Procedures to reflect the changes in UW Colleges
structure. During review of the Senate Policy #206, it was noted there were discrepancies with
UWS 14 process, updated and new UWS policies and procedures, and interpretation differences
on each campus. This lack of consistency, could place the UW Colleges out of compliancy and
create a liability. The points of confusion reported from campus staff and instructors were
clarified in the changes below. UWS 14 and UWS policies were also reflected in the changes to
bring the UW Colleges into better compliance.
The most significant changes were removal of the old student affairs position model and
updating to the new model. With centralization of student academic misconduct processes, the
Office of Conduct and Compliance will be responsible for the maintenance of student records,
training, and development of educational materials. UW Colleges has purchased a conduct file
management system which will manage all files and help generate reports. All Investigating
Officers on the campuses will have access to the system and will be trained in its use. With so
many of our students attending multiple campuses, the management system will assist in insuring
accurate files are shared across the institution.
With less staff on campuses, it was difficult to schedule hearing committees. During winterim,
many academic action committees were busy with appeals, increasing the time students needed
to wait to have their appeal heard. There were also conflicts of interest concerns raised
regarding hearing an appeal for academic actions and academic misconduct and keeping them
separate. Others expressed concern about neutrality based on relationships with student or
instructor. It is therefore recommended that UW Colleges utilizes the Hearing Examiner process
for lower level sanctions and an Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee for more serious
sanctions. It is also recommended that UW Colleges Senate recruit members institution-wide to
serve in these appeal roles for the entire institution and they can be called to serve any campus.
Hearing Examiners can be instructors or academic staff members, but will not be a member of
the Office of Conduct and Compliance staff. Advances in technology allow for a new format.
Language was changed in the policy from faculty to instructors to be consistent with UWS
Chapter 14. UWS 14 defines an instructor as “the faculty member or instructional academic
staff member who has responsibility for the overall conduct of a course and ultimate
responsibility for the assignment of the grade for the course.”.
151
After consultation with the Registrar, the permanent record statement was removed. UWS
process now leaves suspensions and expulsions on a student’s transcripts. All other files are
maintained for a set period of time and then securely disposed of.
After consultation with the Registrar, course withdrawal prevention was removed as we cannot
prevent a student from withdrawing from a course or the institution. Course withdrawals can
have ramifications in other parts, so this part was also adapted to insure students understand the
whole picture when withdrawing from a course. However, the instructor or investigating officer
still maintains the authority to enter into a withdrawal agreement with the student.
The representative section of the policy was updated to reflect UWS 14, but also to be consistent
with the newly adapted representative protocols in UWS 17. This expands the representative
support for students in the process.
Written reports section was expanded to include the specific requirements for the reports as
outlined in UWS 14. This was a section with a lot of confusion, so clarification was necessary.
The readmission section had a change to it for clarification and gender neutrality.
Proposed revisions are in bold, red, italicized, and underlined font.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Policy Regarding Students #206
UWS 14 Academic Misconduct Institutional Procedures
====================================================
Adopted by the Senate, Oct. 7, 1989, p.7, App. 15.
Ratified by the Senate, Nov. 18, 1989, p.10, App. 8
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate, May 7, 2004
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
I. Personnel
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
A. The Assistant Campus Dean for Student Affairs of each campus UW Colleges Director of
Conduct, Compliance, and Residence Life shall serve as the Student Affairs Officer and shall
have all of the responsibilities assigned to this position under Chapter UWS 14 and Senate
policy including:
1. Receiving copies of all academic misconduct reports prepared by faculty instructors
or investigating officers;
2. When the Investigating Officer receives a written report of academic misconduct,
Ddetermining whether the student charged with academic misconduct has previously
been subject to disciplinary sanctions for academic misconduct. If the student has
been subject to such sanctions, the Investigating Officer the Student Affairs Officer
152
should confer with the faculty member instructor filing the report, and may
recommend more severe sanctions.;
3. Receiving student requests for hearings before the Hearing Examiner or Academic
Misconduct Hearing Committee;
4. Scheduling of hearings before the Hearing Examiner or Academic Misconduct
Hearing Committee as requested, or as mandated under UWS Sec. 14.07 (5)(c)2;
5. Notifying the appropriate parties, including the Investigating Officer, of the time, date
and place of the hearing and forwarding all relevant reports and materials to the
appropriate parties; and
6. Receiving written reports of misconduct from faculty or the Investigating Officer.
6. Insuring compliance with the State of Wisconsin Open Meetings Law, UWS
14, and applicable UW Colleges policies and procedures;
7. Developing and providing training for Investigating Officers, Hearing Examiners,
and Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee members;
8. Developing educational materials for instructors, students, Investigating Officers,
Hearing Examiners, and Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee members;
9. Managing of the conduct file management system and training users of the system;
and
10. Preparing an annual report summarizing the cases brought under Chapter UWS 14.
B. The Campus Steering Committee shall annually recommend to the Chancellor a faculty
member who will serve for a one-year term as the Investigating Officer. As continuity is
an important aspect of this position, this position is renewable. the Investigating Officer
should expect to serve more than the initial one-year term. In the event of a conflict of
interest, the Campus Steering Committee shall designate another faculty member to serve
as the Investigating Officer for a particular charge of academic misconduct. The
Investigating Officer shall have all of the responsibilities assigned to this position under
Chapter UWS 14 including:
1. Receiving copies of all academic misconduct reports prepared by faculty; [moved to
section I.A.1 and modified]
2. When the Investigating Officer receives a written report of academic misconduct,
determining whether the student charged has previously been subject to disciplinary
sanctions. If the student has been subject to such sanctions, the Investigating Officer
should confer with the faculty member filing the report, and may recommend more
severe sanctions; [moved to section I.A.2 and modified]
153
1. Serving as an on-campus resource for instructors regarding UWS 14 process and
procedures and institutional policy and procedures;
2. Participating in all Investigating Officer trainings provided by the Office of
Conduct and Compliance;
3. Investigating cases of academic misconduct under authority of UWS 14.07 (1),
following all procedures outlined in UWS 14;
4. Avoiding conflict of interest by nNot serving as a Hearing Examiner or a member of
the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee for any appeal on the campus they
serve as Investigating Officer, regardless if it is an instructor’s decision being
appealed. The Investigating Officer may be called as a witness at a hearing conducted
by such Examiner or Committee; and
5. In the case of a hearing before the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee,
forwarding copies of any written reports prepared by faculty, or by the Investigating
Officer, to the Chair of the Committee; [moved to section I.A.5 and modified]
6. Being responsible for any cases of Academic Misconduct arising during his or her
tenure as Investigating Officer until such cases are closed, even if closure does not
occur until after the expiration of the Investigating Officer's term.; and
7. Preparing an annual report summarizing the cases brought under Chapter UWS 14.
[moved to section I.A.10 and modified]
C. The campus Academic Action Committee shall serve as the Academic Misconduct
Hearing Committee and shall have all of the responsibilities assigned to this committee
under Chapter UWS 14. The UW Colleges will institute an appeal process which utilizes
both the Hearing Examiner and the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee
processes. UW Colleges Senate shall annually recruit a pool of faculty, instructional
academic staff, and non-instructional academic staff who wish to serve as a Hearing
Examiner and/or member of the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee. The UW
Colleges shall then make recommendations to the Chancellor for their approval.
1. Service time as the Hearing Examiner or as a member of the Academic Misconduct
Hearing Committee will depend upon number of appeals requested and/or
scheduling availability of personnel;
2. Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee must have at least 3 members scheduled
(including one student) to hear the appeal. Per UWS 14.15(1), the Academic
Misconduct Hearing Committee presiding officer and one other member will
constitute a quorum at any hearing. The student will be recruited from the home
campus by the Student Affairs Officer;
3. A Hearing Examiner will hear appeals where the sanctions are as listed in UWS
14.04 (1) (a-h);
154
4. The Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee will hear appeals where the
sanctions are as listed in UWS 14.04 (1) (i-j); and
5. The Hearing Examiner and the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee
members will receive training from the Student Affairs Officer.
II. Maintenance of Disciplinary Files
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
A. The Student Affairs Officer shall have responsibility for the maintenance of disciplinary
files which shall include written reports prepared by faculty instructors, the
Investigating Officer, the Hearing Examiner, and the Academic Mmisconduct Hearing
Committee.
B. Disciplinary files will be maintained separately from academic files and will be housed
in the Office of Student Affairs in the UW Colleges Conduct File Management System
and managed by the Office of Conduct and Compliance.
C. A record shall be maintained of the final determination concerning an academic
misconduct charge, including a determination by the instructor, Investigating Officer,
Hearing Examiner, or the Academic Misconduct Committee that no academic
misconduct occurred. The student, instructor involved, the Investigating Officer (if it
was their case), and the Student Affairs Officer shall receive the final written
determination of responsibility even if the decision is no misconduct occurred. In the
case of such a determination made by the Investigating Officer, the Investigating Officer
shall so inform the Dean, the Assistant Campus Dean for Student Affairs, the faculty
member and the student involved.
D. A sanction for academic misconduct shall not become part of the student's permanent
academic record. When suspension or expulsion occurs, the Student Affairs Officer
shall inform the Registrar’s office, Investigating Officer shall inform the Office of
Academic and Student Affairs. The Office of Academic and Student Affairs shall inform
the other University of Wisconsin Colleges campuses, and the University of Wisconsin
System Institutions.
III. Withdrawal Pending a Charge of Academic Misconduct
A. When a charge of academic misconduct is pending, a student may not withdraw from
a course without the consent of the faculty member who has brought the charge.
A. In the event the faculty member instructor and student would like to resolve the matter
by class withdrawal, the student must first speak to an academic advisor to learn of any
potential conflicts a withdrawal may have, including, but not limited to financial aid.
Upon completing this meeting, if the student would still like to enter into this
resolution, it will go forward in writing. permits the student to withdraw as a resolution
to the charge of academic misconduct, Tthe faculty member instructor shall file a report
and signed agreement with the Investigating Officer. Student Affairs Officer.
155
B. In the event the faculty member Investigating Officer and student would like to resolve
the matter by class withdrawal, the student must first speak to an academic advisor to
learn of any potential conflicts a withdrawal may have, including, but not limited to
financial aid. Upon completing this meeting, if the student would still like to enter into
this resolution, it will go forward in writing. permits the student to withdraw as a
resolution to the charge of academic misconduct, Tthe faculty member Investigating
Officer shall file a report and signed agreement with the Investigating Officer. Student
Affairs Officer.
C. If a student withdraws from a course or the institution while charges in UWS 14 are
pending, the case will still go forward, the process completed, and sanctions may still
be imposed.
IV. Conduct at Hearings
A. Under UWS Sec. 14.08 (3)(a), a student shall have the right to be accompanied by a
representative of their choice. representation at a hearing. However, only the student, or
his or her representative, and not both, shall have the right to present evidence and
question witnesses. This shall not preclude the student's right to give testimony.
1. In appeals where the sanctions are as listed in UWS 14.04 (1) (a-h), the
representative may counsel the student, but may not directly question witnesses,
present information and witnesses, or speak on behalf of the student except at the
discretion of the Hearing Examiner or Academic Misconduct Committee.
2. In appeals where the sanctions are as listed in UWS 14.04 (1) (i-j), the
representative may question witnesses, present information and witnesses, and
speak on behalf of the student; however, the student will not also be able to do so.
3. In accordance with the educational purposes of the hearing, the student is expected
to respond on their own behalf to questions asked of them during the hearing.
B. The Hearing Examiner or Academic Misconduct Committee may admit evidence
having reasonably probative value, but may exclude immaterial, irrelevant, or unduly
repetitious testimony.
C. All recognized legal privileges will be honored.
D. The Hearing Examiner and Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee may impose a
disciplinary sanction that differs from the recommendation of the instructor or
Investigating Officer; including suspension and expulsion as allowed by UWS 14.08
(3).
V. Written Reports
A. The original copy of any written report prepared by an instructor faculty member, other
than to submit a case to the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer [moved to section
V.B. and modified], the Investigating Officer, Hearing Examiner, or Academic
Misconduct Committee shall be sent to the student either via personal delivery or through
U.S. first class mail. The UW Colleges defines personal delivery as ONE of the
following:
156
1. Sent by electronic means to the students’ official university email address;
2. Given personally to the student; or
3. Placed in the student’s official university mailbox.
B. If the instructor is transferring a case to the jurisdiction of the Investigating Officer,
the student will not receive copies of the information gathered as it is not a formal
written report.
C. Faculty Instructors, Investigating Officers, Hearing Examiners, and the Academic
Misconduct Hearing Committee shall submit copies of written reports and all relevant
evidence to the Student Affairs Officer upon completion of the report(s). and
Investigating Officer. After the conclusion of a case or if no hearing is scheduled within
30 days, the Investigating Officer shall combine his/her copy of a written report with that
of the Student Affairs Officer.
D. Written reports from the instructor or Investigating Officer must include, at minimum,
the following information:
1. A description of the misconduct;
2. Specification of the sanction recommended;
3. Notice of the student’s right to request a hearing before the hearing examiner or
the Academic Misconduct Hearing Committee; and
4. Copy of UWS 14 and any institutional policies adapted for this process (may be part
of a separate document, but must be sent at the same time as the written report).
E. Written reports from the Hearing Examiner or Academic Misconduct Hearing
Committee must include, at minimum, the following information:
1. Findings of fact based on the statements at the hearing;
2. A statement of its decision based upon the hearing; and
3. In cases where the sanction imposed will be suspension or expulsion, the written
report will contain notice of the student’s right to appeal to the UW Colleges
Chancellor.
VI.
Readmission Following Suspension or Expulsion
A student who has been expelled may petition for readmission, and a student who has
been suspended may petition for readmission prior to the expiration of the suspension
period. The petition for readmission must be in writing and directed to the Chancellor of
the UW Colleges. The petition may not be filed before the expiration of one year from
the date of the final determination in expulsion cases, or before the expiration of one-half
of the suspension period in suspension cases. The Chancellor shall refer all such petitions
to the Senate Academic Policy Committee for review. The Senate Academic Policy
Committee shall make its recommendations to the Chancellor. The Chancellor shall
communicate her/his the final decision to the student.
[End]
157
Attachment 33
UW Colleges Senate
Adoption: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 7.0
(“Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees”)
Background and Rationale
Makes more sense to communicate as needed than to mandate frequent communication. The
information clearinghouse role is more appropriate for CITS rather than this committee.
Providing advice on best practices for appropriate use of social media (and/or other
technologies) is also more appropriate as a responsibility of CITS or Human Resources than
from this committee.
Proposed changes are in bold, red, underlined and italicized font.
=====================================================================
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
Established 11/12/94
Revised 3/18/95
Revised 1/11/96
Revised 5/4/96
Revised 3/8/97
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04
Revised 4/29/05
Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/16/08
Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised by the Senate 4-24-09
Revised by the Senate 10-23-09
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 1-13-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 3-5-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 4-23-10
Revised by the Senate (SIITC) 2010-10-22
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-01-12
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-04-29
Revised by the Senate (SOPC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2012-01-11
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-01-09
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-03-15
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the SSC 2014-03-24
Revised by the SSC 2014-08-28
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-10-24
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-03-20
Revised by the SSC (2014-12-11) 2015-07-01
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2016-02-19
[…]
7.0
Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
[…]
2) Senate Informational and Instructional Technology Committee
Revised 4-24-09
Revised 10-22-2010
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the SSC 2014-03-24
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2016-02-19
158
The Senate Informational and Instructional Technology Committee shall consist of
eleven voting members and three non-voting members: three faculty members, one
from each division, nominated by faculty, one at-large faculty nominated by faculty,
one department chair nominated by department chairs, one representative from
business services nominated by business services personnel, one representative from
library services nominated by library services personnel, one representative from
instructional technology nominated by instructional technology personnel, one
representative from network administrators nominated by network administrators, one
representative from student affairs nominated by student affairs personnel, one
student appointed by the Student Governance Council; one dean nominated by the
deans, the Vice Chancellor for Administrative and Financial Services, and the Chief
Information Officer shall serve as ex-officio non-voting members of the committee.
The Senate Steering Committee shall appoint the faculty and academic staff members
of the Committee from among the nominees they receive. The student shall serve a
one-year term. Faculty and academic staff shall serve staggered three year terms.
The responsibility of the SIITC shall be to make recommendations to the Senate and
to the Chancellor regarding all aspects of information and instructional technology,
including (but not limited to) acquisitions, expenditures, policies, procedures, and
user support. In making its recommendations, the SIITC shall consult broadly with
UW Colleges constituencies. The SIITC shall maintain regular and frequent
communication with campus and with department IITC's and shall notify those
committees of pending issues and shall solicit their input. The SIITC shall also
function as an information clearing house for news about information and
instructional technology. In serving the latter function, the Chief Information Officer
shall be invited to provide a report to Senate at the fall meeting. The Committee shall
send an annual reminder regarding the use of social networking to all UWC faculty,
staff and students. As necessary to study specific issues and problems, the SIITC
shall be empowered to create ad hoc subcommittees chaired by members of the SIITC
whose members may come from outside the SIITC as well as outside the UW
Colleges. The Chair of the SIITC shall notify the Senate Steering Committee Chair
and the Provost of the subcommittees formed for these purposes.
The responsibility of the SIITC shall be to:
1. Make recommendations to the Senate and to the Chancellor Chief Information
Officer regarding all aspects of information and instructional technology,
including (but not limited to) acquisitions, expenditures, policies, procedures, and
user support. In making its recommendations, the SIITC shall consult broadly
with UW Colleges constituencies.
2. The SIITC shall maintain regular and frequent communication Communicate
with campus and with department IITC's or functional equivalents as needed,
and shall notify those committees of pending issues and shall solicit their input.
The SIITC shall also function as an information clearing house for news about
information and instructional technology. In serving the latter function, tThe
Chief Information Officer shall be invited to provide a report to Senate at the fall
159
meeting. The Committee shall send an annual reminder regarding the use of social
networking to all UWC faculty, staff and students.
3. As necessary to study specific issues and problems, the SIITC shall be
empowered to cCreate ad hoc subcommittees as necessary to study specific
issues and problems. Such subcommittees shall be chaired by members of the
SIITC but their whose members may come from outside the SIITC as well as
outside the UW Colleges. The Chair of the SIITC shall notify the Senate Steering
Committee Chair and the Provost of the subcommittees formed for these
purposes.
