PROGRESS REPORT

Prepared for the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges

Western Association of Schools and Colleges

by

University of Hawai‘i

96-045 Ala Ike

Pearl City, HI 96782-3393

February 20, 2004

____________________________________________

Mark Silliman, Chancellor

Leeward Community College

---

PROGRESS REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Background…………………………………………………………………………………...1

Statement on Report Preparation…………………………………………………………..1

Response to the Request of the Commission in the Action Letter:

The “N” Grade…………………………………………………………………………...3

Appendix………………………………………………………………………………………7

Background

By “action letter” dated January 23, 2004, the Accrediting Commission for Community

and Junior Colleges (ACCJC) of the Western Association of Schools and Colleges

accepted Leeward Community College’s Focused Midterm Report, but placed the

College on Warning with the requirement of submitting two Progress Reports. The first

Report is due to the Commission by April 1, 2004, and the second Report is due by

October 15, 2004.

The action to place the College on Warning was taken by the Commission after it had

reviewed the College’s October 2003 Focused Midterm Report and the Evaluation

Report of the ACCJC team which had visited the College on November 14, 2003.

The action letter contains four formal recommendations on which the College must

report, and the Progress Report due in October 2004 must address three of those

recommendations. This first Progress Report must address only one of those

recommendations--that relating to the College’s “N” grade.

Statement on Report Preparation

Background.

ACCJC guidelines on the “Preparation of a Progress Report” require that

“The Progress Report must be reviewed by the Governing Board prior to its

submission.” Although this Progress Report is due to the Commission by April 1, 2004,

it had to be drafted and finalized by February 20, 2004, the internal deadline of the

University of Hawai’i (UH) for the submission of items for review and/or action by the UH

Board of Regents at its March meetings on March 18-19, 2004.

Subsequent to the receipt on 1/26/04 of the Commission’s action letter dated 1/23/04,

Leeward Community College Chancellor Mark Silliman acted quickly to inform the

campus community about the action letter, the College’s placement on Warning status,

the need to fully address and resolve the four recommendations and related concerns

contained in the action letter, and the requirement of the two Progress Reports, as well

as to disseminate both the action letter and the Focused Midterm Evaluation Report of

the 11/14/03 visiting team. On 1/27/04, by e-mail to the campus community, Chancellor

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

2

Silliman explained and summarized the action letter, including the four

recommendations contained in that letter (see Appendix). A pdf copy of the action letter

was attached to the e-mail. That e-mail also included a link to the College’s

accreditation webpage on which had been posted the Focused Midterm Evaluation

Report.

An academic policy, the College’s grading policy in terms of its “N” grade, had to be

addressed in this first Progress Report. Because academic policies and issues are

within the purview of the Faculty Senate to consider, debate, and make

recommendations on (pursuant to applicable UH Board of Regents Policy, UH

Executive Policy, the Charter and By-Laws of the Leeward Community College Faculty

Senate, and the College’s Shared Governance Policy), Chancellor Silliman requested

an appearance before the Faculty Senate on 1/28/04. The Chancellor underscored the

need for prompt and expedited action by the Faculty Senate in reviewing the “N” grade

and its use. He asked the Senate to devise a format and process to recommend the

changes necessary to achieve a resolution of this long-standing grading issue in order

to address the recommendation and concerns of the visiting team relating to the “N”

grade.

Subsequently, on 2/3/04, the Chancellor conducted an emergency open forum for the

campus community on the various issues relating to LCC’s accreditation warning status,

the recommendations and concerns of the visiting team, and the need for all campus

constituencies to get involved with and to assist in addressing accreditation

recommendations and meeting accreditation standards.

By the end of that week, following an e-mail advance notice to all faculty and staff on

1/30/04, copies of the ACCJC “Guide to Evaluating Institutions Using the ACCJC 2002

Standards” were distributed to all full-time faculty and staff with a cover memo from the

Chancellor dated 2/2/04 (see Appendix). In the memo, the “Guide” was emphasized as

critical reading for the entire campus community as the College prepares for its next

Institutional Self Study and as it moves quickly to address the recommendations and

concerns enumerated in the 1/23/04 ACCJC action letter. Both the mass e-mail and the

memo conveyed the message that accreditation and the improvement of institutional

quality and effectiveness are college-wide responsibilities.

As indicated in the next section on the College’s response to and action taken on the

subject recommendation and as evidenced by the documents in the Appendix, the

Faculty Senate has acted with dispatch in communicating with and responsibly

informing the faculty about the “N” grade issue, and then encouraging and facilitating

faculty dialog and obtaining faculty input on this issue (see Appendix). The Faculty

Senate also facilitated review and dialog about alternatives to discontinuing or

abolishing the “N” grade, such as more clearly articulating the meaning of and the

“criteria” for the “N” grade. At the end of the process before official action had been

taken by the Senate at its meeting on 2/18/04, the Senate afforded all full-time faculty

the opportunity to vote on the issue by controlled, written ballot. In summary, the

faculty-at-large have been afforded a number of opportunities through different means

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

3

and venues (such as by submission of comments by e-mail, straw polls, open forums,

and then by written ballot) to give input into the debate and decision-making on this

grading issue.

Process of report preparation

.

In this context, it may be said that the Faculty Senate

and the faculty of the College, individually and collectively through the Faculty Senate,

have played major roles in the process of preparing for this Report. Additionally, the

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the “N” Grade, consisting of Senators James

Goodman (who also serves as Senate Chair), Cindy Martin, and Linda Currivan, have

played very critical and important roles in facilitating faculty debate and decision-making

on this issue. Additionally, the Ad Hoc Committee has been pivotal in providing the

necessary information and documents required for the preparation and writing of this

Report.

