Whereas, Many California community colleges allow students to repeat courses with substandard grades in order for students to improve their grade point average (GPA) and move closer to completion of their educational goals if the course is deemed equivalent and repeated at another regionally accredited institution;
Whereas, In 1995 the Chancellor’s Office rendered legal opinion L 95-31, which was reaffirmed in 2007, stating that an instructor could fail a student on an assignment for cheating but that the student could not be given a course grade of ‘F’ for that incidence of cheating unless that assignment grade, taken together with the student’s performance on the other course assignments, resulted in a grade of ‘F,’ per the requirements of Title 5 §55002 and the basic requirements for due process;
Credit by exam is a mechanism employed in the California community colleges as a means of granting credit for student learning outside of the traditional classroom. In some instances, credit by exam is the means used to award college credit for structured learning experiences in a secondary educational setting, while in other instances knowledge is obtained in non-traditional environments or an individual is self-taught.
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopted resolution 14.01 S12 that requested changes to Title 5 to include a noncredit progress indicator of Satisfactory Progress (SP) at its Spring 2012 session;
Whereas, The Chancellor’s Office Scorecard currently voids all data submitted for noncredit progress, thus indicating zero achievement and success;
Whereas, The Chancellor’s Office currently lacks the staff to facilitate the requested Title 5 change; and
Whereas, Academic Senate Resolution 9.05 F08 called for the Academic Senate for California Community Colleges (ASCCC) to “assert the right of discipline faculty to establish the content of credit by exam processes, . . . .” and “research and share effective practices for credit by exam processes with local senates”;
Whereas, Accountability reporting is required by the Legislature and plays an important role in describing the work of education by providing data for decision making regarding funding, program review, course offerings, learning and curriculum, hiring and overall institutional effectiveness;
Whereas, Noncredit education is currently limited to reporting all success as UG (ungraded) at the state level, equating to a documented success rate of zero, which does not accurately reflect the actual successful outcomes of noncredit education; and
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopted the paper Promoting and Sustaining an Institutional Climate of Academic Integrity (2006-2007);
Whereas, One of the paper's recommendations is "to support local faculty rights regarding Education Code 76224(a), which provides that faculty have the final authority on grade determination, in the absence of mistake, fraud, bad faith, or incompetency";
Whereas, There have been recent sensational news items about grades, and significant professional issues are involved; and
Whereas, Resolution 9.07 S07 called for a paper that would stimulate faculty dialogue in this area, with attention to the following questions:
(1) is grade inflation a problem in California community colleges?
(2) how can a college decide if there is grade inflation within the college or within a discipline?
(3) what factors influence grade inflation?
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges has developed the paper "Promoting Thoughtful Faculty Conversations about Grade Distributions" that calls on faculty and local academic senates to examine local grade distribution data and hold in-depth professional conversations about its implications for student success and public perceptions of grading;
Whereas, The Academic Senate for California Community Colleges adopted Resolution 14.01-Student Academic Dishonesty and Grading-in Fall 2005 requiring the Senate "to investigate faculty legal and professional rights and obligations with regards to dealing with academic dishonesty, including options for grading, disciplinary action, definitions of academic dishonesty, a statement of best practices, and an explanation of student rights (p. 1)";