[…]
[End]
160
Attachment 34
UW Colleges Senate
Adoption: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of UW Colleges Senate Bylaws 7.0
(“Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees”)
Background and Rationale
The Senate Inclusive Excellence Committee proposes adding the UWC Gender Equity
Coordinator as a voting ex-officio member of the Committee. We are confident that this person
can make valuable contributions to the Committee, as they have a unique perspective on the
campus climate in the Colleges. This perspective is grounded in both institutional data and
interactions with members of the Colleges’ communities. Additionally, this person possesses a
skill set which can assist in making interventions to enhance the campus climate at the Colleges.
Proposed changes are in bold, underlined, red, italicized font.
=====================================================================
UW Colleges Senate Bylaws
Established 11/12/94
Revised 3/18/95
Revised 1/11/96
Revised 5/4/96
Revised 3/8/97
Revised 4/23/99
Revised 3/14/03
Revised 5/02/03
Revised 1/21/04
Revised 5/7/04
Revised 4/29/05
Revised 10/19/07
Revised 1/16/08
Revised by the Senate 3-7-08
Revised by the Senate 1-14-09
Revised by the Senate 4-24-09
Revised by the Senate 10-23-09
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 1-13-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 3-5-10
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 4-23-10
Revised by the Senate (SIITC) 2010-10-22
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-01-12
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-04-29
Revised by the Senate (SOPC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2011-10-21
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2012-01-11
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2013-01-09
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-03-15
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-03-14
Revised by the SSC 2014-03-24
Revised by the SSC 2014-08-28
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2014-10-24
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-03-20
Revised by the SSC (2014-12-11) 2015-07-01
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2016-02-19
[…]
7.0
Appointed Senate Bylaws Committees
Revised by the Senate (SSC) 2015-11-13
[…]
5) Senate Inclusive Excellence Committee
Added by the Senate January 12, 2011
Revised by the SSC 2013-02-25
Revised by the SSC 2014-03-24
Revised by the Senate (SGC) 2016-02-19
161
The Inclusive Excellence Committee shall consist of eight voting members: three
faculty (one from each academic division), an instructional academic staff
representative, a non-instructional academic staff representative, a university staff
representative, a department chairs’ representative, a student representative, ; one
voting ex-officio member: the UWC Gender Equity Coordinator; and three
non-voting ex-officio members: a campus deans’ representative, the Chief Diversity
Officer, and a member of the Office of Academic and Student Affairs. Committee
members shall be appointed by the Senate Steering Committee from slates submitted
by the appropriate group or office (nominations for faculty and staff members shall be
solicited from the UW Colleges at large; nominations for the department chairs’
representative shall be solicited from the Chair of Chairs; nominations for the deans’
representative shall be solicited from the chancellor). The student member will be
appointed by the Student Governance Council. Committee members shall serve
staggered two-year terms, with the exception of the student member, who shall serve
a one-year term. The committee will report to Senate Steering and may bring action
items to the Senate floor.
Working in close coordination with the UW Colleges/UW-Extension Chief Diversity
Officer and with the Academic and Student Affairs representative, the Inclusive
Excellence Committee shall provide leadership in identifying and supporting efforts
to expand institutional understanding of and work on the intersection between
inclusion, diversity, and excellence. This may include the following activities:
facilitate and coordinate the institutional Inclusive Excellence plan, provide support
to campus and department-based groups working on inclusion and diversity, help
build institutional capacity in order to reach UW Colleges Inclusive Excellence goals,
monitor progress on the institution’s Inclusive Excellence goals, disseminate reports
on Inclusive Excellence and diversity issues, ensure Inclusive Excellence goals match
the UW Colleges Strategic Plan, and issue an annual report for the institution on the
work of the committee.
The committee will work with various committees, functional units (for example,
UW Colleges Libraries, the Office of Academic and Student Affairs, and the
Chancellor’s Office), programs (for example, Engaging Student in the First Year and
the UW Colleges Assessment Program), and campuses in order to develop specific
goals and action steps on issues like equitable student access, campus climate,
curriculum, faculty and staff retention and recruitment, and others. The committee
will also help to synthesize these efforts into an institution-wide Inclusive Excellence
plan.
[…]
[End]
162
Attachment 35
UW Colleges Provost & Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
I truly regret that I will not be able to attend the Friday, February 24, 2017, Senate Meeting. I
will be attending the AAC&U General Education and Assessment Conference in Phoenix,
Arizona. I am excited to be a member of the UW Colleges team that will be attending the
meeting. I am eager to deepen my understanding of approaches to assessment and for
improving teaching and learning in general education liberal arts programs. I wish you the very
best as you move through Senate business today!
Higher Learning Commission Assurance Review (April 24, 2017): As reported at the November
4, 2016, Senate meeting, the UW Colleges is scheduled to submit documentation for a Higher
Learning Commission (HLC) Assurance Review no later than April 24, 2017. The HLC conducts
an Assurance Review to determine whether an institution on the Open Pathway continues to
meet the five Criteria for Accreditation. On the Open Pathway, the Assurance Review is
conducted by itself in year four following the 10-year reaccreditation/self-study process.
The Higher Learning Commission Assurance Review remains my highest priority for this
academic year. I am pleased to present the following summary of our Assurance Review
progress for your consideration.
Since the November Senate meeting, the Assurance Review Leadership Team (Associate Vice
Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Foy, Project Coordinator Evan Kreider, Director of
Institutional Research, Assessment, and Effectiveness Mya Starling, and I), have been meeting
weekly. During our meetings, we provide updates, respond to questions from our criteria team
leaders, and closely monitor the progress criteria teams are making with drafting their
respective sections of the Assurance Review.
In mid-November, the criteria team leaders submitted the first full draft of their argumentevidence sections to Evan Kreider and me for review and feedback. Evan and I worked
independently to review each criterion, and then came together to respond to each criterion
teams’ work on their respective sections of the Assurance Review. Team leaders received
detailed feedback and analyses in mid-December.
In mid-January, the criteria team leaders submitted the second full revised draft of their
argument-evidence sections to Evan Kreider and me. During this review cycle, Evan is focused
on processing hundreds of evidence files and preparing them to be uploaded into the Higher
Learning Commission’s web based Assurance System, and I have been carefully reviewing each
of the criteria sections. In addition, Jocelyn Milner, a peer reviewer for the Higher Learning
Commission and an administrator at UW-Madison, has been thoroughly reviewing the criteria
sections and providing invaluable insights and direction from a peer reviewer perspective.
163
Currently, Evan and I are continuing our review of the criteria sections, refining and revising
them according to the feedback we have received from Jocelyn. We will be calling on our
criteria teams for assistance as needed.
Project Coordinator Evan Kreider and I will continue to keep you informed of the Assurance
Review process and its progress. For now, please know that we remain on schedule to submit
our assurance argument and evidence files on or before April 24. Please feel free to contact
Evan with questions or for additional information about the Assurance Review.
Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences (BAAS) Degree Completion Program Update: In late
November, I received a BAAS Program Review proposal from the BAAS degree coordinators,
Regional Associate Deans Brittany Nielsen, Courtney O’Connell, and Kristin Fillhouer, and
Executive Director of Marketing and Enrollment Vicki Keegan. In December, I began soliciting
input for a comprehensive review of the BAAS degree completion program from the
Chancellor’s Cabinet and from Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Foy. In midJanuary, I met with Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
Melissa Stutz to discuss how we might approach a comprehensive review. Additionally, I have
sought feedback from Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance Colleen
Godfriaux.
Based on the feedback I received from the people identified above, I moved forward with
naming a BAAS Review Work Group. The Work Group is tasked with reviewing the critical
academic, operational, student affairs, and financial functions of the BAAS degree completion
program. I have also asked the Work Group members to explore the possible expansion of the
BAAS degree completion program from six to 13 campuses. Associate Vice Chancellors Joe Foy
and Melissa Stutz are co-chairing the Work Group.
The BAAS Review Work Group had its first meeting on Tuesday, February 14. I asked Associate
Vice Chancellor Joe Foy to convene the committee. A final report will be due to the provost no
later than May 3, 2017.
Please read Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs Joe Foy’s Senate report for more
information about the Work Group.
Transfer Agreement between UW-Madison/UW Colleges Update: After three years of
negotiations and countless meetings, in late January the provost from each institution signed
the UW-Madison/UW Colleges Transfer Contract. The contract offers students who begin in the
UW Colleges to declare their intent to use the contract to gain admission to UW-Madison as
long as they meet the requirements for admission to UW-Madison, and meet the specified
levels of academic achievement at a UW Colleges’ campus.
164
The agreement details for UW Colleges students the specific conditions that they need to meet
for successful transfer and admission to UW-Madison. You can read more about the UWMadison/UW Colleges transfer agreement here:
https://www.admissions.wisc.edu/assets/pdfs/TransferContractRequirements.pdf.
I sincerely thank Director of International Education Tim Urbonya, and Registrar and Director of
Admissions Larry Graves for their expert assistance throughout the three-year negotiation
process. Without their support, the new transfer agreement would not have been possible.
Student Survey on Material Hardship: In September 2017, the UW Colleges launched the
Wisconsin HOPE (Harvesting Opportunities for Post-Secondary Education) Lab’s Material
Hardship student survey. The purpose of the survey is to determine to what extent our
students experience housing and food insecurity. A link to the survey was sent to all currently
enrolled UW Colleges students, who are 18 years and older in early September. Reminders to
students were sent at two different times to complete the survey. The incentive for
participation in the survey was the awarding of 10, $100 cash awards to students randomly
selected from those who participated.
In late December, I received the preliminary results from the survey. The UW Colleges will be
receiving the final results in late spring. It is important to note that 373 UW Colleges students
(approximately four percent of our 10 th day enrollments of 10,525) responded to the survey.
Hence, the survey presents a snapshot of how our students experience housing and food
insecurity.
I would like to highlight several key findings here:
Housing:
 Approximately 38 percent of the students who responded to the survey have
experienced housing insecurity over the past 12 months prior to taking the survey.

Approximately 10 percent of the students who responded to the survey reported they
were homeless over the past 12 months prior to taking the survey.
Food:

Approximately 25 percent of the students who responded to the survey reported they
had very low food security over the 30 days prior to taking the survey. When you
combine this percentage with students who experienced low security over the same
time period, the percentage is approximately 42 percent.

Approximately 31 percent of the students who responded to the survey ate less than
they felt they should because there was not enough money for food.

Approximately 28 percent of the students who responded to the survey did not eat
(even though they were hungry) because there was not enough money for food.
165
Paying Bills:
 Approximately 36 percent of the students who responded to the survey have borrowed
money from friends or family to help pay bills over the past 12 months prior to taking
the survey.
I am hoping to receive the final results from the survey prior to the April Senate meeting so I
can share them with you along with any next steps the UW Colleges might take in response to
the survey findings. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Lampe, Provost and Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
2/16/2017
166
Attachment 36
UW Colleges Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
As I write this report, we are just finishing up the first ten days of classes for the spring
semester of 2017. Having the privilege of team-teaching a course again this semester at UWWaukesha, I am thrilled to be working directly with students and learning along with them in
the months to come. If only something interesting would occur in the world of government and
politics for political scientists to study… It is in this spirit that I want to wish all of my colleagues
across the institution the very best this semester. Thank you for all you do to advance our
mission and help our students thrive.
Regrettably, I will be attending a conference presenting work for a forthcoming book, which is
why I cannot join you all for the meeting today. There are a few items I want to highlight in this
report that I hope are of interest to the senate and UW Colleges community.
Inclusion, Equity and Diversity
On January 19-20, I had the opportunity to engage in co-facilitating a two-day Multicultural
Awareness Program (MAP) for UW Colleges and UW Extension employees in Madison. There
was strong representation from the Colleges with faculty and staff from multiple campuses,
regional leaders and the institutional office all attending. The level of engagement and learning
was enhanced by the diverse perspectives that were brought forth from all who participated. I
am hopeful this will encourage more UW Colleges staff and faculty to take advantage of these
programs in the future. For more on the Multicultural Awareness Program and registration
information for upcoming opportunities, please visit:
http://inclusion.uwex.uwc.edu/content/programs.
On the topic of multicultural engagement, the Office of Equity Diversity and Inclusion (OEDI) is
working with Virtual Teaching and Learning Center Director Jennifer Heinert on developing an
inclusive pedagogy link on the VTLC site, which will include resources provided by OEDI to help
advance inclusion and equity in the classroom. I want to offer my appreciation to Dr. Heinert
and the OEDI staff for their work in this area. The VTLC website, which is filled with outstanding
information related to resources and programming to advance the work of staff and faculty as
teacher-scholars, is located at: www.uwc.edu/vtlc.
Ucard
As many of you may already be aware, the UW Colleges has begun implementing a new student
ID card that will provide increased options for use. Joshua Goldman from UW-Extension has
been helping with the development and implementation of the Ucard on campuses, and has
helped provide the following summary:
167
What is the Ucard?
The Ucard is a “one card” ID program for UW Colleges students, faculty, and staff. It functions
as a picture ID and is used for checking out library materials, but each card also has a university
run declining balance account that students, faculty, and staff can use to make purchases on
campus.
What does the card do?



Library card
Voter ID
o IDs for students (not faculty/staff) are compliant with voter ID laws
Declining balance
o This is a university run account
o Declining balance funds can be used at campus cafes and bookstores
o There are no transaction fees of any kind to use the account
o Online account dashboard to deposit funds and track account activity
o Parents may deposit funds into student accounts
o Students pay no tax on food purchases
How are we rolling this program out?
In Spring 2017, we are conducting a “soft rollout” and are focused on making sure the program
works smoothly before a full rollout in Fall 2017. Students have begun receiving cards, and
faculty and staff can get cards now as well. We will focus our efforts on Fall 2017, and will have
many more communications then to get the word out to students, faculty, and staff about the
card.
In Fall 2017, we will expand the use of the card to pay for printing for students, and the Ucard
will be the primary way for students to pay for printing. In the future, we will expand the use of
the card to vending machines. Beyond that, we might consider door access and attendance
tracking for the card.
Cards for faculty/staff will be free. Students will be charged a one-time fee of $5 to cover
administrative fees, and $10 for printing that will be put directly on the card.
For more information, go to http://uwc.edu/students/ucard and
https://uwc.edu/students/ucard-faq, or contact Josh Goldman at
[email protected] or 608-890-4612.
BAAS Review Working Group
168
I was recently asked to co-chair (along with Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and
Enrollment Management Melissa Stutz) a working group focused on the Bachelors of Applied
Arts and Sciences Degree Completion Program. The working group was formed with the tasks
of reviewing academic, operational, student affairs, and financial functions of the BAAS degree
completion program as we near the end of the five-year authorization period from the Board of
Regents.
The working group membership includes:











Tracy Davidson, Southwest Region Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Campus
Administrator at UW-Richland
Jayant Anand, North Region Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Campus Administrator at
UW-Barron County
Kristin Fillhouer, Southwest Region Associate Dean for Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management and Campus Administrator at UW-Rock County
Brittany Nielsen, North Region Associate Dean for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
and Campus Administrator at UW-Barron County
Kathleen Folbrecht, BAAS Advisor and Professional Experience Coordinator and Chair of the UW
Colleges Senate BAAS Curriculum Committee, UW-Waukesha
Marta Rusten, BAAS Advisor, UW-Marshfield/Wood County
Lynn Brandt, Adult Student College Resource Counselor
Vicki Keegan, Executive Director of Marketing and Enrollment
Melissa Stutz (co-chair), Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment
Management
Colleen Godfriaux, Associate Vice Chancellor for Administration and Finance
Joseph Foy (co-chair), Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
We are in the process of receiving our charge and developing our timeline. I will provide
updates as our work progresses.
Notes of Congratulations and Thanks
I want to congratulate the recipients of the 2017 GISE and KSEG: Heather Carroll and Schelzia
Ross (UW-Waukesha); Tamara Becker (UW-Washington County); Kayoung Kim and Michaela
Null (UW-Fond du Lac). Their proposals reflected a diversity of efforts to advance student
engagement and retention, as well as expand the skills and knowledgebase of the UW Colleges.
I would also like to congratulate the many faculty and staff mentors who are assisting students
whose work will be featured at the 2017 Research in the Rotunda: Musa Ayar (UWBaraboo/Sauk County), John Beaver (UW-Fox Valley), George Christiansen (UW-Baraboo/Sauk
County), Erin DeMuynck (UW-Fox Valley), William Dirienzo (UW-Sheboygan), Guy Campbell
(UW-Sheboygan), Stephanie Evenson (UW-Sheboygan), Toye Ekunsami (UW-Washington
County), Mark Hall (UW-Marathon County), Gregg Jamison (UW-Waukesha), Nate Maddux
(UW-Rock), Katie Mahoney (UW-Marathon County), Dale Murray (UW-Baraboo/Sauk County),
169
David Olson (UW-Baraboo/Sauk County), Michael Pauers (UW-Waukesha), Kirthi Premadasa
(UW-Baraboo/Sauk County), Paul Martin (UW-Baraboo/Sauk County), Stephen Swallen (UWBaraboo/Sauk County). Thank you for the really excellent representation of our institution to
our peers and lawmakers across the state, and for helping to provide such a great opportunity
for our students. I look forward to seeing you all in the capital.
None of the above congratulations would be possible without many hours of work reviewing
and discussing materials, making difficult decisions, and documenting recommendations to the
Provost’s Office. My sincere thanks to the Senate Professional Development Committee (SPDC)
and their chair Bill Gillard for their responsiveness, organization and work this year. Like many
governance committees, this group is doing yeoman’s work, and I sincerely appreciate their
dedication, fairness, and efforts. Thank you.
Finally, I want to congratulate Provost Greg Lampe on becoming a grandfather for the third
time on January 24, 2017. I am very happy for him and his entire family, though I want to
caution on something I learned after my wife and I welcomed our third child into the world:
Zone defense doesn’t work!
Respectfully Submitted,
Joseph J. Foy
Associate Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs
February 3, 2017
170
Attachment 37
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Enrollment
As of census date the UW Colleges has experienced a decrease in headcount from 10,730 (Spring 2016)
to 9679 (Spring 2017). The Full-Time Equivalency (FTE) declined by 11.07% from 7122 (Spring 2016)
to 6334 (Spring 2017).
As of February 9 (at the time of writing this report), applications for Fall 2017 are flat and admits are up
over 9% compared to the same time last year.
Registration for summer begins on March 1. Registration for fall begins April 10. We can all help
promote retention by encouraging students to meet with advisors and get enrolled in courses for fall,
early. Early enrollment is particularly important for sophomores who need to ensure they get the courses
they need to graduate.
Marketing







Fall awareness advertising ran in all campus markets from September – December. Spring awareness
began in February.
