Student Development Committee
Thrusday, November 30, 2006
Cascade Campus, JH
Submitted by Dee Wilson

Attending:  Laurie Bales, Wendy Palmer, Michelle “Chach” Hart, Linda Reisser, Barbara Eby, Leslie Hackett, Kendi Esary, Dee Wilson, Mary Severson, Kelly Marks

Introductions: New Student Records representative, Leslie Hackett, was introduced.

DL Issues related to the Code of Student Conduct:

The group has been asked to look at the Code of Student Conduct as it relates to distance learning classes (DL). Mary reported Faculty members are experiencing problems with inappropriate contact related to online classes. Many comments are disrespectful and there have been instances of harassment. For regular classes, the instructor may remove the student from the class for one day. Due to the difference in delivery methods, it is difficult to determine the equivalent of one class.

RECOMMENDATION: That the instructor be the one to determine the one class equivalency. 

The following changes to the Code of Student Conduct were recommended:  

12.6 Abuse, harassment, intimidate, or threatening by any means of a student, staff member,

12.7 Malicious destruction, damage, or misuse of College or private property. (including library materials)

13.2 Each faculty member is responsible for conduct in class class conduct and is authorized to take such steps as are necessary when behavior of a student interrupts the normal class procedure.  When behavior is so serious as to result in expulsion from the class, the faculty member may remove the student from the class session or the equivalent for one day and may also require a conference between the students  meet with the instructor and/or Division Dean to identify and set conditions for his/her return …

21.7  Within 10 days… At the hearing, the student meets with the faculty member and division dean to hear charges and present the faculty member and division dean present charges and allow the student to state his/her side of the case.  

At the hearing, the faculty member and division dean present charges and allow the student to state his/her side of the case. 

The group believes the link to the Student Rights and Responsibilities Handbook and the College Electronic Policy Page on MyPCC needs to be more visible. 

ACTION: Dee to present the committee’s recommendation with the Privacy committee and to talk with Veronica and Luis about the possibility of either merging the Library Policy with the Electronic Policy or displaying it on the College Electronic Policy Page.  

Computer Information and Literacy: Linda updated the group on the discussions at the Deans meeting regarding computer literacy.  This has been moved to a higher level for review and discussion.  Mary suggested asking students the following three basic questions to determine the type of help a student would need.

Do you know how to use the internet?

Do you know how to send and receive email?

Do you know how to type, print and save a document using a computer?

ACTION:  Mary to forward to Chris Chairsell the notes from May meeting on computer literacy and the additional thoughts from the meeting today.

POST MEETING NOTE: Roberto Suarez stated it may be possible to add demographic questions to the Compass test on both the internet and stand alone tests.  For example, PCC was able to add a field to request information on OSD accommodations.  Another place could be in the online or in-person orientations. 

Tobacco Use Policy Update

Linda Reisser gave a status update. The survey questions have been completed.  Software has been purchased and installed and is in testing. The survey should go out early January, followed by Forums in February & March.  Results compiled by Spring. 

The task group also responded to an inquiry by the Dr. Pulliams wanting to know what was wrong with the current policy.  Linda will be sending a response based on data collected by committee members.

Policy Committee Recommendations for Changes to Pass/No Pass  

A group of faculty members brought a concern to the Policy Committee about inconsistency in grading, and grade inflation. 

Mary polled the other Community Colleges on their P/NP guidelines and sent it to the PC.  The group felt more data was needed before a formal recommendation could be made.  The group read the minutes of the Policy Committee meeting and discussed the following items:   

• Declare choice of letter grade vs Pass, No Pass or Audit at registration.

All agree that allowing students to declare at registration would be desirable so long as the student has the ability to change prior to the deadline.  This is done at PSU so Banner should support it.    

• Change deadline to request Audit, Pass/No Pass to the third week of term

The only financial aid implication is for a student who elects an ‘NP’ instead of a ‘D’ because they will not get credit for a class and may fall below their declared enrollment status.  A ‘D’ may affect GPA, but completion of credits is a bigger issue than GPA with financial aid appeals.

Student Records receives many requests from faculty members AFTER the term to change grades. These are done only if the faculty member made a mistake or the request was made by the student prior to the deadline. 

Mary believes from a student services perspective the change would be detrimental.  Students may need leeway to change their mind as they may not have adequate information about the class and/or requirements at registration.  

Dee believes that making the deadline stricter will result in more exceptions rather than less. Students will continue to make requests for grade changes so it would not eliminate pressure on instructors.  This will result in more grade appeals which are time consuming to process.

The general consensus of members was it would be fine to have a deadline, but later in the term would be preferable to earlier. 

• Eliminate the Drop with no refund/no grade (D0). 

Kelly thought the W would allow programs to monitor drops more efficiently as the D0 drops disappear from the roster.

Mary suggested the D0 drop was more student friendly as withdrawals are often interpreted negatively by transfer institutions.

Linda mentioned the D0 drop is a factor for Institutional Effectiveness in determining when students should be counted.  If the D0 drops are not included, it artificially inflates retention rates. 

Dee and Wendy will try to make it to the Policy Committee meeting Dec 6 1:30 Central Portland.