Members of FAS Undergraduate Forum are invited to provide comments to me in regard to the following second draft on revised WE procedures. The principal change is a streamlining that will see the bulk of the work handled by the Academic Resources Office working together with Associate Deans (or their equivalent) in each Faculty. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of a 1999 initiative by the Committee of Chairs, a sub-committee of the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies (SCUS) has considered ways of improving the process used to adjudicate requests from students to withdraw from a course under extenuating circumstances (WE). This document describes the results of our investigation. After identifying some limitations of the current WE process, a revised procedure is described. Before giving it formal consideration, SCUS wishes to obtain feedback on the proposal from faculty and students. You are therefore invited to share this document with your colleagues for that purpose. We appreciate that many details are not covered. However, there should be sufficient information to give a reasonably clear impression of the changes being proposed. If anyone wishes to supply SCUS with feedback, they should direct their comments to me at blackman@sfu.ca. A Revised Procedure for Handling WE Requests A Proposal from SCUS The Status Quo The current procedure for timely WE requests calls for the student to pick up a form from the Registrar's Office, have the form signed by course instructor and department chair, and then return the completed form to the Registrar's Office. Among the perceived difficulties with this process are the following: a) From the students view . . . Some students seeking a WE are in no good shape to be trudging the corridors and repeating their tale of woe in order to get approval. b) From the instructor's view . . . Many instructors (and chairs) feel they lack the information needed to make a considered decision. Some routinely support such requests. Others do so only if there is relevant documentation. Few attempt to check documentation. Very few have a clear set of guidelines to help them make a consistent decision. c) From the doctor's view . . . We have often been called to task by SFU's Health Services personnel for encouraging students to seek medical notes, sometimes retrospectively, simply for the purpose of satisfying the procedures for granting academic relief (such as WE). They see this largely as a waste of time. These problems are generally worse for retroactive WE requests. This has prompted consideration of revisions to the process and the development of a clearer statement of policy for handling WEs. Outline of a Revised WE Process All WE applications will be submitted to the Academic Resource Office (ARO). Staff at the ARO will screen the applications on the basis of agreements reached between each Faculty and the ARO. Applications that can be decided on the basis of the criteria specified will be processed immediately, with notification sent to the student and copies sent to the department chair and instructor. Applications that cannot be decided by ARO staff will be forwarded to the Faculty representative. This latter group will include both cases in which the arguments are unconvincing and ones that require some academic input. The Faculty representative may seek information or opinion from the instructor and/or department chair before making a decision whether to approve or deny the WE request. That decision is then communicated to the ARO who will notify the student and send copies to the department chair and instructor. Each Faculty/ARO agreement should reflect the Faculty's "comfort zone" with respect to having the ARO decide clear-cut WE cases. This agreement could range from having all applications routinely forwarded to the Faculty representative for a decision, to having the ARO approve (and perhaps even deny) all cases in which no further academic information is needed. The only difference in the processing of retroactive (RWE) and timely (TWE) requests is that the latter will need to be decided promptly while the former can usually be grouped for decision 2 or 3 times a semester (this is important in a Faculty such as Arts in which RWEs are decided by a committee). Implications for Workload In 98-3 there were almost a thousand WEs approved, about 1/4 of them RWEs. We have good data on the approval rate for RWEs (it's quite high), but we are less sure about TWEs. I can speculate that in 98-3 the 1,000 approvals might have been based on some 1200-1400 applications submitted. For argument's sake, assume that 2/3 of WE applications are approvable by ARO staff under the proposed procedure, and that a further 2/3 of the remainder are decidable by the Faculty representative. That would leave only 10-15% of the original 1,000 to be subjected to the current level of departmental scrutiny. In Arts, this would mean a weekly flow in the second half of the semester of some 35 TWEs (we saw none of these in the past). I think that is a tolerable load if handled expeditiously without involving a committee. The processing load would be considerably lower at the Faculty level in Science and FAS, but it would still represent an increase from the current level since the Dean's office is not normally involved with TWEs. In non-departmentalized faculties, workloads would presumably go down at the Faculty level (assuming their agreements allowed ARO staff to make the first decision). The greatest increase in workload would be experienced by the ARO. Although they currently counsel a significant proportion of students seeking WEs, the proposed system requiring such consultation would require a substantial increase in staff time. Nevertheless, the Director of the ARO feels the proposal is potentially workable. Students, instructors and department chairs would experience the greatest workload savings. A substantial majority of WE seekers might expect to get their request approved by the first and only person to read it. A minority might have to wait longer, but even they would be relieved of the burden of seeking faculty signatures. Instructors and chairs would be out of the loop except for those cases in which the Faculty representative explicitly requested their input. The Pros and Cons The advantage of the proposed process is a significant gain in both efficiency and consistency in the approval of WEs. First, approvable requests would be decided quickly in one office, with only contentious or ambiguous ones given wider scrutiny. Second, once trained, the staff in the ARO can surely be expected to be more consistent in their decision making than the collectivity of instructors and chairs. However, there are possible disadvantages. First, the initial decision (and the final one for most WE applicants) will be in the hands of a staff member rather than an academic. Some may feel that this is inappropriate. Yet if the reasons for requesting a WE are largely non-academic (and they are), then it may be argued that a suitably trained staff person is just as likely (if not more so) to be a good adjudicator. And if academic questions are pertinent, that can be the signal to pass the request on to the Faculty office. Second, there would be an increased workload in the ARO and in some Faculty-level offices. This is obviously a serious concern when we are all so stretched in handling current workloads. For the ARO, the Registrar would need to consider increasing staffing levels to accommodate the revised WE procedure. Thirdly, it is possible that the pattern of decisions might change with the proposed procedure. The "success rate" for WE applicants may