1. K-State home
  2. »Committee on Academic Policy and Procedures
  3. »2003-2004
  4. »May

Committee on Academic Policy and Procedures

Vice Provost for Undergraduate Studies
Steve Dandaneau
103 Leadership Studies
Manhattan, KS 66506


Meeting on May 12, 2004

Kevin Donnelly (AG) 
Ike Ehie (BA) 
Ray Hightower (EN) 
Monty Nielsen (REG)
Lynn Ewanow (AR) 
Mike Lynch (EDP) 
Karen Pence (HE) 
Nancy Moser (TC) 
Alison Wheatley (AS)
Mike Perl (ED) 
David Stewart (FC/AAC) 
Larry Moeder (ADM)

Call to Order:

Ike Ehie convened the meeting at 10:30 am.


Monty Nielsen announced that the 5-year academic calendar (Fall 2005 – Summer 2009) had been approved by Faculty Senate.

Ray Hightower reminded the committee of the officer rotation. Engineering (Hightower) will be chair and Architecture (Ewanow) will be secretary. New officers will begin next meeting.

Additions to agenda:

Wheatley - Non-Standard Class time requests. Moeder – Reinstatement form and transfer equivalency concerns.


The minutes for the April 14, 2004 meeting were approved.


Old Business:

Final Exam Policy

Hightower asked if there is a deadline that we need to meet for completing this task. Nielsen noted that it has been on the table for over a year and he would like closure. Donnelly is still concerned about the conflicts and complexity of the policy for night classes and would like to know how many students take two night classes on the same night. He suggested that two time blocks could be created during the evening by extending the day schedule format on throughout the evening (ie. 6:20-8:10 and 8:30-10:20). This would give also give more options for group exams. Hightower asked about Evening College. Stewart noted that Evening College gives exams on the last day of class so they can be done before finals start. These are mostly 8-week courses with 2 hour and 75 minute sessions, so there is adequate time for a final on the last meeting date. They also end the week before final exam week to accommodate this. Perl noted that the reason we have finals week is to allow for 2-hour finals in regular classes, so the final exam schedule should focus on that purpose first. Hightower asked if the Registrar could provide numbers of how may sections of regular classes are taught at night so we can comprehend if there are really many problems. Ewanow asked if the policy needs Faculty Senate approval. Donnelly noted that most of the document explains what has been used in the past to develop the matrix, and much of it is already printed in the line schedule along with the table. The last two pages involving requests to schedule finals outside of the prescribed time and requests for group exams are proposed for the faculty handbook and would probably need to go to Faculty Senate. Ehie speculated that there may not be a lot of problems with the schedule as currently set up, and if not, then why should we need to make any changes? Hightower moved to table the discussion until we find out from the Registrar’s Office the magnitude of problems created by the current schedule.

New Business:

Pence - NST for Human Ecology Courses

Pence presented NST requests for 12 courses. Four were approved last year on a one-time basis and the new request is for continuing. Two were for courses requiring a CAD lab in departmental space. Hightower questioned the justification on several of the AT and ID courses. He noted that the stated justification focuses on "avoiding conflicts with other required major courses", while the intent of the standard time policy is to help students be able to sequence non-departmental courses. Ewanow also expressed concern and noted that it is hard for us to really know if our exceptions are actually creating more conflicts for students. Hightower would like to attain more input from students via a survey to see how much trouble they are having with time conflicts. After the discussion, the motion was made and approved to accept all of the Human Ecology NST requests as presented (see table).

Wheatley - NST for Anthropology courses

Wheatley presented NST requests for ANTH 514 and 634 for Spring 2005 only to accommodate the schedule of a visiting professor and need for extended time to show films. Motion was made and approved for one-time only NST exception (see table).

