MINUTES OF THE UNIVERSITY SENATE, MARCH 18, 1996

The University Senate met in regular session at 3:00 p.m., Monday, March 18,
1996, in Room 115 of the Nursing Health Sciences Building.

Professor Gretchen LaGodna, Chairperson of the Senate Council, presided.

Members absent were: M. Mukhtar Ali, Gary Anglin, Patrick Arnold, Benny Ray
Bailey, John Ballantine, Michael Bardo, Vasant Bhapkar, Ben Bogia*, Douglas
Boyd, Fitzgerald Bramwell, Bill Brassine, Carolyn Brock, Joseph Burch, Mary
Burke*, Allan Butterfield, Johnny Cailleteau, Joan Callahan, Ben Carr,
Edward Carter, Shea Chaney, Eric Christianson*, Jordan Cohen, Jean Cooper*,
Scott Coovert, Raymond Cox, Carla Craycraft, Frederick DeBeer*, Susan
deCarvalho, David Elliott*, Robert Farquhar, Juanita Fleming*, Richard
Furst, Beatrice Gaunder, Philip Greasley*, Kirby Hancock, Issam Harik,
Monica Harris, S. Zafar Hasan, James Holsinger, Rick Hoyle*, Edward
Jennings*, Stuart Keller*, Pamela Kidd, Craig Koontz, Thomas Lester, G.T.
Lineberry*, C. Oran Little, Jeff Lowe, Daniel Mason*, Douglas Michael*,
David Mohney, Roy Moore, Maurice Morrison, Donald Mullineaux, David Nash*,
Phyllis Nash*, Wolfgang Natter, Anthony Newberry, Michael Neitzel*, William
O'Connor, Clayton Paul*, Clyde Poe*, Tom Pratt, Shirley Raines, Karl Raitz,
Amy Rasor, Thomas Robinson, John Rogers*, Michael Rohmiller, Charles Russo,
Scott Safford, David Shipley, Todd Shock, Richard Smith, Sheldon Steiner,
William Stober*, David Stockham, Michael Thomlin, Michael Uyhelji, Retia
Walker*, Craig Wallace, Charles Wethington*, Chad Willet,Carolyn Williams,
Eugene Williams, Emery Wilson*, Mary Witt, William Witt, Linda Worley.

* Absence Explained

The minutes of December 11, 1995 have been distributed. There were no
corrections to the minutes and they were approved as circulated.

Chairperson Gretchen LaGodna made the following announcements:

Professor Loys Mather has been reelected to the Board of Trustees.
Professor Mather was given a round of applause. Professor LaGodna thanked
all the outstanding candidates that were on the ballot.

Professor Lee Edgerton has accepted the request of the Senate Council and
the President to serve a second term as the University Academic Ombud.

Continuing update on the retirement recommendations that were put forth by
the Senate Ad Hoc Retirement Committee. Professor LaGodna met with Myra
Johnson who is the Associate Director of Human Resources for Employee
Benefits. HRS has taken a number of very positive steps toward the
recommendations that were made. After talking they decided it would be a
very productive idea if HRS and the Senate Council cosponsored some open
forums for faculty. Three open forums have been set up to discuss current
issues and future changes in retirement planning and benefits. Every
faculty member will be getting a flyer. The dates for the forums are:
April 3, 1996, April 8, 1996,and April 11, 1996. There are three separate
times; two are late in the afternoon, one is over the noon hour. One is
scheduled in the medical center end of the campus and the other two are on
the other end of the campus. These are going to be important forums; I urge
you to attend one of them. It will give you a chance to have some input
into the benefits area.

Dr. Powell and Dr. Mather, as the Board of Trustees representatives and
Professor Dennis Officer as a representative from the Ad Hoc Retirement
Committee, and myself met with the President to discuss progress on the
major recommendation that came out of that committee, which was for the
phased-in retirement plan. The President reaffirmed his intent to respond
to that issue by the end of the semester.

The Senate Council endorsed the Green Lights Program, sponsored by Students
for an Energy Efficient Environment.

The Senate Council also sent recommendations for faculty appointments to
the Senate Advisory Committees, Area Academic Advisory Committees, the
University Appeals Board, and Student Media Board to the President.

