Resolution 146: Grade Change Protocols
Posted: October 11, 2019
Passed: March 11, 2020
Sponsor: University Faculty Committee
Senate Discussions: May 2019, September 2019, November 2019, March 2020
Resolution
Whereas at its May 2019 meeting the Senate approved the addition of this prose to the Faculty Handbook Section on Grade Changes:
In rare circumstances, a letter grade or incomplete can be changed to a “W” or expunged from a student’s transcript by action of the student’s college or by the Provost, for example, if so advised by Cornell Health, the Title IX Office, or by University Counsel. Regardless, the instructor of record must be informed by the registrar office making the change before the actual change is made.
Whereas it is vitally important to ensure the integrity of the grade-change process with clearly stated and effective protocols;
Be it resolved that the above Faculty Handbook passage be changed to
After a letter, incomplete, or S/U grade issued by an instructor of record to a student in a course has been posted to the student’s transcript, on rare occasions a college will have reason to consider removing the grade from the student’s transcript and replacing it with a course withdrawal (W) or expunging the student’s course enrollment altogether.
When such a transcript change is necessitated by circumstances involving Cornell Health, the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX, or the Office of University Counsel, the student’s privacy interest limits the information that college officials may share with the instructor. In such cases, the college associate dean for academic affairs (or equivalent position) will inform the instructor of the impending transcript change before it is made and explain to the instructor that the action was warranted due to a matter involving one of the three offices named above, and that university protocols, including appropriate consultation, were followed.
In cases not involving these three offices, where a retroactive transcript change is under consideration, the college associate dean for academic affairs (or equivalent) must inform the instructor of the reasons for making the change and obtain the instructor’s approval before making it.
Background
This resolution sets forth the parameters and processes when a college seeks to retroactively issue a course withdrawal (W) or expunge a student’s course enrollment altogether. The resolution establishes that in all instances, the college associate dean for academic affairs (or equivalent position) must inform the instructor of record of the intended transcript change. The resolution also establishes that the college associate dean for academic affairs (or equivalent position) must obtain the instructor’s approval before making such a transcript change unless one of the exceptions delineated in the resolution is present: (1) the change is necessitated by circumstances involving Cornell Health, the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX, or the Office of University Counsel.
If you have comments to share you can post them below anonymously.
We are aiming to have a vote at the February Senate meeting.
Original Resolution – posted 10/11/2019
Faculty Senate Resolution on Changes in Grading Policy
Whereas the University has been changing course grades without notifying the instructor of record and, thus, without the consent of the instructor,
Whereas this change in grading policy was initiated without the knowledge of the Faculty Senate,
Whereas faculty determination of course grades is a fundamental right of the faculty as stated in the Faculty Handbook,
Whereas grading policy is a fundamental part of the educational policy of the University,
Whereas all changes in the educational policy must come before the Faculty Senate before they are instituted by the University,
Resolved, that the University suspend the policy of changing course grades without the consent of the instructor until the Faculty Senate has been consulted and has approved any changes in the grading policy.
Revised Resolution – posted 11/4/2019
Faculty Senate Resolution on Changes in Grading Policy
Whereas the University has been changing course grades without notifying the instructor of record and, thus, without the consent of the instructor,
Whereas this change in grading policy was initiated without the knowledge of the Faculty Senate,
Whereas faculty determination of course grades is a fundamental right of the faculty as stated in the Faculty Handbook,
Whereas grading policy is a fundamental part of the educational policy of the University, Whereas all changes in the educational policy must come before the Faculty Senate before they are instituted by the University,
Whereas there may be justifications for emergency changes of grades to “W” resulting from egregious personal situations,
Resolved, that the University administration work with the Faculty Senate to incorporate such changes into the University grading policy.