Fall Campus preview events: 25 events, increased attendance 50% for students and 47% for
parents/families.
Spring Campus preview events: advertising is beginning for these events.
The Social media plan began in the fall semester with a plan that includes posting by campus, region
and UWC Marketing office. There has been an increase in likes, posts, engagement and reach for all
campuses.
Fall Web – all the campus websites had a homepage refresh.
Redesign and implementation of all student communication in the enrollment funnel began in
September.
The four communication sequences are:
o Suspect –list of college age students: 75,200 emails sent with average view rate of 26.2%
o Prospect –students who have indicated an interest in attending: 20,166 emails sent, with an
average view rate of 17.93%
o Prospect/Transfer –students who showed an interest in us in FY16 but did not attend or had an
ACT score of 18-22: 32,513 emails sent, with an average view rate of 10.10%
o Applicant and Admitted students who have not enrolled: 10,566 emails sent, with an average
view rate of 26.2%
College Resource Counselors
Application Data
High School Seniors, Degree-Seeking/New Freshman ONLY- STATEWIDE
Apps for Fall 2015 (as of 12/31/14): 1750
Apps for Fall 2016 (as of 12/31/15): 1792
+42 from year prior
Apps for Fall 2017 (as of 12/31/16): 1993
+201 from year prior
171
Overall Statewide CRC Activities
September to December, 2016
Visits: 534
Events: 128
Presentations: 202
Campus Events: 34
Counselor/Community Partner Meetings: 136
The CRCs traveled 60,729 miles from September – December, 2016.
Accessibility Services
The Student Accessibility Services team is pleased to welcome Jill Friel from UW-Waukesha as the new
Alternative Media and Technology Coordinator. Over the past five years Jill has worked in a variety of
roles within the Solution Center and provided support to students using accessibility services. Jill is the
staff person responsible for sourcing electronic textbooks, audio books, enlarged print materials, and
braille resources requested by students with disabilities. She is also the point of contact for students who
need training and assistance with using the Sonocent Audio-Notetaker software to record classroom
lectures.
We are excited to announce the purchase of the Kurzweil 3000 screen-reader software. This program
provides customized support for students who need text-to-speech assistance, enlarged screen, and/or
study skills enhancement. Students on all 13 campuses and online will be able to install the program on
their personal computer or access it anywhere via the web-version (firefly.) Our Alternative Testing
Rooms will have the stand alone versions installed on their workstations for use by students who require a
“reader” as a testing accommodation. More information about the timeline for implementation and
training opportunities will be coming soon!
TRIO Student Support Services
The Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) has been auditing TRIO programs throughout the state since August
2016 as part of its annual audit of the University of Wisconsin System FY 2016 federal grant programs.
Recently, the UWC TRIO Student Support Services (SSS) program had a site visit from Jonathan
Thomas, Legislative Auditor with LAB. While a final written report is forthcoming, Mr. Thomas’ verbal
report during the site visit indicated everything was in order and there were no concerns regarding the
TRIO SSS Program’s financial processes or record keeping procedures.
Alcohol and Other Drug Education
Sexual violence on college campuses continues to be a concern. In response, the federal government has
several new requirements for schools regarding sexual assault, relationship violence, stalking, and sexual
harassment prevention and response. UW System and UW Colleges staff are working to ensure that we
continue to meet the needs of our students and comply with the new regulations.
New and transfer students to UW Colleges who are taking a course for credit are being required to
complete a web-based training program called Think About It. This program is being utilized
throughout UW System. Students began receiving their personalized email invitations on February 3rd,
with a completion deadline of March 18th. (Continuing students were given access to the training last fall
and are not required to take it again.)
172
Wendy Seegers, our institutional Director of Prevention Programs, is managing the implementation of
this program for our students. Please direct students with questions or concerns to her,
[email protected].
Conduct, Compliance & Residence Life
I am pleased to share Chancellor Sandeen’s approval for a reinvestment of 2.8 FTE in the Office of
Conduct, Compliance and Residence Life within the UW Colleges. The additional positions include an
Assistant Director for Conduct and Residence Life (1.0 FTE), Assistant Director for Conduct and Crisis
Management (1.0 FTE) and an Office Operations Associate (0.80 FTE). The reinvestment also includes
a change in title for Kristine McCaslin to Director of Conduct, Compliance and Residence Life.
This reinvestment allows the office of Conduct, Compliance and Residence Life to better lead, manage
and coordinate responses for Behavioral Intervention Teams, Clery Report, and compliance more
effectively.
Thank you to Dr. Joseph Foy for leading this initiative while in his Interim role as the Associate Vice
Chancellor of Student Affairs and Enrollment Management.
2017 UWC Leadership Conference Summary
The UWC Leadership Conference was held January 10-11, 2017 at the Glacier Canyon Lodge in the
Wisconsin Dells, with 124 participants in attendance. The two-day conference consisted of sixteen breakout sessions and two roundtable discussions, along with an opening keynote by Dr. Melissa Stutz,
Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs and Enrolment Management. Several ice-breakers and
networking sessions were scattered throughout. The primary goals of this conference were to develop
new leadership skills and network with other student leaders of the two-year campuses.
Sessions were presented by student life and student affairs staff from the UWC campuses, along with the
officers of SGC. Students enjoyed the highly participative and engaging nature of this conference.
Leadership topics, such as “Communicating with Assertiveness” and “Color Lines and Boundaries” were
offered, in addition to sessions on personal and career development such as “Living a Healthy Lifestyle
for Successful Leadership” and “10 Things Employers Want You to Learn in College”.
Respectfully submitted,
Melissa Stutz
Associate Vice Chancellor,
Student Affairs and Enrollment Management
02.09.17
173
Attachment 38
Senate Steering Committee Chair
UW Colleges Faculty Representative to UW System Administration
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
We are moving closer to the formalizing of the policy documents that are the foundation of our
revised Associates degree(s), as the number of introductions at our February meeting will
demonstrate keenly. Various Senate stakeholders including Senate Curriculum Committee chair
Bill Malcuit, members of the Senate Academic Policy Committee Joanne Giordano and Kim
Schatz, Institutional Assessment Coordinator Kristin Plessel, department chairs' representative
Greg Ahrenhoerster, and registrar Larry Graves are meeting weekly to coordinate the various
moving parts of the process, as policy language and new policy development will need to be in
place (approved at the April senate) to move many of the next steps forward. As Senate policy
IP 101.02 notes, "D. Assignment of Associate of Arts and Science Degree Designations
1. Definitions of and criteria for all AAS degree designations, including breadth and emphasis
requirements, shall be approved by the UW Colleges Senate.' As a result, SAPC has been
doing some pretty significant work over winter break revising our curricular policies to reflect the
framework created by the AAS Reimagining Leadership Team and endorsed by the Faculty
Council in November.
Work that will take place across the institution over the next year before a Fall 2018 degree
launch include the following:
● actual mapping of courses in our current curriculum into the new categories;
● identification of any curricular gaps and need for new course development;
● review of proposals for breadth category designations, from departments, by the
Senate Curriculum Committee who is charged with this function
● Review of proposals from departments or individual instructors for High-Impact
Practice designators (first-year seminars, learning communities, writing emphasis,
undergraduate research, collaborative learning, global learning/diversity, and servicelearning).
● Building of the new curricular proposals for 2018-2019, including accounting for
students who will be completing the Associate's under the old degree requirements and
how to transition/grandfather students
Senate Steering is collaborating with the Academic Affairs office, and Central IT personnel to
act on a request from department chairs regarding the development of a centralized location
(sharepoint site) for merit, and retention, tenure, and promotion materials. Because so
much labor takes place in trying to transmit and file various activity reports, retention dossiers,
etc., and then the transmittal and review of those documents also requires significant logistical
management, we are investigating the development of a single-stop site that would allow all
instructional staff to upload their materials to a single spot and Evaluations/Merit and
Department Executive/Campus Promotion and Tenure committees to access materials in that
place. If the permissions issues and maintenance of updated committee membership lists can
174
be managed, this would streamline the process and minimize confusion for people assembling
(and reviewing) these materials that are annually required.
Based on the new, adjusted policy governing "Tenured Faculty Review and Development"
where a final decision regarding a post-tenure review rating must be reached by a dean or
higher-level administrator, the Faculty Professional Standards Committee has been working to
revise the 506 and 506.01 policies that you have already seen in the fall to be in compliance
with the new requirement. They will be introduced in February, and Faculty Council will need to
hold a special meeting in mid-March or the end of March to adopt if we want to have it approved
at the April 6 Board meeting in Platteville. Campuses that do not have an approved policy in
place will fall under the Interim policy that has been drafted and which you can find here on
page 200. Eight campuses have approved policies and 6 others are in various stages of
development. At least one campus may refuse to adopt the administrative review voluntarily and
is electing to have the interim policy imposed (Stevens Point).
The Board of Regents meeting in February focused largely on reports and not much on policy;
the UW-Superior post-tenure review policy (modeled largely on Milwaukee) was passed by the
Board. UW-Madison's policy has yet to be formally approved.
There was also an announcement by Chancellor Becky Blank of Madison about a new program
called Badger Promise that she is requesting funding from the state for, specifically to offer free
tuition to first-generation college transfer students who come from select transfer-focused
technical colleges and the UW Colleges. This is obviously a great program for students. There
are some concerns coming from other receiving institutions/transfer destinations that this
disadvantages them in the effort to attract transfer students. It is also contingent on funding from
the state.
As I have mentioned in previous reports, the UW System is undertaking a comprehensive
review of its academic staff and university staff titling guidelines which shape different job
classifications and salary/benefits packages. The Title and Total Compensation study
includes an advisory group who is working with the UW System project co-leads on this multiyear project. A company has recently been selected to manage the work. Please see Chief
Financial Officer Steve Wildeck's email of February 2 on this topic. You can find the project
website here: https://www.wisconsin.edu/ohrwd/title-and-total-compensation-study/
Finally, the Governor's budget was released, and you can see there are a number of UW
System-relevant decisions. Of course, none of these are binding, and the Joint Finance
Committee ultimately adopts, rejects, or adjusts the budget plan. You can see the memo here.
The significant aspects to UW seems to be these:
● Cut tuition by 5%
● Provide (Restore) UW system funding by 100 million dollars.
● Development of a "faculty accountability" policy designed to monitor how much
faculty teach
175
● A proposed "opt out" clause for students related to segregated fees (the student
representatives have already registered opposition to this condition)
● The Wisconsin State Journal story also reports that "fulfills UW System officials’
request for $42.5 million of new state funding, but calls for that money to be distributed
based on how campuses perform on an array of metrics. Walker’s budget would provide
an additional $11.6 million to boost pay for UW employees — much less than the $78
million the System requested for pay — and restore $50 million that was cut from UW’s
funding in the current state budget."
● There are also demands that the UW find ways to offer a baccalaureate degree
in three years, reward students who take Flexible option courses, and that some of the
funding allocations be "performance based."
● It requires a doubling of the number of courses that are transferable from the
technical colleges to UW, at least 60 credits.
An ad hoc group of senators continue to work on developing a reorganized and renumbered
policy proposal that would clarify policy locations and make the Senate policy system and the
constitution chapters more useable. The chairs of Senate Academic Policy, Faculty Professional
Standards, Steering, and University Staff and Academic Staff Council are all participating in this
work.
Respectfully submitted,
Holly Hassel
176
Attachment 39
UW Colleges Academic Staff Lead Senator
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
The AS Council and the Faculty Professional Standards Committee have been meeting to
address changes to IP #301, 320, 321, and 323. We hope to develop an IAS-specific version of
the Activity Report (IP 301), one which will provide campus and departmental merit committees
better information to help them make their decisions. IP 320 is being reworked to provide for
five tiers of merit (which will bring it into alignment with the existing faculty and administrative
academic staff merit structures) and to create a framework for distributing merit pay increases.
As part of a general overhaul and renumbering of Senate policies, IP 321 and 323 may need to be
split up and recombined into a single policy focusing on relevant IAS issues (such as definitions
of load and compensation) while removing unrelated issues (such as procedures for determining
when departments should request new faculty lines).
Independently, the Council has been reviewing ASPP #701, 703, and 704 so as to bring them
into alignment with the new regional structure. We are also determining where practice and
policy are out of step and how to correct any imbalances.
Respectfully Submitted,
Jeff Verona
February 24, 2017
177
Attachment 40
UW Colleges Academic Staff Representative to UW System Administration
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
This report summarizes the discussions during three UW System Rep Meeting held on
November 11, 2016, December 2, 2016, and February 10, 2017. These meetings included
specific Academic Staff meetings chaired by Kevin Niemi and Joint Sessions of Academic Staff,
Faculty, University Staff, and Student Representatives.
November 11, 2016
One of the important AS topics discussed in the November 11, 2016 meeting centered around
the FLSA changes. Since this meeting was held prior to the injunction, some of these issues have
become mute points. This report lists the discussions here for the record. First, it should be
noted that the UW-Stout representative expressed concern with how their institution
eliminated several Residence Hall positions, replacing these with fewer position, higher salary,
and expanded responsibility. Their plan was also slated add two new administrative positions to
oversee the staff. Furthers concerns were related to post-docs. Other points discussed include,
concern over how the titling and compensation study might impact both Academic and
University Staff, how campus renewal letter policies are inconsistent, and how UW-Madison is
discussing AS issues such as degree requirement inconsistencies and how to best recognize
research AS. The group also voiced a need to begin a letter writing campaign to express the
value of AS to the state.
During the meeting, Margo Lessard from UW System addressed the group to answer questions
raised earlier in the meeting, such as how to best handle situations like UW-Stout is facing. Her
message was that changes are made at institution level. She also commented on how FLSA
changes might impact health insurance. Finally, she mentioned that AS are automatically
renewed without the need for a renewal letter and non-renewals can be 3-12 months. This
aligns with the Chapter 10/PD Administrative Code.
The general meeting included a message from Petra Roter, UWSA, who updated the reps on
two Board policies, one on Sexual Violence, misconduct and harassment, and one on
consensual relationships, including expansion and clarification of the one that already exists.
They will bring those policies to the attention of the BOR in December. Jim Henderson also
addressed the group on a variety of items which include:
o Education Committee passed a post-tenure review that was approved.
o The Budget committee created an Investment sub- committee.
o UW-Stout had a vigil for the student that was killed. President Cross attended.
o Some campuses were recognized for supporting Veterans. The under-secretary of
Veteran Affairs mentioned the challenge of high suicide rates of Veterans. Mental
Health Services need to be more readily available for them.
178
o The Senior Student Affairs officers (SSAOs) explained to the Regents what they do.
How they help students grow and succeed.
o The Regents listened at a presentation on operational excellence and how to
streamline processes.
o They also listened to a presentation by Jim Henderson on accountability.
o The issue of Faculty and Staff excellence, will be talked about at the December BOR
meeting at which time they will also talk about pay plan.
o A Faculty member from UWM was recognized with a MacArthur Genius award for
her research on Alzheimer's disease.
Finally, Ray Cross addressed the group, commenting on post tenure review and broader items
such as public perception of higher education and the UW System. He asked the group what
sort of values we all share, how we can better communicate these to larger stakeholders, and
how we might counteract a demand for performance-based funding. These remarks were more
informal and expressed his frustration in recent budget changes.
December 2, 2017
The December 2, 2017 AS meeting opened with a concern in how UW-Madison has slipped in
research funding according to the Higher Education Research and Development Survey (HERD)
found here: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyherd/. The slide to below the “top 5” has not
occurred since the mid 1970’s and has been in decline since 2012. The group sees this as a
concern for public perception of the value of higher education in the state.
The group also discussed concern over the campus “conceal-carry” legislation. All
representatives indicated that their campuses are not in favor of this policy and want to figure
whether policy should be set at the system level or by campus.
Another topic discussed addressed concerns over shared governance changes on UW
campuses. UW-Madison has issued a statement titled, “Values Statement on Shared
Governance”, which highlights to positive aspect of the practice. Other campuses feel that
shared governance is both eroding and strengthening. For example, UW-EC has experienced
frustrations of their “top-down” administration, whereas UW-L felt their changes to the post
tenure review – rejected by the BOR – is a shift towards shared governance.
The group discussed concerns over campus climate and is worried about tensions being raised
on campuses based on racial and gender identities. Our group is asking the UW System to
collect incident data in hopes of addressing any problems.
The topic on campus pay plans was also raised, particularly as they relate to upcoming
performance measures. There is concern in how these changes will impact the academic staff.
The general meeting included the following topics:
 FLSA update from Margo Lessard, where she reported that any proposed changes are
pending until after the new Federal Administration is in place
179



Jeff Buhrandt spoke about concealed-carry legislation, urging that students being the
biggest stakeholders, should contact their local representative
Jim Henderson spoke about the $42.5 million budget request as it ties into the
2020FWD framework and performance metrics
Freda Harris spoke on the Tuition Task Force, who are exploring factors for tuition
setting across the system campuses. Their report will be submitted to the BOR.
February 10, 2017
The February 10 AS meeting continued the conversation started in earlier meetings on
potential concealed-carry legislation. UW-Madison had started a campus discussion on the
potential passing of concealed-carry. They are willing to share the results of their resolution.
They would like to emphasize that students should be a part of the process, but some students
may favor a conceal-carry policy. It is best to work with student government representatives.
The group also had a discussion on the holiday calendar. Each chancellor sets these policies, but
a state mandate (Chapter 995-20) sets the rules for holidays. There is a need to know how to
set policy to close an office, but still allow people to work if they want.
The group had a discussion on the tuition reduction initiative and the budget in general. There
is confusion if the proposed 5% cut is the actual number. There is also concern of differential
tuition. An alternative idea is to provide extra financial aid funding instead of tuition reduction.
The bill also contains language asking for a study of academic freedom. The group debated how
the budget may be tied to performance metrics, which is seen as unfair if proposed via
legislation instead of through Board of Regent policy.
The joint meeting helped clear up some questions and confusion.
During this meeting Shenita Brokenburr, Wayne Guthrie, and Mark Walters gave an update on
the Title and Compensation study. The RFP analysis is complete and awarded to the vendor,
Mercer. The work will begin in March 2017 and be completed by March 2019. The plan is to
work with internal subject matter experts and the vendor to propose changes. A PowerPoint
slidedeck is available if anyone is interested.