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Robert Rapp from the College of
Pharmacy to present the following memorial resolution in honor of Professor
Michael Gosland who died on February 26, 1996.

Michael P. Gosland
Pharm.D.
1962-1996

Dr. Michael Gosland received a B.S. in Biology in 1984 and his Doctor of
Pharmacy degree in 1987 graduating Summa Cum Laude, both from the University
of the Pacific in Stockton, California. He then completed a Pharmacy
Practice Residency at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in
Palo Alto, California and a three year post-doctoral fellowship in the
Division of Oncology and Clinical Pharmacology at the Stanford University
School of Medicine.

Dr. Gosland joined the faculty of the College of Pharmacy and the College of
Medicine in 1991 as Assistant Professor in the Division of Pharmacy Practice
and Science. He was appointed as Assistant Professor in the Division of
Hematology/Oncology in the Department of Medicine in 1993, and promoted to
Associate Professor in the Colleges of Pharmacy and Medicine in 1995. Dr.
Gosland was also the Clinical Specialist in Oncology in the Department of
Pharmacy at University Hospital and a member of the University of Kentucky
Graduate Faculty.

In a small amount of time on the University of Kentucky faculty, Dr. Gosland
touched the lives of many faculty throughout the Medical Center which is a
tribute to his wonderful ability to collaborate in a wide variety of
research projects involving cancer drug therapy. He was an outstanding and
empathetic teacher of both pharmacy and medical students. He was the
primary preceptor for the Pharmacy Practice Specialty Residency in Oncology
Practice. As a clinician, Dr. Gosland worked with physicians, pharmacists,
nurses, and house staff officers to give the best possible safe and
effective drug therapy to Markey Cancer Center in-patients and out-patients.
During the past five years at the University of Kentucky, Dr. Gosland
developed an outstanding reputation for his research on the
multi-drug-resistant cancer gene and ways to reverse this resistance.
He was very well known for his work on the pharmacokinetics and
pharmacodynamics of anti-cancer agents and a well-trained laboratory
researcher who eagerly shared his views and his visions with other younger
and older faculty members in the Medical Center. Dr. Gosland had already
published over 20 papers in the scientific and professional literature by
the time of his death. He was a highly sought after lecturer and he
presented many times at state, national and international meetings in the
field of oncology.

Dr. Gosland and his wife Wendy are the parents of 3 children, Meagan
Kathleen, age 11, Katherine Elise, age 4, and John Philip, age 2. They
enjoyed their life to the fullest in the Crosswoods Subdivision in Jessamine
County and they were members of the South Elkhorn Christian Church on
Harrodsburg Road.

Dr. Gosland will be both remembered and missed by his wife and children, his
colleagues, and all his many friends in Lexington and throughout the country.

A fund for the College Education of the Gosland children has been
established. Contributions may be sent to Dr. Robert P. Rapp, Chair,
Division of Pharmacy Practice & Science, Room C-114,University Hospital, 800
Rose St., Lexington, KY 40536. Checks should be made out to the
"Gosland Children's Fund".

Professor Rapp asked that the resolution be made a part of the minutes and
that a copy be sent to his family.

The Chair asked that the Senate rise for a moment of silence.

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Dr. Roseann Hogan and Dr. Louis Swift for the
presentation of the Retention and Graduation Report, Follow-up Survey on
Non-Returning Students.

Dean Lou Swift and Dr. Roseann Hogan, Director of Assessment and Planning
for the Lexington Campus, presented a report on undergraduate retention at
the University of Kentucky. The report focused on a survey of non-returning
students which was conducted in the spring of 1995, but it also included
findings on Freshman to Sophomore retention rates and graduation rates over
the last decade. Dr. Hogan provided detailed data on the reasons which
students gave for leaving the University, the impressions students had of
their experience on campus, and the aspirations they entertained for
continuing their education. Some attention was paid to students'
perceptions of advising, their academic work habits while attending the
university, and the amount of time devoted to jobs on or off campus. It was
clear that respondents to the survey believed that greater attention to
advising, more feedback on academic performance, and more personalized
attention from faculty are items which the University needs to address.

The report evoked a spirited discussion among the senators.

The charts used for the presentation are attached to the minutes.