Background November 2019
Faculty Senate Resolution on Changes in Grading Policy
Background
Late in the spring semester 2019 (about six months ago now), Dean of Faculty Charles Van Loan brought to the attention of the Faculty Senate that the University had been changing course grades without the knowledge of the instructor. Here is Dean Van Loan’s synopsis of the discussion in the Faculty Senate that followed:
“The resolution on grade changes generated some debate. No one objects to the requirement that the instructor-of-record always be informed of changes made. However, there was concern about the authority of the student’s college to make grade changes and that the wording of the resolution may weaken faculty control of the grade-change process, especially if the student and instructor are not affiliated with the same college. In reply it was mentioned that the resolution simply adds a feature to the grade-change process (informing the instructor) that would help guard against improper changes and that this is the best we can do at this time. It emerged during the discussion that we need more data to understand the scope of the problem and that we need to totally understand the grade-changing protocols that are in place in each of the colleges. Only then can the Senate effectively participate in the design a transparent, low-overhead, bullet-proof system that is consistent across the colleges. The associate deans and the college registrars need to be engaged and preliminary discussions with the DoF have been set up for May 15 and June 20 respectively. Discussions informed by summertime work will take place in the Senate in the fall. Electronic voting on the grade change, meeting time, and FTZ resolutions is to be conducted with this ballot that needs to be returned by May 15.”
The discussion in the Faculty Senate focused on this paragraph from page 99 of the Cornell Faculty Handbook (accessed online on October 4, 2019):
“Only the instructor of the course has the responsibility and authority to judge the quality of a student’s work and assess the appropriate grade. No one can overrule instructors and require them to go against their judgment of the work. Grading must not be arbitrary or capricious or influenced by illegal discriminatory considerations. To avoid the influencing of grades by improper consideration or student pressure, a grade once given, may only be changed if an error in the original grade is claimed by the instructor. The instructor should be willing to review the basis of an assigned grade with an inquiring student and correct the grade if an error is found. The evaluation of the quality of the student’s work is solely up to the instructor, but the grade must not contain a punitive element for an offense against academic integrity if the student has been found innocent of this offense by a duly constituted board.”
Following this discussion, the senators voted on the following resolution (which passed: 57 Yea, 2 Nay, 1 Abstention):
”Whereas, the assignment of grades is at the core of the instruction process and must be conducted with utmost integrity and professionalism;]“Be it resolved that the Faculty Handbook section on grading be modified as specified in the table below:
The following is the text that was proposed in that resolution:
“Only the instructor of the course has the responsibility and authority to judge the quality of a student’s work and assess the appropriate letter grade. No one can overrule instructors and require them to go against their judgment of the work. A grade must not be arbitrary or capricious or influenced by illegal discriminatory considerations. It must not contain a punitive element for an offense against academic integrity if the student has been found innocent by a duly constituted board. To avoid the influencing of grades by improper consideration or student pressure, a grade, once given, may only be changed if an error in the original grade is claimed by the instructor. The instructor should be willing to review the basis of an assigned grade with an inquiring student and correct the grade if an error is found. “In rare circumstances, a letter grade or incomplete can be changed to a “W” or expunged from a student’s transcript by action of the student’s college or by the Provost, for example, if so advised by Cornell Health, the Title IX Office, or by University Counsel. Regardless the instructor of record must be informed by the registrar office making the change before the actual change is made. If the instructor of record is no longer employed by the university, then the director of the student’s degree program is the appropriate contact. “Any individual who believes that a grade change has been made improperly may communicate their concerns to the proper authorities via the Cornell Hotline. Faculty also have the option of sharing a grade-chance concern with the Dean of Faculty.” Note: The Faculty Handbook has apparently not been updated to reflect passage of this resolution.
The Faculty Senate has clear jurisdiction over grading policy: Under the bylaws of Cornell University, the “…functions of the University Faculty [Senate] shall be to consider questions of educational policy which concern more than one college, school or separate academic unit, or are general in nature…” (Cornell Faculty Handbook, p. 16).