Jeff Buhrandt gave an update on legislator activities and the proposed budget. He spoke on the
2/2 payment plan where $11 million is budgeted to cover the 2% raise, but this depends on
local policy. In mentioning the 5% tuition reduction, he indicated that legislators are also
considering using the money for financial aid. On another note, self-insurance is also not
supported by the legislator. The budget is also requesting faculty workload in order to
demonstrate consistency – and not be a tracking mechanism. Regarding performance-based
funding, the conversation seems to be moving towards the model the tech schools use, tying 510% to performance metrics, but the understanding is that each campus will have different
needs. The legislators are also cognizant in how the 5% tuition reduction or freezing could
180
impact allocable fees. Finally, he commented on the academic freedom study, nothing that the
Board of Regents had conducted a similar study last summer.
Jim Henderson updated the group on issues related to the budget as well. Regarding
performance funding, he emphasized that the Board of Regents should be the ones to set
metrics and fund allocation and not legislation. Related to this he mentioned that UW should
be judged as a system and not by individual campuses. He also spoke on the complexities of
creating 3-year degree pathways. The argument that it saves students money does not seem to
be validated and in some cases, such as with UW-Madison students, most prefer to complete in
4 years. Finally, he mentioned that the Board of Regents had approved the post-tenure review
plan submitted by UW-Superior.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kevin Forgard
February 24, 2017
181
Attachment 41
UW Colleges University Staff Lead Senator
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Senators and Council Representatives
Senators - Nica Wilson (ONL, Chair); Justeen Mallo (MTH, Vice Chair); Christi Larson (WSH,
Secretary); Jason Schulte (BRB, Member at Large); Lynette Kopetsky (MSF, System Rep)
Council Representatives - Joyce Bell (WAK); Ann LaForce (SHB); Tracy Schwartz (FOX); Snider,
Linda (BRN); Linda Hornick (MNT); Cina LeSuong (RLN);
University Staff Council Meetings:
January 17
February 21
March 21
April 18
Recent Updates:

University Staff Council has started sending out a quarterly newsletter to University Staff to
more effectively communicate policy changes and council activities. The first newsletter went
out on 1/17/17.

We are discussing the impacts of limiting participation in University Staff Governance to a
greater than 50% appointment. Council representatives are working with HR to assess how
many university staff could potentially be impacted by membership cut offs.

I have been working with senate representatives from each governing body (Senate Chair
Holly Hassel, Faculty Senate Chair Ron Gulotta, SAPC Chair Joanne Giordano, and
Academic Staff Chair Jeff Verona) and Linda Baum in the process of renumbering and
organizing existing senate policies.

A sincere thanks to Senate Chair Holly Hassel and Linda Baum for their work renumbering
and formatting the existing University Staff Council policies to more closely align with other
senate policies. Once the revisions are complete, the policies will be available on the Senate
website.
Respectfully submitted,
Monica Wilson, Chair
UW Colleges University Staff Council
182
Attachment 42
UW Colleges University Staff Representative to UW System Administration
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Since our last Senate meeting in November, I have attended Governance meetings in November
and December in Madison, the Regents meeting in December in Madison and watched the live
stream of the Regents meeting this month. The University Staff portion of the Governance
meetings focused on policy updates the various campuses are working on and the pressures that
are on University Staff who serve in governance from their supervisors or departments. It is very
difficult to find people to serve on campus committees and in shared governance when they are
deemed “too valuable to take time away” from their jobs.
The Regents meetings have been focusing on various things that were touched on in the joint
governance meetings, such as the Consensual Relationships policy, PTR, Faculty turnover, and
the upcoming (at that time) Governor’s budget and how that will affect our campuses.
Respectfully submitted,
Lynnette Kopetsky
University Staff Council System Representative
February 10, 2017
183
Attachment 43
UW Colleges Student Governance President
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
The Student Governance Council (SGC) got off to a rough start in 2017 as our
meeting on
January 26th did not make quorum. Attendance continues to be an issue for the
SGC and making
quorum will be an even be greater challenge once the UWC Online campus is
formally
established. The addition of the fourteenth campus will mean a representative
or representatives
from at least eight campus student governments must be present to hold a
formal meeting.
Another unfortunate issue is that there is currently a vacancy on the SGC
Executive Board (as of
writing this report) due to our now former Financial Director, Yun Wang,
transferring to
UW-Madison over Winter break. The election of a new Financial Director was
scheduled for our
January 26th meeting but as previously mentioned we did not make quorum so the
position
continues to be vacant.
Vice-President Smith and myself attended the joint shared governance session
in Madison on
February 10th. We found the session to be a good networking and information
gathering
opportunity and I expect we will attend more sessions in the future. We also
have visited
UW-Richland and UW-Washington County to meet with their campus SGs and have
plans to
visit UW-Sheboygan, UW Marshfield/Wood County, and UW-Rock County in the near
future.
Respectfully submitted,
Cris Mendoza
184
Attachment 44
Senate Academic Policy Committee Chair
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
The Senate Academic Policy Committee had an intensive first semester and winter break. The
committee worked on creating a curricular policy from the framework for the new associate
degrees (which the Senate Faculty Council endorsed in November 2016). We also developed
related policies to facilitate the curricular proposal work that academic departments and
programs will do prior to the launch of the new degree. A proposed new curricular approval
process policy brings together policies from multiple places and eliminates varying types of
curricular approval requirements based on degree designators. If the proposed changes are
adopted, each course proposal would have the same set of guidelines with additional guidelines
for creating a rationale for a degree designator.
SAPC also began work on revising all of the academic policies to reflect current practices and
changes related to regionalization and consolidated services. We prioritized policies that need to
be in place before the start of the 2017 to 2018 academic year. These policies include a)
curricular policies and b) academic procedures for students. In Spring 2017, SAPC will work on
reviewing instructional policies, curricular policies, and additional policies related to students
with the goal of finishing and introducing revised versions of most policies by September.
Committee members were also very active in other Senate groups and serving as liaisons
between SAPC and other committees (a new associate degree Senate leaders team, the AAS
degree reimagining team, SCC, SBCC, and a group that reviewed a policy related to the
restructuring of academic departments and programs.
A list of completed SAPC policies is included at the bottom of this report, which does not
include other policies that SAPC began working on to introduce in April.
Submitted by Joanne Baird Giordano
Chair, Senate Academic Policy Committee
General Institutional Policies
● #409 Process for Changes to Department Structure/Departmental Restructuring [reviewed
and sent to Steering Chair for final editing and introduction by Steering]
● Classification of Disciplines Within Departments and Programs [moved from AAS and
BAAS degree policies]
185
Curricular Policies
See the supporting document, “Overview of Proposed Restructuring of Institutional
Curricular Policies.”
New Associate Degree Policies
● Associate Degrees--new policy to replace 101: Associate of Arts and Sciences
● Approval Process for an Associate Degree Depth Sequence
● Guidelines for High Impact Practice Courses
BAAS Policies
● 141: Bachelor of Applied Arts and Science Degree [updated by the Provost’s Office]
● 141.01: Bachelor of Applied Arts and Sciences Degree Guidelines for Professional
Experience Courses [updated by the Provost’s Office]
Restructuring of 101.02 Curriculum Guidelines
● Curricular Approval Process (includes information reorganized from other policies)
● Guidelines for Curricular Proposals (includes information reorganized from other
policies)
● Curriculum Planning (includes information reorganized from other policies)
○ Supporting Documents: UW Colleges Curriculum Planning Timeline, Protocol
for Addressing Low-Enrolled Course Considerations,
● Processes for Reviewing Curricular Offerings
● Process for Deleting and Banking Courses
● Catalog and Schedule Course Descriptions
Other Curricular Policies (information from policies to be eliminated with the new degree)
● Approval Process for an Associate Degree De
● Courses Offered by Staff Not Affiliated with a Department
Instructional Policies
● Grade Reporting [moved from 202 Academic Procedures and Regulations]
Policies Regarding Students
Restructuring of 202 Academic Procedures and Regulations [updated for consolidated
services]
● Grading Policies for Students [202.II]s
● Definition of Credit [202.I]
● Registration [202.III and 201.III]
● Academic Standing [202.IV]
● Dean’s List and Graduation Honors
● Changes to Academic Procedures and Regulations for Students [202.V]
186
Other Student Policy Revisions
● 201 Admission to the Associate of Arts and Science Degree Program [updated for
consolidated services]
● 206: UWS 14 Academic Misconduct Institutional Procedures [updated for compliance
with UW System Guidelines and institutional restructuring]
Policies for Teaching Staff
● 301.01 Administering the Student Survey of Instruction
● SSI Guiding Document (introduced for Senate endorsement)
187
Attachment 45
Senate Budget Committee Chair
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
The Senate Budget Committee (SBC) is preparing for the Biennium budget release. The
Governor had released his budget on February 8, but the SBC has not discussed anything specific
at the time of this report.
Colleen Godfriaux presented to the SBC on instructional budgets. We reviewed the budget cycle
and process from the state level, reviewed the most recent budget reduction process, and looked
at a breakdown of the budget by source, function, and expense type. FY16 fund balances broken
down by campus were looked at, and revenue variance from FY14-FY16 were examined,
including FY17 estimated variances.
SBC also began discussions on campus budget committee structures. Campuses ranged from
having formal budget committees to budget decisions being made by steering committees. With
the new operating model, efforts are being made to standardize the budgeting of campus based
S&E funds.
Respectfully submitted,
Mark Klemp
Chairperson, Senate Budget Committee
February 10, 2017
188
Attachment 46
Faculty Professional Standards Committee Chair
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
The Faculty Professional Standards Committee (FPSC) has been working on many tasks directed
to us by the Senate Steering. Most importantly is the revision to FPP #506 regarding Post-Tenure
Review (PTR). Our revised FPP#506 and new 506.01, as adopted by the senate on Nov. 11, 2016
was not acceptable to the Board of Regents, as they amended their requiring policy (BOR
RPD20-9) to demand an independent review by a senior administrator of the institution. In
addition, there were a few changes requested by System Legal officials. We have carefully
reviewed and debated numerous options, including the option to not grant the independent
review, and, in the end, have chosen to allow a focused, independent review by the provost. We
will be introducing our latest revisions of FPP#506 and 506.01 to the Faculty Council of
Senators for final approval at the April meetings.
FPSC has collaborated with members of the Academic Staff Council to review and improve IAS
reporting forms, merit rankings and policy #320. We have reached agreement on plans of action
and shall convert these into policy and form changes by the April meetings.
During winter break, as part of requests for numerous updates to existing policies, and upon
recommendation from the FPSC, a group of senators worked together to re-design the structural
shell for our policies. It seemed foolish to continue to place patches on a policy structure
designed, 15 years ago, to meet our needs at that time. FPSC members were exceptionally
challenged to find all bits of policy addressing single issues, such as home campus and split
appointments, among many others. We discovered that policies titled with one purpose had been
amended to include policy language covering new and different issues. The FPSC suggested that
time had come to re-organize our policies into a structure which was logical, sensible, consistent,
and searchable. The chairpersons of SAPC, FPSC, and senate councils participated in working
sessions to draft a shell structure for policy with numbering and naming which would meet our
goals. The general product of this work will be presented by senate steering. The first outcome
for the FPSC has been the need to create a lead policy for the faculty policy section which would
cover all issues of an appointment as a faculty member. This has blended elements currently
located in FPP#501, 501.01, 603, 408, and 409, along with Admin Policy #46. The title of the
policy and of its’ sections and sub-sections should make finding relevant policy directions much
easier. This new policy is to be introduced at these meetings.
Revisions to the Activity report are also progressing, and I shall share the progress on the revised
method at today’s meetings. The current plan proposed by the FPSC is to use a Qualtrics survey
as the vehicle for reporting activities annually. This allows us to customize reporting items to fit
the differences of reporting by faculty and IAS, as well as from department to department or
campus to campus so as to fit with established standards and rubrics. It is our hope this will also
make for clear and streamlined reporting and for easier recognition of key elements by those
tasked with reviewing Activity Reports.
The FPSC has worked with the SFAGC to be able to bring to the Faculty Council today a request
for endorsement of their revised procedural guidelines. We continue to consult with the FLEX
189
Program to help bring compensation for a few cases into faculty/IAS load. The FPSC also is
working with senate steering to substantially revise our constitutional language and policy
language addressing appeals and grievances.
Should the revised policy structure be approved today, the FPSC shall be working towards many
policy re-numberings and restructurings. We also continue to explore the best ways to update
our severely outdated processes for assuring adherence to our codes of conduct and of research
ethics. Finally, a major task in the next few months is to take existing policies and from them
craft a new policy to deal with cases requiring layoff of faculty members, as this policy is also
demanded by the Board of Regents.
Respectfully submitted,
Ron Gulotta, Ph.D.
Chairperson, Faculty Professional Standards Committee
190
Attachment 47
Senate Assessment Committee Chair
Report to the UW Colleges Senate
February 24, 2017
Since the last SAC report to the Senate in October 2016 the Senate Assessment Committee has
met four times via Skype.
On October 25, 2016, SAC met for a one-hour Skype meeting to share information about
ePortfolios and discuss next steps.
On October 27, 2016, SAC met with CACs in a 90 minute Skype meeting to discuss upcoming
campus assessment plans. CACs were encouraged to reach out to others with similar projects.
On November 28, 2016, SAC met via Skype for one hour to review and approve pooled
assessment funds.
On January 17, 2017, SAC met with DACs in a three hour Skype meeting, with CACs in a two
hour Skype meeting, and alone for one hour.
SAC members are continuing to investigate the use of ePortfolios. Kristin Plessel and
Bree Lybbert are part of a team attending the AAC&U 2017 General Education and
Assessment: Design Thinking for Student Learning Conference at the end of February
and will bring back additional information to further the discussions.
Department Assessment Coordinators are investigating how our current UWC
proficiencies used for assessment communicate with the descriptors in the breadth
category.
Campus Assessment Coordinators are discussing a proposal to move to a multi-year
assessment plan. SAC will return to CAC with a more-defined process at the next
meeting.
Submitted by
Sue Kalinka, SAC Chair
February 10, 2017
191
Attachment 48
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed New Policy FPP #5xx
(“Faculty Appointments Policy”)
Rationale:
Over the past two decades within the UW Colleges we have introduced numerous variations to
the standard faculty appointment, including splits in appointments between campuses and
departments, splits with administrative duties, the formation of new departments/programs, and
the formation of online programs elevated to the level of a virtual campus. As we have added
these new conditions to appointments, we have added patches to existing policies, scattering
many now important and rather regular policy elements in various and not so obvious locations.
It is the intent of this new policy to consolidate all policies related to a faculty appointment in
one policy as the lead policy of the section of policies affecting faculty. This policy mostly copies
policy statements already approved for the UW Colleges, yet still adding new language to cover
issues exposed as absent and unaddressed in current policy. There is language to more clearly
specify obligations of service and professional development as part of split appointments, of
reporting and considering of service and professional development voluntarily offered to a
secondary campus or department, and of need for the chancellor to offer letters of reappointment when specified changes to one’s appointment have been made. There is also new
language to cover processes of changing appointments due to assignment to a new
department/program or to a new home department. Previous policy language covering
voluntary and requested re-assignments of campus, from FPP#603, have been incorporated into
this policy.
_____________________________________________________________
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #5xx
Faculty Appointments Policy
========================================================
This policy is to govern many of the conditions and privileges of the contractual relationship of
employment of faculty members of the University of Wisconsin Colleges. This shall include
statements of minimum qualifications for hiring as a faculty member, the specifics of content of
the letter of appointment or re-appointment, the faculty member’s assignment of home campus
and assignments to secondary campuses, the faculty member’s assignment to home department
and assignments to secondary departments, the details governing split appointments to multiple
campuses and/or departments, and specifics governing changing aspects of a faculty member’s
appointment.
I. Minimum Criteria for Initial Faculty Appointments
The UW Colleges will seek to employ those faculty who, because of their academic
preparation and other experience, exhibit the potential for outstanding teaching, scholarly
activity, and professional University service. In addition, since many UW Colleges campuses
192
Commented [GR1]: Language from 501.II
have some one- or two-person departments, and faculty are often required to teach a wide
range of courses, the candidate's academic preparation and experience in the discipline must
be broad as well as deep.
The UW Colleges’ academic departments and programs comply with Higher Learning
Commission (HLC) requirements for the credentialing of faculty and all other levels of
instructors, as generally stipulated in senate policy #301. The appropriate degree(s) as well
as other minimum academic preparation for appointment to the faculty shall be determined
by the Provost in consultation with the appropriate department chair(s). Normally the
appropriate degree will be the terminal degree in the discipline. Any exceptions or special
circumstances applicable to an appointment shall be included in an annual report to the UW
Colleges Faculty Professional Standards Committee. Criteria shall apply to part-time as well
as full-time appointments.
Commented [GR2]: Language added upon suggestion
from Greg Lampe.
Commented [GR3]: This number may change
Academic Ranks:
A. Instructor: Probationary appointments at the rank of Instructor may be made for
those individuals who have not completed an appropriate degree or other academic
requirements specified by the department(s). Understandings regarding degree
completion shall be included in the letter of appointment. Progress toward degree
completion shall be included in the third-year tenure-progress review and shall be
considered in annual retention recommendations.
B. Assistant Professor: Probationary appointments at the rank of Assistant Professor
will be made for individuals with an appropriate degree and other academic
requirements specified by the department(s).
C. Associate Professor: Appointments at the rank of Associate Professor may be made
in exceptional circumstances and with approval of the department and the Provost for
individuals who have achieved at least that rank at another accredited college or
university.
D. Exceptions to criteria for A and B above: At times, when the employment pool is
limited, temporary suspension of a department's degree standards for initial
appointment may be required. A request for suspension of the degree standards,
accompanied by supporting evidence, should normally be made by the department
chair to the Provost on an annual basis prior to the initiation of the hiring process.
Level of Tenure:
E. Probationary Tenure-Track – This recurring probationary appointment is usually
for a six-year period during which the faculty member is reviewed annually to review
and support progress towards a level of performance worthy of the status of Tenured
Faculty member. The details of the reviews and progression to tenure are stipulated
in policies 501 and 501.01. At the time of initial appointment to the level of
Probationary Tenure-Track, the faculty member may be granted Prior Service
Credit in whole year increments which would shorten the probationary period prior
to a tenure decision. The granting of this prior service shall be made by the provost
193
Commented [GR4]: Added to clarify Probationary
language as also meaning tenure-track.
Commented [GR5]: Added upon suggestion from
department chairs.
based on recommendation from the academic department the faculty member is
joining. While the usual period of Probationary Tenure-Track is six years, there is
provision in 501 allowing for earlier tenure reviews after four or five years as a
Probationary Tenure Track Faculty member.