AGENDA ITEM I: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section IV,4.3.3
- Repeated Registration in a Course.

Proposal: [Add sentence that is bold]

4.3.3 Repeated Registration in a Course
The Chair of a department may refuse to allow a student to register in a
course a third time, including correspondence. A withdrawal from the course
shall not be counted as a registration for these purposes.

Background and Rationale:
The proposal was initiated by the Academic Ombud. It was sent to the
Admissions and Academic Standards Committee for their review. It was
revised in Committee and sent back to the Senate Council where it was
further amended.

The recommendation is based on the general principles that withdrawal from a
course prior to the official withdrawal deadline does not and should not
penalize the withdrawing students. Withdrawals after the official deadline
are permitted only for non-academic reasons and, therefore, should not
penalize the student. Refusal by a Chair to allow a student who has
previously withdrawn from a course to register in the course for a third
time is inconsistent with these general principles.

Implementation Date: Summer, 1996

Note: If approved, the proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee

Chairperson LaGodna stated this item was continued from the February
meeting. The amendment that was introduced by Professor Blues was being
discussed when the meeting was adjourned due to a lack of quorum. Professor
LaGodna asked if there was further discussion on the amendment which reads
"if the student can demonstrate that the withdrawal was for urgent non-
academic reasons." There was no discussion on the amendment. The amendment
passed in a voice vote. There was no discussion on the amended motion. The
motion passed in a voice vote and reads as follows:

The Chair of a department may refuse to allow a student to register in a
course a third time, including correspondence. A withdrawal from the course
shall not be counted as a registration for these purposes if the student can
demonstrate that the withdrawal was for urgent non-academic reasons.

The Chair stated the next item was a sensitive issue. When honorary degree
nominees are discussed they are recommended nominees only, the Senate is
advisory to the President and Board of Trustees where these nominees are
approved. In addition to the Senate's recommendation going forward, the
nominees themselves have to agree to this, therefore there are a lot of
reasons why it is critical not be make public who the nominees are at this
point in time. Keep in mind it is very important while the Senate discusses
who the nominees are that there names are not publicized and do not leave
this body. The Chair asked if there were any reporters present that they
leave the room during the discussion. Professor LaGodna then recognized
Dean Daniel Reedy from the Graduate School for the presentation of the list
of candidates for Honorary Degrees. Dr. Reedy stated the recommendations
came from the Honorary Degrees Committee and had been approved by the
Graduate Faculty. Dr. Reedy read biographical information on the nominees
for the Senate's consideration.

The motion to accept the degree candidates for recommendation to the
President passed in an unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 2: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules - Section V -
5.1.2.3 & 5.3.3.3 College of Medicine student promotion rules.

Proposal: (Add bold, underlined sections; delete items in brackets]

5.3.3.3 College of Medicine (US: 3/10/86):
A Assessment of Student Learning
The University of Kentucky College of Medicine is charged with the education
and training of competent physicians. Competence must be assured not only
in the students' fund of knowledge and technical expertise, but also in
their standards of personal and professional conduct. Student progress
shall be carefully monitored to certify that students have acquired
appropriate knowledge, skills, behavioral characteristics, and ethical
principles. To this end, students are responsible for conforming to all
rules and regulations specified by the Health Science Student Professional
Behavior Code, the "Technical Standards" detailed in the College of Medicine
Bulletin, and the academic standards established in these Student Promotion
Rules.

The Student Progress and Promotion Committee (SPPC) is charged with the
monitoring of student progress through the curriculum. The Committee
regularly reviews each student's performance and makes recommendations to
the Dean on such actions as graduation, promotion, remediation,
dismissal and leaves of absence. Final authority on all matters of student
progress and promotion is vested in the Dean of the College of Medicine.

Assessment Criteria
1. Student work is assessed by the faculty through the assignment of grades
upon completion of all required courses and clerkships. Basic science
grades are based upon such measures as written and oral examinations,
laboratory practicals, and case write-ups. In the clinical
years, grades are accompanied by detailed descriptive comments reflecting
the instructors' impressions of the student's knowledge, attitudes, and
technical skills.

