To:Faculty Senate
From:Susan Jaworowski, Chair, Academic Grievance Committee
Re:Proposed revision of Academic Grievance Guidelines and supplemental materials
Date: April 7, 2015
On behalf of the Academic Grievance Committee, I am submitting a proposed revision of the Academic Grievance Guidelines to clarify the guidelines, provide missing information, include student-friendly information, and include simple, standardized forms so that process can be complete, timely, and efficient.
Background: The Academic Grievance Committee is not a Faculty Senate committee, but is appointed by the Chancellor. However, the guidelines are approved by the Faculty Senate, which is why this proposal is being presented to you. Faculty are appointed for two-year terms, and students for one. I am finishing my two years as chair of the committee, along with faculty members Sharon Rowe, Grant Itomitsu, Kristie Malterre, and Jeff Zuckernick. During this period, four grievances were presented to the committee. It became apparent during the first one that the current guidelines needed updating. Students need more clarity. They needed the know what an appropriate grievance was and what was not; they needed to know this is a multi-step process, with opportunities for resolution along the way; they needed to know what appropriate remedies were; and they needed to know to provide all information from the start. Faculty needed more rights. It was not clear whether they were to be given the opportunity to review their department chairs report or their Dean's report. The department chairs and deans needed simple forms that allowed them to clearly describe the grievance and their recommendation. The Academic Grievance Committee needed to be provided with all relevant materials, instead of having to do substantial research for each grievance, which was one key factor that made it impossible to meet the deadlines. The Committee also needed to be smaller, as the large size of the committee was the other key factor in making it impossible to meet the deadline set forth in the guidelines.
Action: The Academic Grievance Committee discussed these and other procedural issues during the course of handling their grievances. In fall 2014, I suggested that we propose a new set of guidelines, and the committee agreed. In January 2015, I met with VCSA Brenda Ivelisse for consultation on potential changes. I also reviewed a number of Academic Grievance Guidelines from other campuses, including LCC's, which was revised in 2014. Based on this research and our discussions, I prepared a draft revision of the policy, along with a page and a half summary of the process in student-friendly terms, and four proposed standardized simple forms to be used to collect the allegations, the investigations, and the recommendations. The documents were shared in Google Drive for comments by the eight members of the committee, the three Deans, and the VCSA, and their comments were incorporated in the final draft, which is attached to this memo.
Key changes in the proposed Academic Grievance Guidelines include:
- Smaller committee size - 5 instead of 9 members, as the larger number prevented the AGC from meeting on a timely basis due to many schedule conflicts.
- Clarifying that the faculty member is informed of the responses by Dean and DC throughout the process.
- Requiring the faculty member to come to the AGC hearing (previously optional) but also requiring that the student and faculty appear separately.
- Clarifying that the student could bring a support person and the role of that person.
- Including four simple standardized forms to help the student understand the information that they need to provide at each level of review, and to provide some guidance for department chairs. In all four grievances handled during my term, the AGC had to do substantial research before they could understand the issues as there was no complete record. For example, in one case, the student just submitted emails. Use of these simple forms provides the structure that will help these grievances at every level.
I would be happy to meet with the Faculty Senate or the appropriate subcommittee to provide additional details on why these changes are needed.
Attachments:
Student Guide
Timeline
Suggested form 1 – 4
Proposed new guidelines
Student Guide to the Academic Grievance Process
This student guide is a summary of the formal Academic Grievance Process Guidelines and does not replace it. Student should familiarize themselves with those Guidelines prior to starting this process.
Instructors have the authority to conduct classes, provide for discussion of ideas, require assignments or other work, require tests, and grade students. Students are responsible for learning the content of any course they enroll in but should be protected against arbitrary grading. If the student believes that they have received an unacceptable final course grade due to the faculty member acting improperly or in a manner inconsistent with the faculty member’s responsibilities or the student’s customary academic expectations, the student may initiate the academic grievance process and ask for an appropriate remedy (usually a grade change). An appropriate remedy does not include a punishment for the instruction; instead, it is designed to help the student.
The academic grievance process relies on the initiative of the student and is resolved at the lowest level possible. The complaint is first shared with the faculty member and can rise as high as the Chancellor. The student may find himself or herself satisfied at any intermediate step in the process, and need not proceed through all steps. Each step must be completed within the prespecified number of days to provide a timely resolution. The student needs to submit all relevant evidence and make all claims at the start of the process so that each level of review (Department Chair, Dean, Academic Grievance Committee, and Chancellor) has all the necessary information to make a decision.