F. Tenured – This recurring faculty appointment is an essential part of the guarantee of
academic freedom that is necessary for university- based intellectual life to flourish.
The grant of indeterminate tenure to faculty members represents an enormous
investment of university and societal resources, and those who receive this investment
do so only after rigorous review which establishes that their teaching, scholarship,
research, and service meets the highest standards and are congruent with the needs of
the university. The Tenured Level of Appointment is usually granted to a faculty
member who has successfully completed the probationary tenure-track period of
review (see policy#50_), but may be granted to a new hire in exceptional
circumstances and with the approval of the department and the Provost for individuals
who have achieved tenure and at least the rank of Associate Professor at another
accredited college or university in the discipline for which they are being hired.
These exceptional cases should also demonstrate that the new hire has a record of
teaching, scholarship, research, and service at this previous institution consistent with
the standards for awarding of tenure in the UW Colleges.
II. Letters of Appointment and Re-Appointment
The provisions of this section of the policy are in compliance with Chapter 5.00 of the UWC
Constitution. At the time of original appointment, or upon substantial change to the
conditions of an ongoing appointment (re-appointment), the chancellor shall issue a Letter of
Appointment/Re-Appointment specifying the Level of Appointment (including any special
conditions for maintaining this level of appointment), the Home Campus for the faculty
member, the Home Department/Program of the faculty member and any and all
Secondary Departments/Programs to which the faculty member has joined, and the
condition of any and all Splits to the Appointment. The Appointment/Re-Appointment
Letter shall also contain any special conditions of the appointment, including, but not limited
to, requirement to develop online courses, perform administrative duties, or acquire
additional education credentials.
III. Home Campus and Secondary Campuses
Upon Appointment, a home campus will be assigned for a faculty member. This may be any
one of the 13 physical campuses or the online virtual campus of the UW Colleges at which
the faculty member teaches at least 50% of her/his load. The faculty member may request a
change of home campus if membership is granted by the new campus and accepted by the
provost. Such a change would be considered a Change of Appointment and follow the
procedures of section VI below. The faculty member may select to belong to other
campuses, where he/she teaches, as secondary campuses.
194
Commented [GR6]: This section elaborates on provision
of 501.II.B.1
The home campus will take responsibility for campus reviews in the tenure review process,
the annual merit review process, and the post-tenure review process. Secondary campuses
will have a role in these reviews, specified below in section V. For all forms of review, the
expectations for campus service will be to the home campus, with any additional service to
secondary campuses considered as bonus service.
IV. Home Department/Program and Secondary Departments/Programs
Upon appointment, a home department/program will be assigned for a faculty member,
consistent with her/his teaching and professional development obligations. The faculty
member may request a change of home department/program if membership is granted by the
new department/program and accepted by the Provost. Such a change would be considered a
Change of Appointment and follow the procedures of section VI below. The faculty member
may request to join, with secondary membership, other departments/programs in which
he/she teaches at least one course per two-year cycle. The decision to grant secondary
department/program membership shall rest with the departments/programs.
Commented [GR7]: This section elaborates on provision
of 501.II.B.1
The home department/program will take responsibility for departmental reviews in the tenure
review process, the annual merit review process, and the post-tenure review process.
Secondary departments/programs will have a role in these reviews, specified below in section
V. For all forms of review, the expectations for departmental service and for professional
development will be to the home department/program, with any additional service to
secondary departments/programs considered as bonus service or professional development.
V. Split Appointments
Whether assigned or chosen, splits in appointment, for campus, department/program, or
administrative assignments must be designated in the Appointment Letter. This designation
should stipulate the home and secondary in each case. In the case of split campus
appointments, all travels to the secondary campus for employment activities (occurring on
the same day as employment activities on the home campus) will include a mileage
reimbursement for travel expenses from the home campus (see Adminsitrative Policy #46).
Home campus and/or department/program takes lead responsibility for all personnel
decisions and reviews, including retention, tenure, and promotion decisions and merit and
post-tenure reviews. Secondary campuses and departments/programs will be granted a path
to inform the home campus or department of relevant work at the secondary campus or
department which should be considered in the personnel decision or review (see V.C-E
below). The home campus or department/program will be the campus or
department/program registering official votes in these respective processes, and the home
campus or department/program shall not take this vote until it has received and considered
the information from all secondary campuses or department/programs.
A. Voting and Rights to Committee Membership
The faculty member with a split appointment shall have full voting rights and rights to
committee memberships at the home campus and in the home department/program.
195
Commented [GR8]: It is important to limit collegium
voting privileges to home campus to prevent cases of
double voting on College’s wide matters. However, we also
strive to encourage any level of chosen participation in
committee work at secondary campuses and in secondary
departments or programs, thus we wish to allow campuses
and departments to grant such voting rights as they see fit.
Voting rights and voluntary committee membership may be granted at secondary
campuses and in secondary departments/programs if permitted by the campus or
department/program by-laws, but voting rights in campus collegium shall be limited to
the home campus.
B. Professional Development and Service Obligations and Considerations
There shall only be expectations of committee membership and participation, or any
other form of service, at the home campus and in the home department/program.
However, if allowed by the campus or department/program by-laws, a faculty member
may volunteer to provide committee service or any other form of service. Should such
service be provided to secondary campuses and/or secondary departments/programs, such
service should be reflected in retention, tenure, and promotion documentation, as well as
in annual Activity Reports. The significance of service to a secondary campus should be
emphasized in the Activity Report and in tenure and promotion dossiers by the faculty
member providing such service, and reviewing home campuses and departments shall
consider such secondary campus service as part of the faculty member’s total service
contributions.
Professional Development work is most closely tied to disciplinary divisions. There shall
only be expectations of professional development within the discipline associated with
the home department/program. However, a faculty member may elect to include a
portion of professional development work within a discipline more closely associated
with a secondary department/program. In such cases, the faculty member shall convey
such professional development work in this secondary area as part of documentation in
the annual Activity Report and in all tenure and promotion dossiers, and home
departments and campuses shall consider such secondary area professional development
work as part of the total professional development work of the faculty member.
C. Procedures for Retention, Tenure, and Promotion Decisions Involving Split
Appointments
The following order of deliberations shall occur in the case of appointments split between
“home” and “secondary” departments/programs and/or campuses:
1. For tenure and promotion decisions in which an appointment is split between a home
department and a secondary department, the secondary department shall forward to
the home department a formal recommendation for personnel action by Jan. 12. Both
departments shall consider the same set of materials submitted by the probationary
candidate. The home department shall consider the secondary department’s
recommendation in its deliberations on the personnel action. Whenever a secondary
department fails to support tenure or promotion, the secondary department shall be
consulted for a full and substantive explanation of its decision before the home
department’s vote is taken. In the deliberations of the home and secondary
departments, only the home department’s deliberations shall include a recorded vote.
196
Commented [GR9]: This is consistent with current
features in 501, with the exception that it only stipulates a
decision first by the secondary department or campus in
tenure and promotion cases. It is suggested by chair of
chairs that in retention decisions the concerns of a
secondary campus or department may be raised in a prior
year at any point in the annual review process and
communications shared with the home campus and/or
department. (see #3 of this section)
Commented [GR10]: This date is set in FPP#501 for the
6th-year decision, which should be labeled the tenure
decision year, due to early tenure and prior service credit
cases. It is also the date for promotion decisions.
2. For tenure and for promotion decisions in which an appointment is split between a
home campus and a secondary campus, the secondary campus shall forward to the
home campus a formal recommendation for personnel action after the secondary
campus has received the department’s vote on the personnel action and no later than
Jan. 30. Both campuses shall consider the same set of materials forwarded by the
department. The home campus shall consider the secondary campus’s
recommendation in its deliberations on the personnel action. Whenever a secondary
campus fails to support a tenure or promotion decision, the secondary campus shall be
consulted for a full and substantive explanation of its decision before the home
campus’s vote is taken. In the deliberations of the home campus and secondary
campus, only the home campus’s deliberations shall include a recorded vote.
3. Secondary campuses and departments may communicate their positive and negative
assessments of a Probationary Faculty Member not yet in a tenure decision year with
the faculty member’s home campus and/or department in an annual letter sent during
the spring term of each academic year (no later than May 1). Home campuses and
departments shall incorporate these assessments from the secondary campus or
department in the next retention review of that Probationary Faculty member.
D. Procedures for Merit Reviews Involving Split Appointments
Merit Reviews, Rankings and Reports are the activities of home campuses and
departments. In the cases of faculty with split appointments, as part of the merit review,
which leads to the ranking, home campus and/or department shall include consideration
of the reported contributions to the secondary campus and/or department/program, as
reported in the Activity Reports.
E. Procedures for Post-Tenure Review Involving Split Appointments
Post-Tenure Reviews are the activities of the PTR Committee comprised of members
from the home department and the home campus of the faculty member under review. In
cases of faculty members with split appointments, the PTR Committee shall be sure to
consider materials regarding secondary campus or department/program activities noted in
the Annual Reports submitted by the faculty member.
VI. Changing Appointment
An Appointment as a member of the faculty of the UW Colleges remains in effect until a
personnel action occurs which changes terms of an appointment for more than two semesters.
These term changes can include the removal or addition of a special condition, a change of
academic rank or tenure status, a change of home campus or department/program, a change
in split of appointment by assignment or voluntary arrangement. Several of these changes
have special procedures specified below or in other 500 level policies. As specified above,
any change to the appointment of a faculty member requires the issuance by the Chancellor
of a new, re-appointment letter.
197
Commented [GR11]: This date is set in current FPP#501
for 6th year review. We may need to revise 501 to eliminate
several dates in years prior to the 6th. We currently set
dates for split appointment reviews in the 3rd year far too
late in the year (April 22), delaying 3rd-year decisions until
May 1.
A. Reassignment of Home Campus – Voluntary Transfer
If there is a tenure-track vacancy anticipated at a UW Colleges campus for any reason, all
faculty members in that discipline shall be notified. The chair's notification to
department faculty shall include a deadline for responses from those interested in
transfer. Any requests for transfer shall be referred to the Provost by the chair. Before
opening a position for search, the Provost shall decide whether or not to grant the
transfer. In making the decision, the Provost shall take into account the
recommendations of the department(s), the REOs and RADAAs of the UW Colleges
involved, and the receiving appointments committee. The effect of the transfer on the
programs and budgets of the UW Colleges campus involved shall also be considered.
Since this is a voluntary transfer, there is no obligation to pay relocation expenses, nor is
there any guarantee that the faculty member will be replaced at his/her previous UW
Colleges campus by someone of the same rank, salary, or percentage of time. In the case
of multiple requests for transfer to the same open position, first choice should be made on
the basis of the academic backgrounds of the candidates and the program at the receiving
UW Colleges campus. With all other considerations equal, the choice will be on the
basis of UW Colleges seniority. At all levels of recommendation, the welfare of the UW
Colleges as a whole is presumed to be the most important factor in deliberations. The
provost, in making such final decisions on voluntary transfers, shall most strongly
attempt to get all parties involved to reach agreement on the transfer.
B. Institutional Reassignment of Home Campus
The need for inter-campus reassignment may be identified by a department, a campus, or
UW Colleges administration and occurs only after consultation by all parties involved.
Inter-campus reassignment can be permanent or temporary as well as full or partial.
Wherever enrollment or curricular concerns exist, the evaluation of a position(s) may be
initiated by the Department Chair, the Campus RADAA or the Provost. Any proposed
change in position(s) will be documented with available data from the Office of
Academic and Student Affairs and presented so as to allow sufficient time for
consultation. The time period for consultation will be normally no later than February 15
for the following fall semester or October 15 for the following spring semester. In the
instance of one section in a semester when unexpected enrollments occur, the time period
for consultation should be a minimum of a week prior to the beginning of classes.
Consultation shall involve the Department Chair, REO, RADAA, Provost, and the
individual(s) affected. The Curriculum and Personnel Committees on both campuses
shall also be included in this process. No final decision shall be reached until such
consultation has occurred and various alternatives have been explored. Such consultation
must be confirmed in writing within thirty (30) days after the initiation of the consultation
process. Agreement should be by consensus, but in the absence of consensus, the final
decision is to be made by the provost who will communicate the decision in writing to all
parties concerned. In the case of a temporary reassignment, the duration of the
198
Commented [GR12]: This is a repeat of 603. If this policy
is adopted, 603 will be rescinded.
Commented [GR13]: This is a change in language from
current 603. Current language suggests that the provost
normally only grants transfer when all parties agree. Since
we are seeking the best interests of the institution and the
best interests of the faculty member, consensus may not be
possible, but it should be most strongly attempted.
Commented [GR14]: This language is also taken from
603.
reassignment shall be stated and will in no case exceed two consecutive semesters
without further evaluation.
If reassignment does occur and relocation is necessary, moving expenses shall be paid by
the UW Colleges, in accordance with State of Wisconsin policy. As one alternative to
reassignment, the individual involved shall have the right to a reduced position if one is
available at his/her current campus. The faculty member who has been reassigned, or
whose position has been reduced, shall have the right to assume his/her original position,
or a portion thereof at the first available opportunity. As in all instances, the right of due
process is assured.
C. Guidelines for Emergency One Semester Teaching Assignments
Whenever emergency, one-semester-or-less teaching assignments are needed, the campus
RADAA will notify the department chair of the nature of the emergency. The chair will
then convene the executive committee to make a recommendation to remedy the
situation. All potentially affected department members shall be invited to attend the
meeting. Emergency, one-semester-or-less teaching assignments shall be considered split
appointments, with the faculty member, even when teaching all courses at the emergency
need campus, retaining the appointed home campus. Thus, the faculty member shall be
afforded mileage reimbursement from the home campus to the teaching campus per
Admin Policy #46.
D. Reassignment of Department/Program
1. New Academic Department/Program Formation - Should a new academic
department/program be formed according to policy 408, a faculty member may be
allowed to join the faculty of this new department/program in the manner proscribed
in 408. This may occur as a solo department/program affiliation or as part of a split
department/program assignment, in which case a home department/program must be
specified. This move to a new department/program constitutes a change of
appointment which must be documented in a re-appointment letter issued by the
chancellor.
2. Changing Academic Focus – Should, over the career of a faculty member with the
UW Colleges, the academic focus of a faculty member change, including changes in
academic focus of courses taught, the faculty member may seek a change of
departmental membership (home department/program), or may seek membership as
an affiliate of the department as part of a split departmental/program affiliation,
following procedures of the departmental/program bylaws of the affiliate department.
As with the move of faculty from an existing department to a newly created
department, move from one existing department to another could only occur if it is
determined by the provost that there is a vacant faculty line in the department which
the faculty member wishes to join, and if that department votes to accept this faculty
member to fill that faculty position in the department. department (408.II.B.4 and 7).
Such changes, whether to a home department/program or for affiliation membership,
would constitute a change of appointment which must be documented in a reappointment letter issued by the chancellor.
199
Commented [GR15]: This is new language to align with
new senate policies 408 and 409.
3. Change Due to a Reorganization of Departments/Programs – Should the departmental
structure of the UW Colleges be reorganized in accordance with policy 409, and
should this reorganization affect the department to which a faculty member belongs
or wishes to join, the faculty member may apply for change of departmental/program
membership or affiliation, or a faculty member may be re-assigned departmental
membership by the provost, all in accordance with the provisions of policy 409. Such
changes, whether to a home department/program or for affiliation membership, would
constitute a change of appointment which must be documented in a re-appointment
letter issued by the chancellor.
E. Changes to Split Appointments
Should a split be introduced to an existing appointment, or should an existing split be
adjusted, the conditions of the new split in appointment must be specified in a Letter of
Re-Appointment issued by the Chancellor.
1. Changes Involving Split Campus – See section VI.B
2. Changes Involving Split Department/Program – See section VI.D
3. Changes Involving Split with Administrative Duties – Splits in Appointment may
include duties to Administrative Work. When these Administrative Duties are to
comprise a portion of a faculty member’s workload for more than two consecutive
semesters, this will constitute a change to Appointment and shall require specification
in a Letter of Re-Appointment issued by the chancellor. It is possible that such a
change to include administrative duties as a portion of a faculty member’s workload
may be by assignment from the provost or by voluntary action of the faculty member.
If the change is sought by the faculty member, as in application to fill a position, it
shall be assumed that the faculty member accepts the reassignment. Should the
provost request addition of administrative duties to last more than two consecutive
semesters, usually to balance low workload needs in teaching, the faculty member
will be presented with the evidence for such a change in appointment and be given
the option to accept a reduced appointment should the acceptance of the
administrative duties be unwelcomed.
[End]
200
Commented [GR16]: Should we qualify/limit this to cases
of over two consecutive semesters, or apply this in all cases,
even emergency one-semester splits?
Commented [GR17]: Same as above.
Attachment 49
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of FPP #506
(“Faculty Post-Tenure Review Procedures”)
Rationale: This revised version has been created to comply with the Board of Regents’ policy
requirements for post-tenure review (BOR RPD 20-9).
______________________________________________________
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #506
Faculty Post-Tenure Review Procedures
===========================================================================
Adopted by the Senate, May 8, 1993, p. 6, App. 10
Approval of Regent Mandated-Language, October 2, 1993, p. 6, App. 8
Revision adopted by the Senate, November 16, 1996, pg. 7
Revision adopted by the Senate, September 29, 2001, pg. 27, App. 8
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Senate March 6, 2009
Revised by the SSC 4-23-2010
Revised by the Faculty Council (FPSC) 2011-04-29
Revised by the Faculty Council (FPSC) 2014-01-22
Revised and Adopted by the Faculty Council (FPSC) 2016-11-14
I. UW System BOR Policy Statement Regarding Post-Tenure Review
Tenure is an essential part of the guarantee of academic freedom that is necessary for
university- based intellectual life to flourish. The grant of indeterminate tenure to faculty
members represents an enormous investment of university and societal resources, and those
who receive this investment do so only after rigorous review which established that their
scholarship, research, teaching, and service met the highest standards and are congruent with
the needs of the university. It is the policy of the Board of Regents that a periodic, PostTenure Review of tenured faculty members is essential to promoting faculty development,
including recognizing innovation and creativity; enhancing the educational environment for
students; and identifying and redressing deficiencies in overall performance of duties through
a supportive and developmental remediation process. Nothing in this policy shall be
interpreted to alter or to infringe upon existing tenure rights, as set forth in UW System
Board of Regents or UW System policies, nor shall this policy diminish the important
guarantees of academic freedom. Specifically, this policy does not supersede administrative
rules providing for termination for cause set forth in Chapter UWS 4 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code.