2. Departmental faculty determine the level of student competence in the
course or clerkship for which they are responsible. Within two weeks of the
termination of each course, every department shall submit to the Office of
Education a grade, and where possible, written
comments on each student's performance. The Office of Education will
provide every student a copy of this grade sheet within three weeks of the
termination of the course.

3. Because of advanced academic pursuit in a biomedical discipline, some
students may wish to bypass a particular first or second year course. With
permission of the course director and the SPPC, a student may sit for an
"opt-out" examination. The course director will
determine the appropriate level of performance for bypass privileges.

4. Students will be required to pass a written comprehensive, standardized
basic science examination prior to promotion to the third year and a written
comprehensive, standardized clinical examination prior to graduation.
Students may sit for three consecutive administrations of each examination
in the attempt to achieve a passing score. During the interval between
repeated attempts to pass the examinations students are in a
non-promotional category. If unsuccessful after the third attempt, the
student will be dismissed from the College.

5. Students will be required to pass a Clinical Performance
Examination (CPX) prior to graduation. Students who do not pass the initial
examination will be required to participate in remediation activities and
pass a retest.

B Promotion and Retention Criteria
The education of a physician is a complex process, longitudinal in
character, with many incremental steps. To assure that students graduating
from the College of Medicine have the necessary knowledge, skills, demeanor,
and ethical principles essential to professional competence, the
following procedures will be used to evaluate and promote students:

1. At regular intervals the SPPC will review the academic record of each
student and make specific recommendations addressing promotion, remediation,
or dismissal. Beyond these recommendation, potential actions include but
are not limited to the adjustment of
academic load, repetition of curriculum segments, and participation in
counseling sessions.

2. Promotion to sequential semesters or years in the curriculum is
contingent upon attaining the expected level of performance as prescribed by
the faculty of the College of Medicine. Students attaining a GPA of 3.7 or
higher in their current academic year will be promoted to the subsequent
year With Distinction. This accomplishment will be noted in their
academic records and on their transcripts.

Commencement honors of High Distinction and Distinction will be awarded at
graduation for students who attain the appropriate GPA, i.e., 3.7 for High
Distinction, 3.5-3.69 for Distinction.

3. A non-promotional category will identify students who are not being
promoted due to unfulfilled requirements. These students may be involved in
remediation activities, be working to complete an "I" grade, or be retained
for not passing either standardized comprehensive examination. Students in
the non promotional category will be promoted or dismissed based upon
satisfactory correction of the deficiency.

4. A non-routine promotion category will identify students receiving
marginal grades whose performance warrants close monitoring. Marginal
performance may indicate the need for remediation or repetition of
curriculum segments. Continued marginal performance may be justification
for dismissal.

Unlimited opportunity to repeat courses, clerkships or curriculum sequences
is neither feasible nor desirable.

5. A student receiving a grade of "U" or "E" has performed at an
unacceptable level. To redress the grade, the SPPC will review both the
student's academic record and the compensating recommendations of the
department that assigned the mark. The SPPC will determine a plan of action
which may include remediation, repetition of all or a portion of the course,
clerkship, or curriculum year, or dismissal from the College.

6. A probation category encompasses those students who post a GPA of less
than 2.5 for any academic year and those students who receive "U" or "E"
grades. Students promoted on probation must improve their academic
performance in the subsequent academic year or risk dismissal.

7. Dismissal from the College will result when students have an annually
calculated cumulative GPA of less than 2.0; receive two or more "E" grades;
receive three or more "U" grades; receive a "U" or "E" grade while on
academic probation; or fail either of the comprehensive standardized
examinations on three consecutive attempts. At the
discretion of the SPPC and the Dean, students may be dismissed if they
receive two "U" grades.

C Leaves of Absence
Students are normally expected to complete the curriculum in four
consecutive years. Under compelling circumstances, leaves of absence may be
granted by the SPPC. The request for a leave of absence must be submitted
in writing to the Associate Dean for Education. Return from a leave must
be approved by the SPPC, may necessitate an amended academic curriculum, and
is subject to the availability of space in required courses. The following
three categories of leave may be sanctioned by the SPPC and approved by the
Dean:

1. ACADEMIC LEAVE OF ABSENCE is available to students who wish to undertake
specialized academic pursuits in a defined field of study. Students must be
in good academic standing. Approval will not be given for intervals in
excess of one year without reapplication.