The process must start with the student making every reasonable attempt to discuss the final grade with the faculty member involved, within 45 days of the completion of the academic term. If the student and faculty fail to resolve the matter, the student next will consult informally with the department chair, who will also consult with the faculty member involved. The department chair will inform the student on whether the chair finds the complaint to have merit or not, and the grounds for that decision, within 7 days of the consultation.
If the chair finds no merit to the complaint, the student can then file a formal written complaint with the department chair (suggested form 1), and the department chair will then create a written response for the student (suggested form 2) within 7 days. These documents are important and will be the basis for any further appeal of the complaint. The student has the burden of proof, which means that the student has to include evidence, including any written documents (such as the syllabus, graded work, or email) and statements from themselves or others that show that the faculty members acted inappropriately or inconsistently, and that this led to an unfair grade. This creates a record for the next step in the process. It is not enough just to claim a grievance without proof.
If not resolved to the student’s satisfaction, within 7 days, the student may then file an academic grievance with the Dean for that program by sending the Dean the original complaint and the department chair’s response, as well as an additional statement as to why the student disagrees with the department chair’s response (suggested form 3). Within 14 days of receiving the grievance, the Dean will review the grievance and respond to the student, informing the student whether the Dean finds the complaint to have merit or not, and the grounds for that decision.
If the student disagrees with the Dean's response, within 7 days the student can file an appeal of the grievance with the Chancellor's office (suggested form 4), including a statement as to why the student disagrees with the Dean's response. After collecting all required forms, the Chancellor's office will inform the Academic Grievance Committee of a pending grievance. The Academic Grievance Committee Chair will review the grievance and will dismiss it, if the Chair finds the grievance to be patently (openly) frivolous. If it is not patently frivolous, the Chair will schedule a hearing within 14 days of receiving this notice. The student is required to attend the hearing, and the faculty may attend. If the student does not attend, the grievance can be dismissed. Within 7 days of the hearing, the Academic Grievance Committee, which is composed of both student and faculty members, will submit a memo of its finding and recommendations to the Chancellor.
The Chancellor will respond to the student and faculty member within 30 days of receiving the memo. The Chancellor's decision is final on the campus.
Timeline
Action / Deadline1. The student contacts faculty about the grievance and is not satisfied with the resolution. / Grievance must be started within 45 days after the end of the semester, if the course is a semester-long course, and for courses of shorter duration, 45 days after the final grades are posted.
2. The student contacts Department Chair and requests resolution. DC will informally investigate and advise the student. / Department Chair investigates and responds within 7 days.
3. If the student is not satisfied with the informal response, or the informal response is not timely, within 7 days the student shall file a formal written complaint with the DC and send a copy to the faculty member. See suggested form 1. / Department Chair responds within 7 days in writing to student and faculty. See suggested form 2.
4. If the student is not satisfied with the written response, student contacts the Dean for that department and requests resolution. See suggested form 3. / Student contacts Dean within 7 days of DC response. Dean sends written response to student and faculty member within 14 days of student request. Extension are allowed for adequate investigation if they are communicated to the student.
4. If the student is not satisfied with the written response, the student files a grievance with the Chancellor’s office. A copy of the grievance is sent to the faculty member. See suggested form 4. / Student files grievance within 7 days of receiving the response from the Dean.
5. The Chancellor’s office collects the student grievance, the Dean’s report, and the Department Chair’s report, and transmits them to the Academic Grievance Committee chair. / Materials collected and transmitted within 5 days.
6. The Academic Grievance Committee holds a hearing. / Hearing held within 14 days of receipt of materials.
7. The Academic Grievance Committee files a memo of findings and recommendations with the Chancellor. / Memo transmitted within 7 days of the hearing.
8. Chancellor issues the final determination. / Determination issued within 30 days of receipt of the memo.
Student Grievance Request to Department Chair
(suggested form #1)
Name of faculty member involved:
Course alpha, number, and title:
Date of the alleged grievance:
Basis for the grievance:
Dates and summary of discussion with the faculty member:
Requested remedy:
Date submitting this form:
Department Chair Grievance Response
(suggested form #2)
Student name:Name of faculty member involved:
Department chair (DC) name:
Course alpha, number, and title:
Date(s) of DC contact with student:
Summary of student issue:
Student’s requested remedy:
DC’s response to the grievance:
Date of this form:
Student Grievance Request to the Dean
(suggested form #3)
Your name:Date of filing this form:
Name of faculty member involved:
Course alpha, number, and title:
Date of the alleged grievance:
Date written response was received from the Department Chair:
State the reason(s) you disagree with the DC’s response:
Both the complaint you submitted to the Department Chair and the Department Chair’s response should be attached to this form:
__ Yes, I have attached the original complaint
__ Yes, I have attached the DC’s response to this form
Date this form was submitted to the Dean:
Student Grievance Appeal to the Chancellor
(suggested form #4)
Your name:Your student ID number:
Your UH email: @hawaii.edu
Your contact phone:
Name of faculty member involved:
Course alpha, number, and title:
Date of the alleged grievance:
Date written response was received from the Department Chair (DC):
These four documents should be attached to this form:
__ Yes, I have attached my original complaint to the DC.
__ Yes, I have attached the DC’s response to this form.
__ Yes, I have attached the request to the Dean.
__ Yes, I have attached the Dean’s response to this form.
State the reason you disagree with the Dean’s response:
Date of filing this form:
STUDENT ACADEMIC GRIEVANCE POLICY AND PROCEDURES
(UPDATED XX/XX/2015)
1. POLICY
1.1 INTRODUCTION AND AUTHORITY
It is a historically established rule of higher education that an instructor has the authority to conduct classes, provide for the discussion of ideas, make assignments or other exercises, require examinations, and render judgments on the performance of students. The exercise of this authority provides the foundation for an academic relationship between individual students and faculty members that is unique to colleges and universities. At a basic transactional level, this relationship is maintained by the interplay of traditional and customary standards of conduct and courtesies, the observance of which is the responsibility of both faculty and students. Inevitably, issues associated with the student’s responsibilities as a learner, as well as the faculty member’s responsibilities for presenting unambiguous policies and procedures, may occasionally arise.
To address these issues, the University of Hawaii has instructed its constituent campuses to provide for the consistent and equitable resolution of legitimate student academic grievances pertaining to the assignment of course grades. Accordingly, the Chancellor of Kapi’olani Community College, upon recommendation of the Kapi’olani Community College Senate, has established this Student Academic Grievance Procedure, effective XX,XX,20XX. This revised policy follows the guidelines of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) Policy Documents and Reports, (10th ed., 2006) in recommending that “The review of a student complaint over a grade should be by faculty, under procedures adopted by faculty, and any resulting change in a grade should be by faculty authorization” (127).
1.2 ACADEMIC RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE STUDENT
Kapi’olani Community College (College) subscribes to that part of the 2007 “Joint Statement on Rights and Freedom of Students,” adopted by a diverse number of higher education organizations including the American Association of University Professors, which relates to classroom instruction: “The professor in the classroom and in conference should encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression. Student performance should be evaluated solely on an academic basis, not on opinions or conduct in matters unrelated to academic standards.” The following protections are excerpted from this same document.
A. PROTECTION OF FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
Students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any
course of study and to reserve judgment about matters of opinion, but they are responsible for learning the content of any course of study for which they are enrolled.
B. PROTECTION AGAINST IMPROPER ACADEMIC EVALUATION.
Students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or
capricious academic evaluation. At the same time they are responsible for adhering to
standards of academic performance established for each course in which they are enrolled.
C. PROTECTION AGAINST IMPROPER DISCLOSURE.
Information about student views, beliefs and political association which professors
acquire in the course of their work as advisors, and counselors should be considered
confidential. Protection against improper disclosure is a serious professional obligation.
Judgments of ability and character may be provided under appropriate circumstances,
normally with the knowledge or consent of the student.
1.3 DEFINITIONS
Academic Grievance Committee (AGC): See part 1.4 of this document for the definition,
composition, and role of the AGC.
Academic Grievance: A written statement of complaint filed with the chairperson of the Academic Grievance Committee requesting a formal review of the assignment of a course grade which the student believes to have been unsatisfactorily resolved by the Department Chair (DC).
Complaint of Alleged Academic Impropriety: A written charge filed by a student with the
DC alleging that a faculty member has acted improperly or in a manner otherwise
inconsistent with the faculty member’s responsibilities or the student’s customary
academic expectations. (If the allegation is other than an appeal of the assignment of a
final grade, the issue should be referred to the appropriate Dean. If the issue involves
discrimination or sexual harassment, the student should be directed to the EEO
Coordinator, where a separate set of procedures are followed.)
Course: A credit course at the College in which scheduled instruction is provided and in which the alleged Academic Grievance took place.
Customary Academic Expectation: Expectations reflective of a student’s learning experience in a similar course level taken at this or a comparable institution of higher education, typically described in the College catalog and core outline, specifically in student learning outcomes. The faculty member is acknowledged to have professional oversight of specific submission standards and comparative bases relative to customary student work submitted at various course levels.