Justification for the Faculty Senate Resolution on Changes in Grading Policy
1) The new grading policy was originally created in secret. Because faculty were not notified that changes were being made, the Faculty Senate had no way of knowing that a new policy had been instituted. There was certainly no consultation with the Faculty Senate before the new policy was instituted.
2) All policy changes involving the educational mission or educational policy of the University must be presented to the Faculty Senate for review and consultation. We have a clear and abiding responsibility to represent our faculty colleagues on matters vitally concerning their roles as members of the faculty.
3) Faculty responsibility for grading is a fundamental part of educational policy and, thus, should have come before the Faculty Senate before it was instituted. It is clearly within our jurisdiction (and our
responsibilities) that grade changes without the consent of the faculty member of record be discussed in the Faculty Senate.
4) As Dean Van Loan says in his synopsis relaying the outcome of voting, “this is the best we can do at this time.” However, it is not the best we can do now. And the aim should be, as Dean Van Loan stated in the synopsis quoted above, “we need more data to understand the scope of the problem and that we need to totally understand the grade-changing protocols that are in place in each of the colleges. Only then can the Senate effectively participate in the design a transparent, low-overhead, bullet-proof system that is consistent across the colleges.” We are, as we stand now, a long, long way from such “a transparent, low-overhead, bullet-proof system.”
5) All this resolution is intended to do is: (a) compel the University to describe the new grading policy in order to (b) permit the Faculty Senate to deliberate and vote on the design of that policy.
Thank you for your attention.
Richard Bensel, Senator for the Department of Government
Sponsored by:
Richard Bensel-Government
Risa Lieberwitz-ILR
David Levitsky-Nutritional Sciences
Bryce Corrigan-Government
Courtney Roby-Classics
Carl Franck-Physics
Laurent Dubreuil-Romance Studies
Thomas Golden-ILR
Lindy Williams-Dev. Sociology
Charles Walcott-Neurobiology and Behavior
Comments
Examples
The following examples point to situations where the instructor would not have the authority to block an expunge or a retroactive W:
- A student fails all their final exams in December and it is diagnosed in February with an ailment that would have justified a Fall semester medical leave.
- In matters involving the Office of Institutional Equity and Title IX, the student may have been or is a complainant in a Cornell University Policy 6.4 matter and entitled to accommodations in the form of a retroactive W.
- In cases involving the Office of University Counsel, the student may have had or has a credible, supported legal claim of wrongdoing against the instructor of record, for example, that the instructor sexually harassed the student or failed to provide the student with a disability accommodation required by law.
Collaboration
The text was developed jointly by David Delchamps (Chair, Educational Policy Committee), Lisa Nishii (Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education), Carol Grumbach (Associate Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education), and Mike Thompson (Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies ) . There was full consultation with the EPC and the following Academic Policy Working Group assembled by Vice Provost Nishii:
- Rachel Bean, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education and Professor, College of Arts and Sciences (Chair)
- Gena Boling, Director of Compliance for Student Aid Programs
- George Boyer, Senior Associate Dean for Academic Affairs and Professor, ILR School
- Jon Burdick, Vice Provost for Enrollment
- Diane Corbett, Director, Financial Aid
- Margaret Frey, Senior Associate Dean for Undergraduate Affairs and Professor, College of Human Ecology
- Carol Grumbach, Associate Vice Provost
- Melanie Holland Bell, Assistant Dean for Education, College of Architecture, Art, and Planning
- Lisa Nishii, Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education (ex officio)
- Mike Thompson, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Studies and Associate Professor, College of Engineering
- Donald Viands, Associate Dean and Director of Academic Programs and Professor, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences
- Casey Washburn, Associate University Registrar, Academic Services
I do not support this resolution as is based on flawed premises. The University has not been changing course grades.
Since the start of our conversations about this issue, people have referred to Section 6.1 of the Faculty Handbook (regarding Instruction: Grade Changes):
“Only the instructor of the course has the responsibility and authority to judge the quality of a student’s work and assess the appropriate grade. No one can overrule instructors and require them to go against their judgment.”