2. PERSONAL LEAVES OF ABSENCE are initiated at the students' requests.
Students must be in good academic standing. Leaves in this category may
range from a number of weeks to a maximum of one years.

3. MEDICAL LEAVE OF ABSENCE: Illness can seriously disrupt or impede
student progress through the course of study. A student anticipating an
absence of 10 days or more must secure a medical leave of absence.
Application for this type of leave may be requested through the Office of
Education and must be accompanied by a letter from the student's attending
physician.

a. Processing and approval of a medical leave by the SPPC may require a
review of the student's pertinent medical records by a specially appointed
committee of physicians with relevant medical expertise. The length of the
medical leave of absence will be determined by the SPPC in consultation with
the student, his attending physician, and the ad hoc Committee of
physicians. Request for reentry must be accompanied by a
statement from the student's attending physician which addresses the
student's ability (mental and physical) to carry a full academic load. At
this juncture, the SPPC may again require review of the student's medical
records and/or a medical assessment by a physician with relevant clinical
expertise at the student's expense.

b. Absences due to acute illness do not require a medical leave of absence.
However, for absences which encompass a major performance examination or
more than five days of a clinical clerkship, at the student is responsible
for notifying the Office of Education as soon as possible. Further, a
supporting statement from an attending physician must be filed with the
Office of Education prior to returning to class.

5.1.2.3 College of Medicine (US: 3/10/86)
A Represents exceptionally high achievement in performance. It is valued at
four (4) quality points for each credit hour.

B Represents the expected level of achievement or performance in each
course. This grade reflects student competence in all areas of course
requirements. It is valued at three (3)quality points for each credit hour.

C Represents marginal performance. It is valued at two (2) quality points
for each credit hour.

E Represents failure or unacceptable performance in a course. It is valued
at zero (0) quality points for each credit hour.

P Represents a passing grade in a course taken on a pass-fail basis. It is
not used in quality point calculations.

W Denotes withdrawal from the College or from an elective course. 'W' must
be approved or recommended by the Student Progress and Promotion Committee.
Withdrawal from a required course is not permitted, except when a student
withdraws from the College. A student may withdraw from an elective and the
'W' will remain on the record.

U Represents unsatisfactory performance in a specified area of course
requirements. It is given instead of an 'E' grade when evidence exists that
the student might earn a ['C' ] passing grade upon completion of make-up
work. In the interim the 'U' will be valued at one quality point for each
credit hour. The temporary grade must be made-up [A 'U' grade must be
replaced by a 'C' or 'E' grade] before the student can be promoted to the
next year. The quality point calculation will then be the average of the
'U' and the ['C' or 'E' grade] the grade given after the make-up.

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

Rationale:
In the proposed paragraph on page two (bold, underlined), the exam is
designed to assess the student's development of procedural skills and other
proficiencies necessary for the provision of appropriate patient care which
are not generally measured by written examinations such as USMLE.
The CPX will be administered after the third year of the medical curriculum.
Students who do not pass the examination will be required to participate in
remediation activities and be retested. This promotion rule would be
implemented with the Class of 1999. This request also requires a
clarification in the wording of the current rules (see also page 2, section
4). Thus, it is recommended that the word "written" be added to the
appropriate sentences.

The proposed paragraph on page three (bold, underlined) is needed to retain
the College of Medicine commencement honors since the University Senate
decided to change commencement honors to a Magna, Summa, and Cum Laude
designation.

The changes on page 5 (definition of the "U" grade) are proposed because the
old definition restricted the grade after make-up work to a "C". With
multidimensional evaluation systems, faculty requested the ability to assign
an unsatisfactory grade when a single dimension was not at a passing level,
but wanted the ability to then assign a grade that reflected the student's
performance as the average of all the evaluation components.

The proposals have been reviewed and approved by the Senate's Committee on
Admissions and Academic Standards. They proposed one revision which the
College of Medicine accepted. The proposal as revised was approved by the
University Senate Council.