II. Definitions
A. AR: a faculty member’s annual Activity Report.
201
B. Campus Evaluations Committee: The appropriate standing committee on each campus
charged with conducting bi-annual campus merit reviews and any other faculty reviews.
C. Faculty Council: All UW Colleges Faculty Senators representing campuses.
D. FPP: Faculty Personnel Policy
E. Merit Review: Annual evaluation of faculty, by campus in odd years and by department
in even years, which reviews the faculty performance over the previous 2 years. Faculty
is then assigned a rank (unsatisfactory, satisfactory, meritorious, highly meritorious, or
exceptionally meritorious) based upon the evidence the faculty member provides in their
Activity Reports (AR) and Student Survey of Instruction (SSI).
F. PTR: Post-Tenure Review
G. PTR Committee: The committee charged with reviewing a faculty member's post-tenure
review materials and reaching a finding of performance level.
H. PTR File: The documents and self-reflection narrative to be submitted for PTR review.
I. RADAA: Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
J. Remediation Plan: The individualized document specifying goals of remediation to be
reached by the faculty member by the end of the allotted period of remediation, and the
actions to be taken by this faculty member during this period to return to a level of
satisfactory performance of work duties. This plan shall also include the possible
sanctions should the faculty member fail to meet the goals of remediation by the agreed
completion time and fail to return to a satisfactory level of work performance.
K. REO: Regional Executive Officer/Dean
L. Review & Development Conference: The meeting held with the faculty member, the
Department Chair and REO to review the decision of the PTR Committee.
III. UW Colleges Statement Regarding Post-Tenure Review
This document provides for the implementation within the UW Colleges of the UW System
Board of Regents policy on tenured faculty review and development. The focus of the
review process is to be primarily on the tenured faculty member’s activity reports and merit
review letters covering the most recent five-year period of performance. These materials
shall be reviewed by the department Post-Tenure Review Committee at a regularly scheduled
meeting. In keeping with UW Colleges policies and practice, the criteria for review (FPP
#501 and FPP #503.01)—teaching effectiveness, professional development, and service—are
defined in terms of the mission of the UW Colleges and of the respective department. UW
Colleges annual reviews take student evaluations of instruction into account (FPP #503).
202
A. Post-Tenure Review and Development is not a re-tenuring process but rather a review of
performance and provides the opportunity to plan for developmental activities and
identify strategies by which these activities may be implemented. This process will fully
respect the concept of tenure. Reviews must not infringe on the accepted standards of
academic freedom of faculty to pursue novel, unpopular, or unfashionable lines of
inquiry. Nothing in the criteria used for determining a tenured faculty member’s
performance of contractually assigned duties or application of any UW System, UW
Colleges, or Board of Regents policies shall allow the review to be prejudiced by factors
proscribed by applicable state or federal law.
https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/er/discrimination_civil_rights/fair_employment_law.htm
B. Post-Tenure Reviews are separate from the annual merit review process. Annual merit
reviews, conducted in even years by the appropriate committee of the faculty member’s
department, and in odd years by the appropriate committee of peers of the tenured faculty
member’s campus, are assessments of level of performance in the areas of teaching,
professional development, and service, as specified and in accordance with the standards
of the merit review policy (FPP#503). An official Merit Review Letter issued by the
appropriate committee (see FPP#503) communicates the findings of this annual merit
review process. The PTR, in assessing whether the faculty member under review has
discharged conscientiously and with professional competence the duties appropriately
associated with the faculty member’s position, relies most heavily upon the outcomes and
documentations of the preceding five years of annual merit reviews, yet shall also
consider the tenured faculty member’s additionally submitted materials (see section V.B.
of this policy).
C. Except in cases where the Provost has altered the timeline, Post-Tenure Reviews shall
occur every five years, with the first PTR occurring in the academic year following five
academic years of service as a tenured faculty member. After notification of receipt of
tenure, faculty shall be reviewed during the academic year following every five academic
years of service, except in cases where the Provost has altered the timeline. Because of
the in-depth review of a tenured faculty member up for promotion of rank, and because
the granting of this promotion is a clear statement of exceeding expected performance,
the Provost, upon request of the faculty member, shall have the option to consider
promotion of rank as a successful PTR and to reset the term for the next PTR. The review
process will be based on evidence of sustained performance consistent with the criteria
contained in FPP #501. Since a faculty member’s leave of absence, sabbatical leave, or
faculty development assignment must have the Provost’s approval, each may serve as a
deferral of the original timeline, and the Provost may then set a new timeline for the next
PTR and communicate this to the affected tenured faculty member, the department
chairperson and the campus REO.
D. The reviews shall be conducted under the auspices of the academic departments.
E. Review for promotion shall occur in conjunction with the PTR when such reviews are
otherwise concurrent. A negative promotion decision should not imply Post-Tenure
performance deficiencies.
203
Commented [GR18]: Is this a better wording which
should replace the next sentence?
F. Individual Post-Tenure Reviews shall not be the basis for decisions relating to budgetary
items nor for program or departmental modification, reorganization, or elimination.
G. The conclusions of the PTR shall be shared with the reviewed faculty member in a letter
from the PTR Committee Chair and by way of a follow-up Review and Development
Conference. This summary letter shall also be shared with other appropriate officials and
placed in designated permanent files, as specified in later sections of this policy.
H. The department chair has responsibility for scheduling and seeing to completion the
necessary Post Tenure Reviews within his/her department each year, and shall notify the
Provost when all such reviews have been completed for the year. The Provost, as the
chancellor’s designee, shall keep a record of the schedule of PTR for all tenured faculty
in the UW Colleges, and bears responsibility, as the chancellor’s designee, for assuring
that all Post Tenure Reviews are conducted.
IV. Post-Tenure Review Committee Membership
A. The PTR Committee should be comprised of 3 tenured faculty members, from the
department to which the faculty member who is being reviewed belongs, one of whom
shall be the department chairperson. To represent the campus, the Regional Executive
Officer (REO), and the campus evaluations committee chair shall serve on the PTR
Committee. The Department Chair serves as committee member and the chair of the PTR
Committee. In the event that there are not three tenured department members, the
Department Chair, in consultation with the REO shall come to a consensus as to
appropriate outside members for the committee. If there is not a mutual agreement, the
REO shall have the final say in the selection of the outside members. Department by-laws
must clearly articulate the selection and membership of the 3 department members to the
PTR Committee. Campus constitutions must specify that the chair of the appropriate
evaluations committee shall serve on each PTR Committee formed to evaluate tenured
faculty from the campus. Whenever possible, PTR Committees should be composed of
full professors or associate professors who have previously undergone Post-Tenure
Review.
B. When a Department Chair undergoes Post-Tenure Review (PTR), the department PostTenure Review Committee will consist of an additional tenured representative of the
department and a Chair for this review will be elected by the department members of the
PTR Committee. The Department Chair under review will not serve on the review
committee.
V. Post-Tenure Review Timeline
A. By May 1st, the Department Chair will notify those tenured faculty members who will be
scheduled for review in the subsequent academic year. If the department PTR Committee
requires any additional materials beyond those described in section V.B. (such as peer
visitations, Student Surveys of Instruction, etc.), this request must be included in this
204
notification. Any additional materials required by a department must be standardized and
detailed in the department’s by-laws.
Failure to meet this notification deadline does not indicate a PTR will not be conducted.
In the event of a late notification, the faculty member under review shall be granted three
months (but no earlier than October 1st) from notification to submit required documents.
All following deadlines will follow at intervals of lapsed time consistent with the
intervals in the original timeline.
B. By September 15th, those faculty members to be reviewed shall submit copies of their
PTR file to the PTR Committee.
Materials required for submission will be the faculty member’s brief self-narrative
summarizing their past activities, a brief summary of their future development plans, and
their Activity Reports and Merit Review letters for the period under review.
C. The PTR Committee shall set a meeting date to review the faculty member’s materials
and make a determination as outlined in section VI. The PTR Committees shall complete
their work by Feb. 1.
The PTR Committee’s discussion and review of the faculty member shall focus on and
encourage development that is appropriate for the individual faculty member. The
missions of the institution, the department and the campus will provide the framework
within which the development plans take place. See section VI. for specific procedures
and ranking categories.
D. Within 15 20 working days of the PTR Committee’s discussion and review of the faculty
member, and no later than Feb. 1, the Committee Chair will provide a written summary
of the committee review and its final ranking of the tenured faculty member’s
performance to the RADAA, the REO, the Provost, and the faculty member reviewed.
The Provost shall also receive a copy of the reviewed faculty member’s PTR file. In the
event the PTR finding is “meets expectations,” The faculty member will then have 15
working days to submit to the department chair a written response to the review summary
letter, should the faculty member elect to do so. In the event the PTR finding is “does not
meet expectations”, the faculty member will have 15 working days to submit a written
response to the review letter to the Provost (see FPP#506.01 section III.B) , should the
faculty member elect to do so. A response letter submitted to the department chair shall
be copied and forwarded by the department chair to the RADAA, the REO, and the
Provost.
Commented [TS19]: The proposed policy does not
include the independent and substantive administrative
review required by RPD 20-9. That language would seem to
best fit in this paragraph.
E. The final decision of the Post-tenure Review by the Provost shall occur by March 1.
Upon receipt of the summary letter of the PTR Committee’s findings and review, the
Provost shall conduct an independent and substantive review of the faculty members
under PTR. This review shall only consider each faculty member’s PTR file materials
and the summary letter forwarded from the PTR Committee. The Provost’s review is to
assure that proper procedures were followed, allowing the Provost the opportunity to
Commented [GR24]: Here is where I inserted language
granting the provost the independent review. I have further
edited based on comments from Holly Hassel.
205
Commented [JH20]: Agree with comment above.
Commented [RG21R20]: We felt the language for the
independent administrative review fit better in the next
section, V.E
Commented [AB22]: Does this make it sound
mandatory?
Commented [GR23R22]: We have eliminated duplicate
language and included the provision of choice by the faculty
member.
Commented [GR25]: Should we add this to restrict the
Provost’s scope of review.
correct any egregious outcomes from the PTR Committee work. The provost’s
independent review is to be conducted in accordance to the criteria for review used by
the PTR Committee and as stipulated in section VI of this policy, additionally guided by
the summary letter from the PTR Committee’s review and findings.
Should the Provost’s finding of a faculty member under review be that this faculty
member meets expectations of performance, and should this have been the finding of the
PTR Committee, the Provost shall communicate this finding to the faculty member, and
the Provost may add to the summative letter prior to submitting this letter to the faculty
member’s personnel file. Should the Provost’s finding of meets expectations not concur
with the PTR Committee’s finding of does not meet expectations of performance, the
Provost shall communicate this finding to the faculty member, and the Provost must write
a summative letter on the findings and place this letter, copied to the PTR, the RADAA,
and the REO, in the faculty member’s personnel file.
F. All reviews resulting in “does not meet expectations,” will result in a remediation plan as
described in FPP#506.01.
G. Should the provost’s decision be the faculty member “does not meet expectations” of
work performance, the Summative Letter prepared by the provost is to include specific
reasons or grounds for this decision, including evidence from the PTR documents
reviewed. This is to help direct the parties who will draft the required remediation plan.
The Provost must send this same summary letter, along with a charge to initiate
remediation for this faculty member, in accordance with FPP#506.01, to the chair of the
faculty member’s department and the faculty member’s REO.
H. Copies of the PTR Committee’s summary, the Provost’s summary, and any written
response from the faculty member shall be placed in the campus personnel file, the
department personnel file and, following review by the Provost, in the permanent file in
the Provost’s office. Faculty members should retain these materials in their own
professional files.
I. Following the Provost’s finding that a faculty member “meets expectations”, the PTR
Committee and the faculty member shall schedule the Review and Development
Conference as outlined in section VII.
VI. Post-Tenure Review Committee Procedures
A. The PTR Committee shall review all materials submitted by the faculty member prior to
deliberations. See section V.A. and B. for required and departmental-requested materials.
B. During the deliberations, the committee members shall discuss the faculty’s submitted
materials and then determine which ranking category level best represents the overall
performance of the faculty member over the period under review. The criteria shall be
based upon those in FFP#503; teaching, professional development, and service, with
strongest consideration be given to teaching.
206
Commented [GR26]: I added this subsection in response
to the concern that the provost not be allowed to make
decisions on issues outside the limitations of the PTR
Committee review. I did not feel it necessary to require
such details and linking of facts were needed in a positive
summative letter, only in the event the decision is negative
and requires the remediation plan. Although our intent is to
force the provost to state defensible reasons within the
limits of PTR documentation, I wanted to make the
requirements appear linked to supporting the remediation
process to come.
Teaching:
● Displays a vigorous commitment to teaching
● Employs effective teaching strategies
● Pursues course development and/or revision
● Participates in Department and Institutional Assessment
Service: Participates in and provides leadership to committees, work groups, and/or
activities in one or more of the following areas:
● UW System
● UW Colleges
● Campus
● Department
● Community
Professional Development:
● Participates and/or holds leadership position in Professional Society
● Achieves progress toward or attainment of a terminal degree
● Engages in scholarly or professional publication, research, and presentations
● Provides discipline related performance
● Other types of professional creativity
C. Although Merit Review rankings conducted during the period under review should be
considered, they shall not be the only criteria in determining the faculty member’s
performance. The committee must also take into consideration the following:
1. Has the faculty member “…discharged conscientiously and with professional
competence the duties appropriately associated with the faculty member’s
position…”, during the period under review, at the level expected by the department
and campus.
2. Each tenured faculty has a unique career trajectory and will have areas of emphasis
distinct to them. A faculty member’s performance shall neither be compared to other
faculty PTR within the department nor other departments. Comparisons should
always be made to the standards of performance identified in the merit policy (see
section VI.B. of this policy and FPP#503).
3. Given the breadth of a tenured faculty member’s responsibilities in teaching,
professional development, and service, there should not be an expectation by the
reviewers that a faculty member performs equally across all criteria.
4. The committee should also consider some projects, activities, and research require
much more time to be involved in and/or come to fruition.
207
5. Future development plans outlined by the faculty member under review can be
considered as an indication of continual performance and may be used by the PTR
Committee to address a slight deficiency.
D. Upon review and discussion of the tenured faculty member’s performance, the PTR
Committee will vote, by simple majority, which ranking category they believe best
describes the faculty member’s performance during the period under review:
1. Does Not Meet Expectations: This category is awarded to those tenured faculty
members whose performance reflects a level of accomplishment below the expected
level and which requires remediation.
2. Meets Expectations: This category is awarded to those tenured faculty members
whose performance reflects the expected level of accomplishment.
E. Once the category for the faculty member is determined (by a majority of yes votes from
those present who have the right to vote), the Committee Chair shall provide a written
summary as specified in section V.D of this policy. The PTR file and the PTR
Committee’s recommendation and summary letter are to be forwarded to the provost for
the independent administrative review and final PTR finding.
VII. Review & Development Conference Procedures
A. Following the Provost’s finding that a faculty member “meets expectations”, the PTR
Committee and the faculty member shall schedule the Review and Development
Conference. The PTR Development Conference has no bearing on the outcome of the
PTR decision, which has already been reached and appropriately communicated. The
purpose for the Development Conference is to promote, plan, and support the faculty
member’s professional growth and development over the next review period (usually 5
years). Prior to the meeting, the faculty member will be informed by a letter from the
PTR Committee chairperson of the committee’s determination (the PTR Committee’s
summary) and shall review specifics within the summary. Department bylaws should
specify who participates in the Review and Development Conference, but REO and the
Committee chair are required to participate. Bylaws may grant the faculty member
authority to determine an additional participant.
B. As much as possible, recommendations resulting from the review should be addressed
through funds designated for post-tenure development as well as through existing
professional development programs, such as support for sabbatical leave, assistance in
grant writing, and the establishment of meaningful mentoring relationships.
C. By April 15th, all Review and Development Conferences for that year are to be
completed.
D. Copies of the PTR Committee’s summary and any written response from the faculty
member shall be placed in the campus personnel file, the department personnel file and,
208
Commented [GR27]: I changed this to the voting
language we use in 501.I.B
Commented [GR28]: Following this was a statement on
scheduling the development conference, but this statement
must be moved to after the provost makes the final
decision. (section V.I)
Commented [GR29]: This statement is added to close out
the duties of the PTR Committee, the subject of this section
of the policy.
Commented [TS30]: This April 15 date does not leave
enough time for the faculty member, chair and dean to
prepare a remediation plan to be implemented at the
beginning of following fall semester as required by the UWColleges policy. This date needs to be moved up to provide
for sufficient time to put the remediation plan in place.
Commented [GR31R30]: The review and development
conferences occur only for those who have been found to
meet expectations, therefore they do not need remediation
plans developed. The conference is a collegial meeting to
discuss future plans and supports for those plans.
following review by the Provost, in the permanent file in the Provost’s office. Faculty
members should retain these materials in their own professional files. In the time
between PTR Committee Review and the Development Conference, the faculty member
can update his/her development plans with the approval of the PTR Committee.
VIII. Inactive or Ineffective Performance Between Post-Tenure Review
To ensure faculty members continue to fulfill their duties between Post-Tenure Reviews, any
faculty member who, in the merit review process, receives a merit ranking of ‘unsatisfactory’
(FPP#503) for 2 years within the period between Post-Tenure Reviews will be required to
develop and complete a remediation plan as outlined in FPP#506.01.
Commented [GR32]: Were we supposed to have deleted
section IX when we added FPP#506.01?
IX. Remediation Process and Plans
In cases where the PTR reveals deficiencies and a determination that the faculty member
“does not meet expectations,” or the faculty member receives a merit ranking of
‘unsatisfactory’ for a second time within the period between Post-Tenure Reviews, and upon
concurrence by the Provost (as the Chancellor’s designee) a remediation plan will be
developed. The plan will focus on remedying the problem with specific support, goals and
outcomes indicated. This remediation plan shall also indicate deadlines for completion and
consequences for failure to satisfactorily complete the remediation plan, which may include
referral to the chancellor for consideration of dismissal for cause. (see FPP#506.01) While
on remediation in response to one of these two triggers, should a faculty member trigger
additional remediation due to failed PTR or additional unsatisfactory merit rankings, the
existing remediation plan shall be modified, including timeline, if deemed necessary to
respond to the new triggers for remediation. When a Remediation Plan has been successfully
completed, this finding shall serve as a PTR finding of Meets Expectations.
Commented [GR33R32]: Yes, we should strike this entire
section.
Commented [TS34]: The proposed policy does not
contain the required language laid out RPD 20-9(14)
regarding the creation of a full written record of the PTR
and appropriate disclosure of that record.