increase substantially, reflecting what some colleagues might feel is an unacceptable lowering of standards. Or there may be a shift in the other direction. This is a consideration that would be addressed when ARO staff are trained in the processing of WE requests. Certainly we would be better able to measure and monitor such rates. The following is a draft handout for students describing how WE requests would be handled under the proposed procedures. Withdrawal Under Extenuating Circumstances: Procedures, Criteria and Guidelines During Weeks 4-12 of the semester, a student may apply for permission to drop a course under Extenuating Circumstances. These are defined in the Calendar as "unusual circumstances beyond the student's control which make it impossible for the course to be completed". If the application is successful, a WE notation will appear after the course on the student's transcript (note that during Weeks 4-5, a student wanting to withdraw from a course for any reason may choose to receive a WD, which is automatically granted). This handout specifies the procedures to be followed in submitting WE applications and the criteria that will be used in evaluating them, and it offers guidelines to assist students in the presentation of their case. I PROCEDURES a. Students considering making a WE application should seek advice from staff in the Academic Resource Office (ARO) in the Maggie Benston Building. b. As soon as a decision is made to pursue a WE request, the WE Application Form should be completed, relevant documentation appended, and the package submitted to the ARO (not to the department offering the course). c. The application will be reviewed by ARO staff, and may be approved directly. If it is, the student will be notified, normally within a few days, with copies going to the course instructor and to the department chair or faculty dean. The WE annotation will be placed on the student's transcript a week or so later. d. If it is determined that further input is required, the application will be forwarded to the relevant faculty dean's office. Information may then be collected from the course instructor and/or department chair before it is decided whether or not to approve the application. That decision will be communicated to the ARO, who will notify the student, normally within 2 weeks. e. Requests arising after the 12th week of the semester, or requests relating to a course taken in a previous semester, are referred to as "retroactive". Retroactive WE applications follow the procedures laid out above for "in-semester" requests, but may take longer to adjudicate. II CRITERIA It is not possible to lay down clear rules specifying precisely how WE applications will be assessed because the reasons for such requests are so varied. However, the following criteria are stated in a manner intended to help students determine whether they are eligible to apply for withdrawal under extenuating circumstances. a. Medical Grounds Students have grounds for a WE request if they suffer a medical condition during the semester which so impairs their ability to study that course requirements cannot be satisfied. Hospitalization for a week or more is almost certain to be regarded as sufficient evidence, while the sort of minor transient ailment that many students experience is most likely to be insufficient. b. Employment Grounds Students have grounds for a WE request if they experience an unexpected change in conditions of employment that is so disrupting that course requirements cannot be completed. Transfer to a remote location is almost certain to be regarded as sufficient evidence, while a requirement to work occasional overtime is most likely to be insufficient. c. Compassionate Grounds Students have grounds for a WE request if they have a traumatic experience that renders them unfit to complete course requirements. An extended period of intense grief following the death of an immediate family member is almost certain to be regarded as sufficient evidence, while short-term anxiety associated with a friend's illness is most likely to be insufficient. d. Other Grounds It is unusual for students to apply for a WE on grounds that are not medical, employment-related or compassionate. III GUIDELINES Compassion and Equity The dominant principles governing the WE process are compassion and equity. The university is prepared to help students who experience unexpected and uncontrollable events that seriously threaten their academic studies. But in doing so, it must be careful not to disadvantage students who continue their studies when faced with similar circumstances. In practice, this means that WE requests are approved only when there is compelling evidence that the student really has no alternative to withdrawal. Students who do not take reasonable steps to resolve existing problems before the end of Week 5 will have difficulty meeting this standard. Selective vs. Complete Withdrawal Since the reasons for a WE request are likely to have a pervasive influence on a student's academic performance, they will typically affect all the courses in which a student is enrolled. For this reason, most WE requests are for complete withdrawal from all courses in a semester. Occasionally, however, circumstances may be such that not all courses are affected, in which case the request is for selective withdrawal. A student applying for selective withdrawal must specify the reasons why one course is affected but another is not. Poor Course Performance Although most students requesting a WE have experienced academic difficulties in the course in question, the fear of a poor grade is not, in and of itself, acceptable as a basis for granting withdrawal. The assessment of a WE request is based on the nature and severity of the reasons for the poor performance. It is important for students requesting selective withdrawal to keep this point in mind, particularly where performance is weak in the course from which withdrawal is sought and noticeably stronger in courses in which the student wishes to stay registered. Medical Documentation Students with a medical condition severe enough to warrant a WE request will normally have consulted a medical practitioner and can document that consultation. Such documentation must be attached to the WE application. Students who did not see a doctor at the time of the accident or illness are advised not to seek medical documentation at a later time. Little useful information can be gained from retrospective medical notes written by health care professionals who were not consulted at the time the student was experiencing poor health. Employment Documentation Students appealing on employment grounds should submit a letter from their employer that supplies such information as the nature of the change, its date of onset and duration, and where relevant, the impact it has on the student's ability to maintain academic commitments. Covering Letter WE applicants should state their reasons clearly but succinctly in a covering letter. They may do so in the knowledge that the letter will be read only by the staff and faculty members who are responsible for assessing the application. The letter should link as clearly as possible the claimed causes (e.g., health problems) and effects (e.g., missed assignments). This may include setting out a chronology specifying the dates of relevant events. The more complete the documentation and the clearer the covering letter, the more likely the application is to be decided promptly. Consultation Students considering withdrawing from a course are required to seek counsel from the ARO. They may also wish to consult their course instructor and departmental advisor.