Revised WE Procedures: A Proposal
Rob Cameron (cameron@cs.sfu.ca)
Thu, 2 Mar 2000 10:46:18 -0800 (PST)
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.