Commented [GR35R34]: Yes, it does. See section V.G.
Commented [TS36]: These restrictions are not provided
for in the regent policy.
Commented [GR37R36]: This statement and the entire
section is to be removed. Language in revised 506.01 fixes
this problem.
[End]
209
Attachment 50
UW Colleges Faculty Council of Senators
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision of FPP #506.01
(“Faculty Remediation Procedures”)
Rationale: This revised version has been created to comply with the Board of Regents’ policy
requirements for post-tenure review (BOR RPD 20-9). It shall replace FPP#508.
______________________________________________________
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #506.01
Faculty Remediation Procedures
I. Remediation Process and Plan
In cases where the Post-Tenure Review reveals deficiencies and a determination that the
faculty member “does not meet expectations,” or the faculty member receives a merit ranking
of ‘unsatisfactory’ for a second time within the period between Post-Tenure Reviews, and
upon concurrence from the Provost (as the Chancellor’s designee) a remediation plan will be
developed. The plan will focus on remedying the problem with specific support, goals and
outcomes indicated. This remediation plan shall also indicate deadlines for completion and
consequences for failure to satisfactorily complete the remediation plan, which may include
referral to the chancellor for consideration of dismissal for cause. While on remediation in
response to one of these two triggers, should a faculty member trigger additional remediation
due to failed PTR or additional unsatisfactory merit rankings, the existing remediation plan
shall be modified, including timeline, if deemed necessary to respond to the new triggers for
remediation. When a Remediation Plan has been successfully completed, this finding shall
serve as a PTR finding of Meets Expectations.
II. Definitions
A. AR: a faculty member’s annual Activity Report.
B. Campus Evaluations Committee: The appropriate standing committee on each campus
charged with conducting bi-annual campus merit reviews and any other faculty reviews
C. Department Chair: Current Chair of the department in which the tenured faculty being
reviewed is housed.
D. Final Review Meeting: Meeting at which, after careful consideration and discussion of
all present, a final assessment is made of satisfactory, or unsatisfactory, completion of the
requirements of the Remediation Plan.
E. FPP: Faculty Personnel Policy
210
F. Merit Review: Annual evaluation of faculty, by campus in odd years and by department
in even years, which reviews the faculty performance over the previous 2 years. Faculty
is then assigned a rank (unsatisfactory, satisfactory, meritorious, highly meritorious, or
exceptionally meritorious) based upon the evidence the faculty member provides in their
Activity Reports (AR) and Student Survey of Instruction (SSI).
G. Progress Meeting: Meeting at which the faculty member engaged in a remediation plan
will present evidence of progress towards the goals of the remediation plan and receive
feedback from the department chair and the REO.
H. PTR: Post-Tenure Review
I. PTR Committee: The committee charged with reviewing a faculty member's post-tenure
review materials and reaching a finding of performance level.
J. RADAA: Regional Associate Dean for Academic Affairs
K. Remediation Conference: Face-to-face meeting of the faculty member under review, the
department chair, the REO, and an additional tenured faculty member (if so selected by
the member under review), and one additional member of UW Colleges administration (if
so selected by the department chair) at which needs for remediation are discussed, goals
of the remediation plan are discussed, and potential consequences for failing to complete
the plan or appropriately meet the goals of the plan are to be presented.
L. Remediation Plan: The individualized document specifying goals of remediation to be
reached by the faculty member by the end of the allotted period of remediation, and the
actions to be taken by this faculty member during this period to return to a level of
satisfactory performance of work duties. This plan shall also include specifics regarding
possible sanctions should the faculty member fail to meet the goals of remediation by the
agreed completion time and fail to return to a satisfactory level of work performance.
These sanctions should include the full range of potential sanctions appropriate to each
case as determined by the chancellor or the chancellor’s designee.
M. REO: Regional Executive Officer/Dean
III. Initiating the Remediation Process in the Case of a Post-Tenure Review Conclusion of
“Does Not Meet Expectations”
A. Initiation of the Remediation Process in cases of a Post-Tenure Review
Conclusion of “Does Not Meet Expectations” follows the steps of Post-Tenure Review
specified in FPP#506 sections V.D – V.G.
B. The specific criteria and process for development of the remedial plan, contents of
the plan, deadlines for steps in the process, and details of assessment of progress and
completion of the plan are outlined in sections V and VI of this policy.
211
Commented [GR38]: Since the BOR requires the PTR
decision to be finalized by the provost, I removed previous
details in this area and simply refer back to the PTR policy.
IV. Initiating Remediation Process in the Case of Receiving a Second Annual Merit
Ranking of “Unsatisfactory” within the Five Years between Post-Tenure Reviews
A. After a faculty member receives a second ‘unsatisfactory’ merit ranking in the period
between Post-Tenure Reviews, the Department Chair will inform the Provost of the
finding of the faculty member’s performance as Inactive or Ineffective (not meeting
expectations for performance). The department chair shall also forward to the Provost
the two merit review summary letters and the faculty member’s relevant Activity Reports
from the two years of “Unsatisfactory” rankings. The Provost will then submit a letter
within ten working days to the faculty member clearly indicating whether or not the
Provost concurs the faculty member is inactive or ineffective and a remediation plan
needs to be developed.
Commented [GR39]: Since the BOR requires that PTR
decisions be finalized by the provost, but does not so
require provost independent review for remediation in
cases of two unsatisfactory merit reviews, I separated the
triggering language for the two unsatisfactory merit reviews
from the triggering due to PTR decision.
1. If the Provost does not concur with the need for a remediation plan, the Provost must
submit a letter to the faculty member within ten working days clearly indicating the
Evaluation concerns and that the Provost does not concur and does not require a
remediation plan. The Provost’s letter is also submitted to the department Chair, the
RADAA, the REO, and HR.
2. Alternatively, if the provost concurs that a remediation plan is required, the Provost
shall send a letter, within 15 working days of receiving the department chair’s letter
of finding of inactive or ineffective performance by the identified faculty member, to
the faculty member, the department chair, the RADAA, the REO, and HR outlining
the process and timeline of a remediation plan.
B. The specific criteria and process for development of the remediation plan, contents of the
plan, deadlines for steps in the process, and details of assessment of progress and
completion of the plan are outlined in sections V and VI.
V. Remediation Plan Development Procedures
The development of the Remediation Plan is the joint responsibility of the respective
department Chair and the respective REO of the faculty member under review. When the
Provost determines that a remediation plan is needed in either circumstance outlined in this
policy, the following shall occur.
1. The provost shall send a letter (the Summative Letter, required in 506.V.E & G) to
the faculty member and the department chair, within 15 working days of determining
that remediation is required, indicating that a remediation plan is needed as has been
recommended by the department. The Provost’s letter shall indicate that the
department chair and REO will set up a face-to-face meeting, the Remediation
Conference, with the faculty member within 15 working days of the date of the
Provost’s letter.
2. The Remediation Conference shall be held within 15 working days of the date of the
Provost’s letter informing of the need for remediation. This conference shall serve as
212
Commented [GR40]: This is to clarify that this is not a
separate and new letter, rather the one 506 requires of the
provost.
a constructive conversation to inform the department chair and the REO of best steps
to include in the Remediation Plan. If the faculty member rejects the opportunity for
a face-to-face meeting or is unable to schedule such a meeting, the department chair
and REO will complete the process without consultation with the faculty member.
The faculty member may, if desired, choose one other tenured faculty member from
the UW Colleges to attend the Remediation Conference as a liaison. The department
chair may, if desired, also elect to have one other tenured faculty member or
administrator from the UW Colleges attend the meeting as a liaison or alternate if the
chair cannot be in attendance.
3. Within 20 working days of the mailing date of the provost's letter, and no later than
May 20, the remediation plan must be finalized by agreement between the department
chair and the REO. The potential consequences for failure to successfully complete
the remediation plan shall be approved by the provost, after consulting with the
department chairperson and REO, prior to finalizing the remediation plan.
4. Within 5 working days of the finalizing of the remediation plan, the Department
Chair and REO will provide the faculty member (and Provost and HR) with a copy of
the remediation plan that has been developed.
VI. Remediation Plan Content, Deadlines, and Progress Meetings
The remediation plan is referred to as developmental as its purpose is to help the faculty
member reach appropriate improvement goals in line with the area(s) of deficiency
identified. The developmental remediation plan should reflect both the mission, goals, and
objectives of the department, UW Colleges, the UW System, and the faculty member’s
professional development needs and objectives.
Each remediation plan will be unique to the faculty member and shall be developed jointly
with the department chair and REO and be agreed upon mutually. The development of the
plan should be viewed by all parties as an aid that will enhance the faculty member’s future
performance which in turn results in a better fulfillment of the institution’s mission
A. The remediation plan shall
1. clearly indicate the links between the deficiency or deficiencies, indicated in previous
Merit Ranking Letters and the letter from the Provost regarding the need for a
Remediation Development Plan, and the specific operationalized goals and outcomes
for the faculty member.
2. list resources for appropriate support from the department and/or other campus
resources as applicable (e.g., Virtual Teaching and Learning Center). Specific
financial resources, including supplies and equipment supporting the specific areas of
improvement should also be identified if needed and agreed upon.
3. clearly indicate a deadline (not to exceed 3 academic semesters starting the Fall
semester subsequent to the development of remediation plan) by which time all
elements of the plan must be satisfied, as judged by agreement between the
213
Commented [GR41]: Suggest we reduce from original 30
working day to 20 working days to assure the process
finishes before the academic contract year ends. 20
working days is about 4 weeks.
Commented [GR42]: This has been added to satisfy
system legal that the consequences have been set by high
enough an administrator in the institution.
Commented [GR43R42]: Language added instructing a
consultation on consequences with the department chair
and REO?
department Chair and the REO.
In those few remediation plans related to a performance shortfall in research,
scholarship, or professional activity where more than three academic semesters may
be necessary to correct identified deficiencies, an extension of 1 academic semester
shall be permitted only with the approval of the Chancellor, which shall trigger a
notification of that extension to the UW System Administration Vice President for
Academic and Student Affairs.
4. indicate the potential consequence(s), as determined by the provost, of not meeting
the operationalized goals of the remediation plan by the deadline.
B. Within 40 working days of the end of the 1st semester into the plan, the Department
Chair shall convene a progress meeting with the Department Chair, the REO and the
faculty member. The faculty member will provide evidence of progress relating to the
remediation plan. The meeting participants will determine if progress has occurred and to
identify additional resources that may aid the faculty member. The faculty member may,
if desired, choose one other tenured faculty member from the UW Colleges to attend the
Progress Meeting as a liaison. The department chair may, if desired, also elect to have
one other tenured faculty member or administrator from the UW Colleges attend the
meeting as a liaison or if the chair cannot be in attendance.
C. Within 40 working days of the end of the final semester of the scheduled Remediation
Plan, the department Chair shall convene a Final Review Meeting, to be attended by the
faculty member under review and the PTR Committee. The faculty member may, if
desired, choose one other tenured faculty member from the UW Colleges to attend the
Final Review Meeting as a liaison. The department chair may, if desired, also elect to
have one other tenured faculty member or administrator from the UW Colleges attend the
meeting as a liaison or as an alternate if the chair cannot be in attendance. Again, the
faculty member will provide evidence of progress relating to the remediation plan. At the
meeting the PTR Committee shall recommend to the Provost it’s finding of whether the
faculty member has met or not met the obligations of the remediation plan.
D. Within 20 working days of the PTR Committee’s recommendation of findings on
completion of the remediation plan, the Provost (as Chancellor’s designee) will issue the
official finding of meets or fails to meet outcome provisions of the remediation plan.
E. The Provost’s official finding will result in a letter from the Provost to the faculty
member in question, the Department Chair of the faculty member, the RADAA, the REO,
and HR indicating that the faculty member has
1. met the conditions of the Remediation Plan
2. not met the conditions of the Remediation Plan. If the conditions of the remediation
plan have not been met, this letter will include information regarding the sanctions,
discipline or dismissal procedures, not to exceed those which had been included in the
Remediation Plan.
214
Commented [GR44]: System legal has objected to our
inclusion of specific consequences in the remediation plan,
preferring vague language to allow the provost to impose
any consequence the provost sees fit at the time of failure.
I want to assure that the faculty member on remediation is
aware of all possible consequences so that the provost
cannot insert a new, likely more harsh consequence at the
end of the process.
If it has been determined the faculty member has not met the conditions of the
Remediation Plan, in contrast to a non-retention decision for probationary faculty,
consequences may range from informal sanctions as previously specified in the
remediation plan document, to discipline short of dismissal for cause [such as
suspension without pay or demotion of rank (with reduction of pay associated with
rank)] under section UWS Chapter 6. In extreme instances, where it is determined by
the Provost that the faculty member has failed to make even reasonable efforts to
achieve the goals of the Remediation Plan, the Provost may forward all
documentation to the Chancellor, with a recommendation to begin the process of
dismissal for cause, under UWS Chapter 4. The decision to seek dismissal for cause
shall be made by the Chancellor.
VII. Appeals and Grievances
A faculty member cannot appeal a remediation plan implementation decision, nor the final
determination of completion of a remediation plan. Furthermore, the reviews conducted
and remediation plans developed in accordance with this policy are not subject to the
grievance process set forth in Chapter UWS 6.02, Wis. Admin. Code.
A faculty member cannot appeal a remediation plan implementation decision based on
Post-Tenure Review, nor the final determination of completion of a remediation plan
initiated from Post-Tenure Review. Furthermore, the reviews conducted and remediation
plans developed in accordance with this policy, as triggered by a Post-Tenure Review, are
not subject to the grievance process set forth in Chapter UWS 6.02, Wis. Admin. Code.
Remediation decisions triggered by two unsatisfactory ratings in the merit review process
may be appealed/follow the grievance process as laid out in FPP#604.
This new policy, supportive to FPP#506, replaces provisions previously located in
FPP#508. As a result, FPP#508 is being struck from UW Colleges Senate Policies.
The most recent version of FPP#508 is copied below to assist in tracking the changes
which have resulted in FPP#506.01.
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Faculty Personnel Policy #508
Policy on Ineffective or Inactive Performance
Senate Minutes – Oct. 3, 1987, p.7, App. 18
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the Faculty Council (FPSC) 2014-10-24
A. All faculty of the UW Colleges have a responsibility to maintain the quality of teaching,
215
Commented [GR45]: This language replaces the previous
paragraph. System legal asserts that remediation triggered
by the two unsatisfactory merit ratings during a PTR period
does not have the same restrictions on appeal and
grievance that the PTR trigger has.
professional growth and university and community service required by the faculty
member's department and campus.
B. Faculty generally fulfill this responsibility well in their various ways. However, a faculty
member may fail in this responsibility as shown through a pattern of ineffective effort or
inactivity.
C. The deans of UW Colleges campuses and chairs of academic departments jointly have the
primary and continuing annual responsibility for initially identifying possible patterns of
ineffective or inactive performance. There can be no checklist for judging whether such a
pattern may exist. Rather, standards of "reasonableness" should prevail.
D. If a dean or chair identifies such a possibility, then they shall jointly decide upon an initial
course of action to determine the extent of the problem. Following a verbal
communication by the department chair or dean to the faculty member that a concern may
exist, various steps may be taken. For example, appropriate actions may include but shall
not be limited to peer class visitations and evaluations and/or contacts with former
students. If the dean and chair are satisfied that a problem does exist then they shall
consult first with the Vice Chancellor, and then with the faculty member to decide upon a
positive and remedial course of action to resolve the problem. The course of action
should, if possible, include faculty renewal and development measures rather than punitive
measures. This course of action shall be specified in a written Action Plan, including an
appropriate timeline for completion, and shall be shared with the faculty member, the
campus dean, and the department chairperson. The dean and department chair shall
involve the relevant campus and departmental committees as appropriate.
E. If the dean and/or chair conclude that remedial efforts to resolve the problem are not
successful, the dean and/or department chair, in consultation with their appropriate faculty
committees, shall submit the matter to the Chancellor by either (1) filing a formal
complaint recommending specific courses of action, or (2) requesting an informal
investigation under the provisions of UWS 4.01 (Dismissal for Cause).
F. A pattern of ineffectiveness or inactivity in a faculty member is grounds for discipline
under section UWS 6.01 or dismissal for cause under section UWS 4.01, Wis. Adm. Code.
G. Merely being identified for review, as exhibiting a possible pattern of ineffective or
inactive performance, cannot in itself be grounds for a formal grievance by the faculty
member.
H. Throughout these processes, campus deans and department chairs shall keep adequate
records.
[End]
216
Attachment 51
Academic Staff Council of Senators
Introduction: February 24, 2017
Proposed Revision to Academic Staff Personnel Policy #701
“Academic Staff Appointments and Titles”
Rationale:
The policy needs to be updated to reflect the new regional administrative structure and changes
to employment categories.
Proposed modifications are in bold, red, underlined, and italicized font.
UW Colleges Academic Staff Personnel Policy
Hiring, Promotion, Merit and Review Policy #701
Academic Staff Appointments and Titles
=====================================================================
Adopted
Reorganized and Renumbered March 15, 2002
Revised by the SSC (2014-12-11) 2015-07-01
Academic staff titles are organized in three broad categories with duties and types of
appointments that are primarily associated with higher education institutions or their
administration. Academic staff appointments should be made in accordance with applicable UW
Colleges academic staff policies and procedures and must have necessary campus regional dean
and/or department or central office supervisor and Office of Academic Affairs approvals.
01 Categories
There are three broad categories of titles.
A. CATEGORY A includes titles for non-instructional professional, instructional-support,
and administrative positions.
TITLE GROUPS IN CATEGORY A:
Professional titles may or may not require specific professional credentials. Beyond the
entry level, labor markets for academic staff positions, regardless of initial entry
qualifications, typically are defined by both experience in higher education and specific
professional credentials.
In general terms, these positions provide administrative, research, student, instructional,
or community-related services and/or activities supporting the overall objectives of a
particular unit or program in the university.
Supervision is not integral aspect of the work performed. Any professional supervising
more than his/her own secretary should be considered for a title in the program manager
or administrative director title group. Examples of professional titles include advisor,
217
developmental skills specialist, and student services specialist.
Program Manager positions provide administrative, instructional, and/or research
program management for a specific program. A program is a coordinated, defined set of
services or activities, usually focusing on a single objective. Although primarily a nonsupervisory activity, program management often requires the coordination of work within
the unit and/or across a number of administrative units. Program managers often function
quite independently. Typically, the services provided by a program manager are
developed and provided primarily by the incumbent in the position rather than by
subordinates.