Proposed Implementation: Class of 1999

Note: If approved the proposal will be codified by the Rules Committee

Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Jan Schach, chair-elect of the
Senate Council for introduction of the item. Professor Schach reviewed the
background of the proposal and stated the proposals had been reviewed and
approved by the Senate Committee on Admissions and Academic Standards as
well as the Senate Council, she moved approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Jesse Weil (Physics and Astronomy) asked if on page two, item four
the examinations meant the first one or the second one or if it should be
plural and apply to both? Sue Fosson (College of Medicine) stated it was
either and it should be read each examination. Professor Weil asked that
examination was being talked about on page three, item three. Ms. Fosson
stated both and the word should be plural. Professor Weil said the bold
faced incertion on page 2 seemed to be the same as item number four. Ms.
Fosson said it was not the same examination and it was determined to make
the bold faced insertion item five. Professor Weil stated that on page five
on the bottom line promotion rule seemed to conflict with page two where it
says the CPX exam is required for graduation but not for promotion. Ms.
Fosson stated all the rules were considered promotion rules including
graduation. It was determined to remove the term promotion.

The question was called. The College of Medicine rule changes as amended
passed in an unanimous voice vote.

AGENDA ITEM 3: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules, Section V -
Grades and Marking systems - to establish a plus/minus grading system for
the College of Arts and Sciences

Background
During the 1994-95 academic year, the Admissions and Academic Standards
Committee considered a College of A&S proposal to establish a plus/minus
grading system for undergraduate students in that college. After
deliberations, the committee recommended that the change be instituted on a
university-wide basis rather than in just the College of Arts & Sciences.
Plus/minus grading is already in use in the colleges of Law, Fine Arts, and
Architecture, and the Landscape Architecture program.

At the April 10, 1995 Senate meeting a general discussion was held. Debate
ensued regarding instituting the plus/minus system for all University
undergraduate students, as well as solely in the College of A&S. No clear
consensus was achieved.

At the October 9, 1995, Senate meeting, the proposal was again discussed,
and the following concerns raised:

1. Issues of equity if system is not university-wide
2. If there were no designated A+ grade, the best students may be less
likely to earn 4.0s. This concern was confirmed by experience of
Shippensburg University of PA., who adopted a +/- grading system in 1992.)
3. Weakest students may be more likely to fall below 2.0 GPAs.

The Senate returned the proposal to the Senate Council for further study.

In response to the Senate's directive, the Senate Council sought additional
input by sending the proposal to the deans of undergraduate colleges, asking
that faculty councils or comparable groups review it. The request
specifically asked that they consider the advisability of a University-wide
plus/minus system for all undergraduate students. The memo invited student
input from the colleges as well. A separate request was made to the Student
Government Association.

The Senate Council then reconsidered the proposal at its 19 and 26 February
meetings, taking into consideration the following input:

- Discussion at previous Senate meetings
- SGA's October 1995 petitions and January 1996 Kernel survey
- Internet assessment of other universities' experiences
- Responses from 10 UK Colleges
- Research-based data from Dr. Tom Guskey and Dr. Roseann Hogan

While the Senate Council acknowledged that those UK units which currently
use such a system are satisfied, it concluded that there was no compelling
rationale to recommend instituting such a system university-wide. The
Council believed, however, that the original proposal forwarded by the
College of A&S should be brought back to the floor of the full Senate for vote.

The Senate Council therefore forwards the following proposal.

Proposal: Add to Section V - 5.1.2.4 the bolded area below

1.0 Grades and Marking Systems
College of Arts & Sciences
The following grades are given with the respective point value indicated.

B+ 3.3 C+ 2.3 D+ 1.3 E 0
A 4.0 B 3.0 C 2.0 D 1.0
A- 3.7 B- 2.7 C- 1.7 D- 0.7

The use of the plus/minus system does not change any college or university
grade point average requirements, nor the method by which grade point
averages are computed, nor the interpretations of other grades awarded, such
as F, I, P, W, & S. (US: 9/20/93)

For all studio work in the College of Architecture, the minimum passing
grade from level to level in the studio sequence shall be a grade of "C"
(US: 5/2/78, US: 9/20/93)

All students enrolled in courses using the plus/minus grading system will
have the appropriate point value calculated into their grade point average
regardless of their College of origin.