I fully support this policy. This policy is not relevant, though, to the conversion of F’s to W’s.
Let’s say that I assign a student an F, and this F is later converted to a W by my College’s Academic Records Committee. In this scenario, how and when has my assessment of the student’s work been overruled– who claims that the student’s work and performance in my course were any different from my assessment? How and when I have been required to go against my judgement? Answer: no one, and I have not.
Retroactive W’s and expungements do not alter my or any professor’s assessment of a student’s performance in a given class. They rather determine that the student’s *lack* of performance in a particular instance is no longer relevant in the context of the student’s semester, year, or degree.
As such, the practice of retroactive W’s is not an incursion into faculty responsibility and authority. Yet the proposed resolution (particularly its earlier draft) extends the authority of individual faculty members into students’ progress with their courses of study.
It was argued in the October meeting that changing an F to a W is a grade change because the change affects a student’s grade-point average. Yet since when is a student’s GPA relevant to a faculty member’s evaluation of a student’s work? If an individual faculty member wants control over a student’s GPA, who is to say that the desire for such control isn’t vindictive and an abuse of power?
Appendix I of the Faculty Handbook, “The Academic Responsibilities of the Faculty,” defines faculty obligations as the following:
“to communicate and extend knowledge, to subject to continuous critical scrutiny and transmit…intellectual and cultural inheritance, and to provide conditions in which students are stimulated to explore, to challenge, and to learn.”
I do not see “to serve as gatekeepers” or “to sort out the losers” listed among these obligations.
Also, an F is hardly a specialized instrument; one doesn’t need to be an expert to assign one. Faculty are experts in their fields, but they are not necessarily experts in the issues that can lead a student to receive an F.
Lastly, why is 50 per year a significant number of retroactive W’s? In 2018-2019, there were 15 formal undergraduate Policy 6.4 complaints. And how many concussions, hospitalizations, other crises…?
I see that the revised resolution is toned down from the original. Still, I do not believe that certifying students’ failure has any essential place in our educational mission. I find the resolution and the conversations leading up to it to be counter-productive to a genuine understanding of the issues at hand.
Joanie Mackowski, Associate Professor
Senator, English Department
I thank the resolution sponsors for endorsing the collaboration plan that we set in motion last May when we created the current grade change policy. That plan is playing out nicely.
There have been discussions with the college registrars and others about how we can inspire confidence that the proper protocols are followed when extenuating circumstances prompt a request for a retroactive W or an expunge.
The UFC has developed a proposal that addresses this issue and it is posted on the Senate’s Pending Legislation website.
In addition, a special Working Group has been convened by the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education that will also look into the issue. Dialogs can be expected at the December and February meetings.
In the meantime here are two comments on the resolution itself. Instead of
“The University has been changing course grades without notifying the instructor of record and, thus, without the consent of the instructor.”
it would be more accurate to say
“There have been isolated instances of the colleges expunging courses grades and changing course grades to “W” without notifying the instructor of record.”
Second, until we took action at the May meeting, there were no required inform-the-instructor protocols in place. Thus, the second whereas does not make sense; there was no existing policy to modify.
The whole idea is to go from a no policy/no guidance scene to a system of low-overhead, privacy-preserving, clearly-stated protocols that ensure integrity.
With the proposed UFC changes to the faculty handbook, this resolution does not seem necessary. I would ask one question though, regarding this statement in the UFC pending resolution: “faculty must be afforded the opportunity by the relevant college authorities to discuss the protocols that were followed if the change leads to a retroactive W or an expunging of the record”. Why does this only apply to a retroactive W or an expunging of the record? Should this not apply to all change of grades that are not done by the faculty? I understand the expunging or a change to a retroactive W based on extenuating circumstances, but the recent college admission scandal showed that wealthy donors can lobby administrations (successfully) for a positive change in their children’s grade. We all assume this will never happen at Cornell (probably quite rightly) but making the revised policy more general will be more transparent and give faculty more oversight under change of any grade.