Hightower – Amendment to Non-Standard Class Time Policy

Hightower distributed a packet of handouts, including CAPP’s report to the Provost and Academic Affairs that accompanied the proposal in Feb. 2002. It includes reference to the history of standard time policies since 1957, and modified in 1979 and 1990. Hightower had met with Dave Stewart and several faculty members that have been expressing concerns about the new policy. His handout summarized the concerns. A primary concern is the 11:30-12:30 gap for 110-minute classes when sequential labs must be held throughout the entire day, and he is proposing an amendment to address that concern. Another concern is the 45 minute gap from 10:45-11:30 on TU within the 75-minute schedule that in turn pushes the last afternoon period later in the day. Some departments would like to arrange classes so seminars can be held from 3:30-5:00. Some want to eliminate 7:30 classes. He reinforced to the meeting participants that the primary philosophy in developing the "time chart" was to minimize overlap at class change times (no more than two) to facilitate student scheduling, with second priority of maximum use of space. They would like evidence that rooms are not being used properly, but he was unable to provide that information. He presented the time chart with notes comparing the new chart to the old policy. In general, the new policy is more like the 1979 version. The 75 minute time sequence with the 11:05 starting time was added in 1990. His analysis compared the greater overlap caused by this system compared to the new system with the 45-minute gap and the 11:30 sequence. He did not propose any changes to the new 75-minute schedule. Wheatly felt that the 75-minute issue was bigger than the 110-minute lab issue, especially for faculty from some departments (ie. Biology and Economics). Donnelly agreed that this was a major faculty concern, noting that extending the 6th period (4:05-5:20) of the day beyond 5 pm, and overlapping most of the lunch hour with the 11:30-12:45 period were not viewed favorably by faculty who had to move into these slots. We have approved all requests to schedule 110-minute labs continuously if they meet from 7:30 – 5:20 (Biology, Physics, etc), and this actually allows an extra section during the day. Hightower proposed an amendment to incorporated that exception into the policy. Ewanow was concerned that we have not really had time to test the system for all problems yet, and urged us to be patient with changes. Since we have already accommodated all the 110-minute requests that the amendment addresses, we should wait to see of additional changes may need to be made. Ehie noted that both student and faculty concerns must be balanced. Hightower’s report noted that future requests for exceptions are expected to be minimal since we have gone through a complete cycle. Ewanow moved to table the proposed amendment. Motion passed.

Perl – Course Prerequisite Changes for LASER

Perl wants to know what procedure we can follow to clean up prerequisites in anticipation that LASER will be able to enforce them at enrollment. If departments have reviewed hem, can we just change them? Do they have to go through the standard Course and Curriculum approval process (green sheet/white sheet). He noted that there could be hundreds of changes. Wheatley did not think that we should have to send them through a full approval. Pence recalled that Faculty Senate once said if there was no impact, then changes would not have to be submitted. However, Donnelly noted that change in prerequisites has been considered as a primary flag requiring an impact statement by Academic Affairs in the past. Stewart agreed to carry our questions back to Academic Affairs for their input. Nielsen noted the implementation of LASER presents a need for everyone to look at prerequisites and question their true validity. The result may be that 2/3 will be eliminated. It will be a large task but will help clean up the system. Several noted that if this is to be the challenge, it needs to come from the Provost so that we can stimulate action soon across the entire university. Perl suggested that we could send a list rather than a full green sheet/white sheet course change proposal. Donnelly noted that the LASER team has to have guidance on how to approach this project. They can auto-enter all prerequisites as stated in the catalog into the system up-front. This feature can then probably be turned on or off at different levels (course, department, college). Alternatively, they can enter them only after a request from the department that the prerequisite feature should be "turned on" and enforced at enrollment. This removes the need to review every course up front. Hightower expressed concern that CAPP needs to meet with the LASER group to provide our input on what features we see as critical to be included, far more inclusive than just prerequisites. Donnelly will invite representatives from the LASER team to come to the next meeting.

Donnelly – Wait List Committee Update

Donnelly shared the activities of the wait list committee. He noted that LASER will also allow much greater opportunity for electronic management of wait list parameters. Like the prerequisite function, it can be turned on or off. A change to the KATS message asking students if they want to be added to the wait list in the current system is being proposed. It will note that all courses/instructors do not use the wait list.

Standing Reports:

Moeder – Changes to Reinstatement Form

Moeder announced that a statement/check box asking if the student is an international student has been added to the reinstatement form. This will help facilitate the Registrar and International Programs with tracking and reporting.

Moeder – Transfer Equivalency

Moeder reminded members of the KSU policy on acceptance of transfer course work. Each course is evaluated at the request of the transfer institution and some are coded "NO TRANSFER" based on the analysis by the K-State department. Even though it may be a common, lower-level, general education course (ie. Philosophy, Psychology) from a Kansas Community College, all are not necessarily accepted. Please remind advisers to check the transfer equivalency web site. Perl noted that we should share more with other institutions to make sure the course is equivalent before accepting. Hightower expressed alarm a the great number of 300+ level courses being accepted as equivalent from community colleges.


The meeting was adjourned at 11:50am.

Next Meeting:

June 9 , 2004.

Respectfully Submitted by Kevin Donnelly

Summary of Non Standard Class Time Actions for May 12, 2004.(In .PDF format)