Rationale:
A +/- grading system would provide more precise and accurate evaluation of
student performance. The distinctions are seen as especially helpful in
courses that carry a large number of credit hours. Other colleges which have
+/- grading systems have been satisfied with the process.

Implementation Date: Fall, 1996

Note: If approved, the proposal will be sent to the Rules Committee for
codification.

Professor Jan Schach introduced the item and reviewed the background. She
moved approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

Professor Lou Swift asked if this was permissive or obligatory legislation?
Does a professor in the College of Arts and Sciences have to use the
plus/minus system or can they choose to the system if the college decides to
do that? Chairperson LaGodna said that question had been raised a lot. Her
understanding of how it would be handled was at this time a professor is not
obligated to assign grades in every category. If an individual faculty
member chooses not to use the plus/minus system, they would be able to do that.

Professor Lee Edgerton (Academic Ombud) said his understanding of the
proposal was that a student taking Arts and Sciences courses regardless of
their college of origin would get a +/- grade in that course on their
transcript, he asked how the transcript would read to someone outside
reading it, would it indicate that the student is in college that does not
recognize +/-, a student in his college would not be taking courses that got
+/-, would someone reading the transcript know that individual received a B
without the option of a B+/B-? Chairperson LaGodna stated that the way it
was currently written does not say that it would be indicated on the
transcript. Betty Huff (University Registrar) stated that the grade legend
would be put on the back of the transcript, and a statement that
says not all courses and not all colleges necessarily follow the +/- grading
system.

Professor Enid Waldhart (Communications and Information Studies) asked
Professor Schach to further explain what she meant by the colleges did not
give a response. Professor Schach said they asked each college to respond
to the university wide proposal through their faculty groups. The
students also responded by way of the Kernel and the Student Government
Association. The responses were mixed from college to college. The student
survey was against, but the numbers were low. They did not get a strong
sense one way or the other.

Professor Tom Blues (English) wanted to report on Professor Tom Guskey's
comment on +/- grading systems to the Senate Council. He said three things
that the Research on Grading revealed; one is that +/- grading does not make
any significant difference in grading, second that +/- grading is
just as subjective as non +/- grading, and thirdly there was no difference
in the complaints. His overall conclusion was that in effect it doesn't
make any difference. Professor LaGodna said one of the things that the
Senate Council concluded after talking with Professor Guskey that there may
be a great need for grading to be examined in general in many ways in the
University, but that creating a +/- system did not necessarily address the
problems in inequitable grading or grading methods.

Motion to stop debate passed in a show of hands.

The proposal passed in a show of hands.

AGENDA ITEM 4: Proposal to amend University Senate Rules - Section IV -
Admission to Non-Certification Undergraduate Program, College of Education

Proposal:
Students will meet a 2.5 GPA overall and in each academic specialization
(major, minor, and support) at the end of their first 60 hours. They will
be admitted to advanced standing and counseled by the academic specialist
advisor. Application for a degree in the College of Education for the
secondary education major will require an appropriate admission to advanced
standing and verification of a 2.5 GPA overall and in each academic
specialization (major, minor, and support).

Background:
In the late Fall, 1994 (December 24, 1994), the Senate Council approved a
new undergraduate program in the College of Education. That program, a
secondary education (non-certification) program, will eventually replace the
current undergraduate teacher certification program.

When the proposed program was circulated to the Senate for final approval,
objections were raised by faculty in the College of Arts and Sciences as
well as by the Dean of the Graduate School. Those objections have been
resolved and the program is ready to be offered.

The College of Education has asked that the program not be implemented until
a selective admissions standard is approved and in place. The admissions
statement they have proposed follows below, to be added to Section IV,
University Senate Rules.

The statement has been reviewed and modified by the Admissions and Academic
Standards Committee. The College of Education accepted the Committee's
modifications, and the Senate Council recommends it to the Senate.

Implementation: Fall, 1996

Note: If approved, the proposal will be forwarded to the Rules Committee
for codification Chairperson LaGodna recognized Professor Schach for that
last agenda item. Professor Schach introduced the item and reviewed the
background. She recommended approval on behalf of the Senate Council.

After several questions that could not be answered it was decided to put the
item on the agenda for the April meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 4:48 PM.




Betty J. Huff
Secretary, University Senate