Administrative Director is the head of a non-academic administrative unit or equivalent
functional area.
Persons in this group are responsible for developing and implementing objectives and
policies, and managing the activities of the unit. Depending on the prefixes assigned,
these positions have extensive budgetary and supervisory authority (supervising a
minimum of 3.00 FTE staff).
The Administrative Director (no prefix level) is given a limited appointment and serves at
the pleasure of and normally reports to a Chancellor, campus regional dean, vice
chancellor, assistant chancellor, or associate vice chancellor.
The State Executive Group Salary Plan covers directors and associate directors in
Activity Codes 1, 7, and 8.
The range assignment for “Director, Unspecified” must be made in consultation with the
Academic Affairs Office and is subject to the prior approval of UW System
Administration.
B. CATEGORY B includes those titles in which the duties and responsibilities are like
instructional or research duties typical of UW Colleges faculty.
TITLE GROUPS IN CATEGORY B
Instructional academic staff provide instruction or train students in an academic
discipline, including classroom and laboratory duties. In this context, an academic
discipline usually does not include supplemental instructional support of a developmental
nature (e.g.; basic skills in reading, writing, arithmetic, or conversational English).
Research academic staff participate in identifying research problems, designing
methodology, conducting research, and other related activities. There currently are no
positions like this in the UW Colleges.
C. CATEGORY C titles apply to the University’s executive positions such as the
218
Chancellor and the campus regional deans. These positions receive limited appointments
in the Colleges.
Limited appointments (Wis. Stat. 36.17) have a status modifier that indicates this
category of appointments is made at the pleasure of the Board of Regents or a specified
appointing authority. Persons appointed to UW Colleges positions in these titles
generally have been categorized as limited appointees: Chancellor, Campus Regional
Dean/CEO, Vice Chancellor, Assistant Chancellor, Associate Vice Chancellor, Assistant
Vice Chancellor, Associate Campus Dean, and Academic Program Director.
In the UW Colleges, limited appointments apply to executive level positions; however,
other administrative appointments using academic staff titles may be designated as
limited by the appointing authority with prior approval from the Office of Academic
Affairs.
A limited appointee may hold a concurrent and/or backup appointment in the faculty,
academic staff, or university staff service. A limited appointment letter must be filed in
the official personnel file. This letter must state the terms of the limited appointment, as
well as the terms of any concurrent and/or backup appointment. In addition, the budget
and all other documents must reflect the concurrent and/or back-up appointment.
A limited appointment is designated by an L in the sixth position of the title code, the
status modifier.
02 Components of an Academic Staff Title
A title may have three components: function, prefix, and scope.
Function The function is the portion of the title describing the primary activity or general
duties and responsibilities of the position. There are several functions to choose
from within any of the functional areas. For example, within the student services
functional area, there are directors, student services coordinators, and other
professional functions. The responsibilities of each position will determine which
function should be used.
Prefix
Prefixes typically indicate successively greater experience, expertise, and
responsibility in a particular position. Several titles do not have a prefix.
Scope
In order to recognize differences in the size and complexity of units, there is a
scope factor: Small, Medium, and Large. This factor usually applies to director
and administrative officer titles. Program manager functions have a different type
of scope measure, I, II, and III, based on depth and/or breadth of responsibility,
rather than progression through a title.
EXAMPLES: Senior Advisor
fFunction: Advisor
Prefix: Senior
Scope: N/A
219
Assistant Director
function: Director, Academic
prefix: Assistant
scope: Large
Program Manager
Function: Program Manager
Prefix: N/A
Scope: II
03 Determining An Appropriate Academic Staff Title
There are several steps to take in determining an academic staff title.
Step 1:
SELECT A FUNCTIONAL AREA: The functional areas are groups of functions
in broad categories.
Administrative
Professional
Instructional
Program Managers
The functional areas will help you identify titles related to a given function, but
are not part of the formal title structure.
Step 2:
SELECT A FUNCTION: Review the definitions and select the definition which
best describes the work. There are some positions where duties require more than
one title to define the position. In that case, a second (or, if necessary, a third)
function should be selected; FTE and budget splits should be assigned each title.
Step 3:
SELECT A PREFIX: Director and administrative officer Program Manager
titles require a scope measure of I, II, or III large, medium, or small. For the
director, student services, and director, UWC library, titles, the UW-Waukesha,
UW-Marathon, and UW-Fox Valley campuses, and the joint position of director
of the library Processing Center and the UW-Fond du Lac library, are considered
Large (l) in scope. The remaining campuses are considered Medium (M). For the
administrative officer title, the UW-Waukesha, UW-Marathon, and UW-Fox
Valley campuses are considered Medium (M); the remaining campuses are
considered Small (S).
EXAMPLE:
Step 1
Functional Area
Professional
Step 2
Function
Student Services Specialist (Category A, Professional)
Provides direct services to students.
220
Step 3
Prefix
(No prefix)
Step 4
Scope
Not Applicable
Example Title:
Student Services Specialist
[End]
221
Attachment 52
Academic Staff Council of Senators
February 24, 2017
Supporting Materials
Proposed changes to ASPP #703 and #704 – Carriveau
Rationale: Simplifying language in regards to who assigns merit rankings and does reviews.
Check for accuracy of dates and standardize when Activity Reports are due to Supervisors.
Policy #703
01 Evaluation and Merit Ratings
B. The Dean or Central Office supervisor assigns one of the following merit ratings
C. Merit procedures include academic staff on payroll before January 1 of the current academic
year. Normally, staff hired after January 1 will continue to receive the current salary during the
next academic year. Staff who are retiring, resigning, or whose contract will not be renewed are
not included in the merit process.
Evaluations are shared with the academic staff member as part of the annual review conference
with the supervisor or dean. Merit ratings are submitted to the Chancellor before March 31 of
each year.
03 Procedure
B. The academic staff member provides a written response to I B and II (A-D) of the guidelines
and submits this to the supervisor by February 15 of each year.
Rationale: simplify the form to remove the duplication involved in parts A and B.
Activity Report in Policy #703 and #704
I. Contractual Responsibilities
A. Review current position questionnaire (PQ) and position description and comment on whether
current responsibilities match. If necessary, make revisions after discussion with supervisor.
B. Describe responsibilities and how these are fulfilled.
List and review goals and objectives for current year and note accomplishments and problems.
Set goals and objectives for the succeeding year and establish priorities.
Rationale: due to regionalization and consolidation, the person(s) responsible for handling
Promotion, Progression or Retitling needs to be redefined. Replace campus CEO/Dean with
????
Policy #704
05 Procedures for Promotion, Progression or Retitling
A. Immediate supervisor advises academic staff member on the appropriate content of review file
which is prepared by the academic staff member. (Consult the Academic Staff Annual Evaluation
and Activity Report for information on materials, which may be appropriate to include in the file.
(See attached.) The file must include a copy of both the former and new job descriptions and a
222
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
narrative summarizing the job changes and the appropriate criteria listed in 03 above. A
completed Position Questionnaire form may also be required.
Follow procedures outlined in UW System Title Administration Guidelines, applying criteria
listed above, the supervisor makes a recommendation to the campus CEO/Dean.
The CEO/Dean accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests further information from the
supervisor.
The CEO/Dean forwards accepted recommendation to the Office of Human Resources for
review.
The Office of Human Resources reviews the recommendation, requests further information if
necessary, and forwards its recommendation to the Office of Academic and Student Affairs.
The Office of Academic and Student Affairs accepts or rejects the recommendation or requests
further information.
The Office of Human Resources communicates the decision to the employee and the campus
CEO/Dean.
Proposed revision of IP #320 – Verona and Gorman
UW Colleges Senate Policy
Institutional Personnel Policy Affecting Faculty and Academic Staff #320
Policy on Evaluation Evaluation and Merit Pay – Instructional Academic Staff (Category B),
including Returning Retired Faculty
=====================================================
Policy Effective November 20, 1995
Amended, January 16, 2002
Reorganized and Renumbered, March 15, 2002
Amended by the Senate, May 2, 2003
Revised by the Senate, May 7, 2004
Revised by the Senate April 24, 2009 Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-03-15
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2016-02-19
I. Instructional Academic Staff (Category B), including Returning Retired Faculty
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2016-02-19
A. All instructional academic staff, regardless of percentage of appointment, shall be evaluated.
The only exception will be instructors paid with one lump sum (i.e. coaches, applied music
instructors).
B. Merit evaluations will be done by academic departments and campuses in alternate years, with
each committee reviewing Activity Reports, student evaluations, and any other evidence of
achievement, over a two-year period. The campus dean must be included in the discussion of
223
campus merit evaluations, but will be excused prior to final deliberations. The department chair
will serve ex officio on the department merit committee.
C. Evaluation of instructional academic staff is based on the following:
1. Annual completion of Activity Report form (IP#301).
2. Student evaluations for all classes taught in the first two semesters of instruction. Thereafter,
student evaluations every third semester (e.g., fall 2001, spring 2003, fall 2004, etc.). (Returning
retired faculty shall administer the Student Survey of Instruction every third semester.)
3. When available, written reports of class visits by members of the instructional academic staff
member’s department or delegated authority.
D. It is the responsibility of the campus to notify the instructional academic staff of the
requirement to annually submit the Activity Report form and copies of the class visitation reports
to the appropriate campus/department committee chair. Before the end of each academic term,
the campus is responsible for the distribution of the activity reports form and instructions to all
instructional academic staff who have taught during that term.
II. Departmental and campus responsibilities for instructional academic staff, including
Returning Retired Faculty.
Revised 4-24-09
Revised by the Senate (SAPC) 2013-03-15
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
A. Newly hired instructional academic staff can expect the following:
1. A departmental visit will occur within the first semester of initial employment. At the
discretion of the department, a visit may also occur in the second semester of initial employment.
Some items that may be evaluated are teaching skills, student participation, presentation methods
and relevancy of information.
2. A copy of the visitation report will be sent to the department chair, the chair of the campus
evaluation and merit committee, the associate dean, the campus dean Regional Associate Dean
of Academic Affairs, and the staff member within 30 days of the classroom visit. After receiving
a copy of the visitation report, the instructional academic staff member may elect to contact the
department chair for more information.
B. Returning instructional academic staff can expect the following:
1. A departmental visit will occur during the second and third years of employment.
Departmental visits during the fourth and fifth years may be conducted at the discretion of the
department.
After the initial five years of employment, departmental visits will occur once every five years.
However, departments may request additional visitations, but not to exceed one visitation every
two years.
224
2. A departmental visit shall occur prior to any promotion of an instructional academic staff
member. Additional department visits may be scheduled at the request of the department chair,
the campus dean Regional Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, or the instructional academic
staff member. A copy of the visitation report should be sent to the department chair, the chairs of
the campus evaluation and merit committees, associate dean, the campus dean Regional
Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, and the staff member. The results of the visit will be
included in the promotion file.
C. Returning retired faculty can expect the following:
1. A departmental visit may occur at the request of the department chair, the campus dean
Regional Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, or the faculty member.
III. Implementation
Each year the provost shall provide deans and department chairs with detailed set of instructions
including deadlines, implementation details and a complete list of instructional academic staff in
the pool.
IV. Performance Evaluation
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2013-04-26
Revised by the Senate (FPSC) 2016-02-19
A. Each year, the relevant campus committee or department will review the evaluation materials
and decide whether an instructional academic staff member is meeting the expectations for the
position. A performance rating will be assigned as follows:
-- "meritorious": exceeding expectations;
--"satisfactory": meeting expectations;
--"unsatisfactory": failing to fulfill expectations.
Each year, the appropriate campus or departmental merit committee will determine merit
rankings based on committee members’ assessment of each instructional academic staff/
retired returning faculty members’ achievements compared to the criteria established by the
evaluating unit (campus or department); these criteria will state the type of achievements for
Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Meritorious, Highly Meritorious, or Exceptionally Meritorious
performance in teaching, professional engagement, and service.
The UW Colleges Senate will produce and share a template set of general performance criteria
for each ranking: Unsatisfactory, Satisfactory, Meritorious, Highly Meritorious, and
Exceptionally Meritorious. Each ranking unit (campus or department) shall publish its own
set of performance criteria, modified from the Senate templates, specifying Unsatisfactory,
Satisfactory, Meritorious, Highly Meritorious, and Exceptionally Meritorious instructional
academic staff/retired returning faculty member performance. These criteria shall be based on
teaching effectiveness. Professional engagement work and service work may also be taken
into consideration. Professional engagement work is broadly defined to include research
225
(including SOTL research), degrees earned, courses taken, papers delivered, publications,
professional society membership and participation, performances and exhibitions, proposals
and grants, consultation, refereeing and reviewing, speeches, or other types of professional
creativity or enrichment. Service work is broadly defined as non-teaching University service at
the campus, department, UW Colleges, or UW System levels and as public service to the
community in areas related to the faculty member's academic expertise or professional
competence. Note: Data from assessment activities may not be used when considering merit or
promotion.
Professional engagement broadly contains development of assessment methods, course
scheduling, curriculum or content development, departmental outreach programs, course
delivery methods, lab safety protocols, undergraduate advising and work on committees
engaged in these activities.
B. When the evaluation process is completed and a rating has been determined, the department
chair or campus committee, depending on which does the evaluation, will inform the associate
dean, the campus dean Regional Associate Dean of Academic Affairs, the director of HR, and
the instructional academic staff member of the results. An unsatisfactory rating may result in
nonrenewal of a teaching contract.
C. Instructional Academic Staff must be given written notification of merit, including
information about how to improve their performance if the merit rating is less than Satisfactory,
in compliance with Academic Staff Personnel Policy #804.
V. Reconsideration Appeal Process
If the instructional academic staff member does not agree with the evaluation, he/she should
contact the department chair or campus committee to ask for reconsideration of the results. The
instructional academic staff member should submit the reason(s) for reconsideration.
VI. Allocation of Instructional Academic Staff/Returning Retired Faculty Merit Pay Plan Money
A. The Chancellor shall set aside an amount necessary to bring instructional academic staff/
returning retired faculty to rank minimum from the merit increment dollar pool.
B. The merit increment pool shall be allocated to meritorious instructional academic staff/
returning retired faculty in the following manner: 70% as a Percentage of Current Salary 30% as
Fixed Awards
C. The 70% to percentage merit shall be applied as a percentage of current salary to all
continuing instructional academic staff/returning retired faculty who are judged at least
Satisfactory.
D. The 30% fixed awards to meritorious instructional academic staff/returning retired faculty
shall be awarded as a fixed dollar amount to all continuing instructional academic staff/returning
retired faculty who are judged at least meritorious. Ten percent of the merit increment pool shall
be allocated to Highly and Exceptionally Meritorious instructional academic staff/returning
226
retired faculty. The fixed award for exceptionally meritorious instructional academic
staff/returning retired faculty shall be 50% larger than the fixed award for highly meritorious
instructional academic staff/returning retired faculty. The amount allocated and the fixed awards
shall be determined in accordance with current Senate Budget Committee procedures.
VII. Sample Performance Criteria Template Added by the Faculty Council (FPSC) 2016-04-22
The following lists provide a guide for campus and department committees to establish their own
set of merit ranking criteria. The items listed are UWC Senate required criteria categories. Each
category needs to have added specific criteria at each merit ranking level, by campus and by
department merit committees, so as to make clear the distinctions between rankings on each
category. Additional criteria categories may also be added by a campus or department.
Teaching:
 Displays a vigorous commitment to teaching
 Employs effective teaching strategies
 Participates in Department and Institutional Assessment
Professional Engagement:
 Course development and/or revision
 Development of assessment tools
 Development of new delivery methods
 Committee work that directly targets curricular and course development
Optional Categories.
These criteria can be used to justify increasing the merit rating of an IAS but cannot be used to
reduce their rating unless these areas are included as part of the compensated work in the IAS’s
contract.
Service:
Participates in and provides leadership to committees, work groups, and/or activities in one or
more of the following areas:
 UW System
 UW Colleges
 Campus
 Department
 Community
Professional Development:
 Participates and or holds leadership position in Professional Society
 Achieves progress toward or attainment of a terminal degree
 Engages in scholarly or professional publication, research, and presentations
 Provides discipline related performance
 Other types of professional creativity
227
Hi Jeff,
Thank you for your question. The ‘merit increment dollar pool’ is a concept for staff who are in
appointments that are permanent or expected to continue. As you know, IAS are on fixed-term
terminal contracts that by their very nature have no expectation for renewal. There is no ‘merit
pool’ for fixed-term terminal appointments or for other temporary employees. When UW
Colleges has received pay plan money in the past, some of that money has been directed to the
IAS pay grids, but not on every occasion and there is no requirement to do so.
Please let me know if you have any questions about this, Jeff.
Thank you,
Jason
----------------------------------------Jason Beier
Assistant Vice Chancellor for Human Resources
UW Colleges and UW-Extension
608-890-1066
Help us tell our story by sharing yours!
How do you Tap Into UW Colleges and Extension?
From: Verona, Jeffrey
Sent: Friday, January 27, 2017 1:38 PM
To: Beier, Jason <[email protected]>
Subject: Question regarding IAS merit pay
Hi Jason,
The Academic Staff Council has been revising and updating its policies, and one issue which has
emerged is a need for policy regarding IAS merit pay. The Legislature has indicated that all
future pay increases will be tied to merit in some way, but currently policy has no references to
how IAS are to distribute merit pay increases. We’ve been looking to modify the existing
faculty policy regarding merit pay (FPP 503, section II), which is where this language comes
from: “The Chancellor shall set aside an amount necessary to bring faculty to rank minimum
from the merit increment dollar pool.” The issue is with those last four words – “merit increment
dollar pool.” Apparently this “pool” is the pipeline though which merit pay money flows from
the Legislature to the faculty. In many years the pipeline is empty, but when money is to be had
that is how it makes its way to the faculty. However, IAS do not appear to have an equivalent
228
pipeline. As far as we can determine, there is no “merit increment dollar pool” dedicated to
IAS. So, even if the Legislature did vote a merit pay increase for IAS, there is no way for that
money to get to IAS. I have two points I’d like your response on:
1) Does a “merit increment dollar pool” exist for IAS, and if so, where in policy, guideline, or
statute does it exist?
2) If there is no such pipeline available for IAS merit pay, how do we go about creating one?
We can handle the distribution of merit pay money through our own policies, but without a
concrete way for the merit pay money to get to IAS in the first place, it’s rather a moot point.
Yours,
Jeff Verona
Senior Lecturer of English
Lead Academic Staff Senator
UW – Marshfield/Wood County
715.384.1709
[End]
229