Report writing.

With respect to the actual writing of this Report, the principal writers

were Douglas Dykstra, Interim Vice Chancellor and Chief Academic Officer, and

Clement Fujimoto, Part-time Assistant, Office of the Chancellor.

Senate Chair Goodman in particular was most helpful in providing all of the necessary

information and documentation as to the Faculty Senate’s role in assisting the faculty-

at-large reach a decision on the “N” grade issue.

Review and approval of report.

With respect to the review and approval of this

Report, the following members of the campus community were given a draft of the

Report and participated in this process: the Faculty Senate Executive Committee (Chair

James Goodman, Vice Chair Nancy Buchanan, Secretary Candace Hochstein); the

Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee on the “N” grade (Senators Goodman, Martin, and

Currivan); Co-Accreditation Liaison Officers Robert Asato, Lani Uyeno, and Gail Levy

(who are all members of the faculty); and the eight members of the Administrative team,

including Chancellor Silliman.

Chancellor Mark Silliman certifies this Statement on Report Preparation through his

signature on the Cover Sheet of this Report.

Response to the Request of the Commission in the Action Letter:

The “N” Grade

The Recommendation

The 1/23/04 ACCJC action letter requires the College to report on the

following recommendation:

Recommendation 1: The College should hold its planned Spring 2004

review of the “N” grade and either discontinue the use of the grade or

define it to be clearly applied after instructor assessment of student

learning, and assure that it reflects a unique amount of learning that is

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

4

distinguishable from the “F” grade. The College should also establish

and implement a policy defining when the “N” grade may be used so

that all students are treated fairly. (2003 Focused Midterm Visit Team

Concerns of the Visiting Team

In its Evaluation Report for the Focused Midterm Visit, the visiting team expressed its

concerns as follows:

This grade appears to be an option to the “F” grade (“less than minimal

passing achievement”) or the “I” grade. … The Standards require

institutions to provide courses that have appropriate rigor, and to

assess student learning. The “N” grade appears to indicate that

student learning is not assessed, or occurs at too low a level to assess.

The fact that the grade is awarded at the faculty member’s discretion,

rather than under criteria established by policy, creates the possibility

of unequal treatment of students or the perception of same. This issue

has been raised by the 2000 and 1994 visiting teams as a concern and

Action Taken on the Recommendation to Date

The Faculty Senate took the lead to review the academic policy issues of the “N” grade

by creating a Faculty Senate ad hoc committee to organize campus forums. Faculty

Senate Chair James Goodman and Senators Linda Currivan and Cindy Martin

organized and conducted two Open Forums scheduled on separate days to allow for

maximum campus participation.

The data gathered for a previously published research report by Leeward’s Institutional

Researcher Andy Rossi demonstrated that 15% of faculty used only F’s, 25% used only

Ns, and 60% used both the “N” and the “F” grades (see Appendix). A straw poll sent

out to the faculty and instructional APT’s via e-mail to their Division Chairs gave specific

options for faculty input on the issue. The results were as follows (see Appendix):

1. ___26___Eliminate the “N” and keep the F.

2. ____4___Eliminate the F and keep the “N”.

3. ___13___Eliminate the “N” (keep the F) and allow W until the end of the semester.

4. ___ 9___None of the Above (Write in Solution)

Based upon this input and considerable discussion, the Faculty Senate ad hoc

committee proposed three options as a starting point to discuss alternatives to remedy

the “N” grade problem: (1) eliminate the “N”, (2) limit its use to under 100 level

(baccalaureate) classes, and (3) restrict its use to remedial and developmental courses

under 100 level and to ESL courses under the 100 level. The Faculty Senate ad hoc

committee developed a comprehensive information sheet for distribution to Open Forum

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

5

attendees (see Appendix). The sheet provided background information on the issue,

comparisons of the use of the “N” grade at other UH community college campuses, and

options to define or discontinue the use of the “N.”

During the first Open Forum on Tuesday, February 10, faculty members in attendance

were evenly split between eliminating the N and restricting it to the under 100 level

developmental courses. A small number of faculty members defended their right to use

the N and even asserted that only a direct vote by the faculty at large would settle the

controversy. The second Open Forum on Wednesday, February 11, was more heavily

attended by faculty members and also included members of the Student Government,

who stated that they saw no reason for the continued use of the “N.”

The results of the Open Forum suggested that a broader sampling of faculty members

had to be polled to determine if more conclusive or definitive guidance could be

obtained. Therefore, on Wednesday, February 11, LCC faculty members were notified

through e-mail that a direct vote on the “N” grade--to define its use or discontinue it--

would be conducted between February 12 and February 18 (see Appendix). Although

the Senate had previously gathered input from all members of the campus, the vote had

to be limited to Board of Regents appointed faculty members for certification purposes.

This action is in keeping with UH Executive Policy E1. 201, “Faculty Involvement in

Academic Policy,” as well as the Board of Regents Charter for the Faculty Senate,

which recognizes it as the primary voice of the faculty in the academic governance of

the college.

For the faculty plebiscite, the voting ballot was divided into three parts (see Appendix).

The first part presented two major choices: Discontinue the “N” grade for all courses

taught at LCC or Define the “N” grade. If the second option were chosen, the voter

would be required to proceed to the next two parts of the ballot. Part two of the ballot

asked whether all courses or only selected courses should employ an “N” grade. The

third part of the ballot offered three definitions of what should define the use of an “N.”

On February 18, the ballots were collected from all Division offices and tallied by the

Faculty Senate Chair and three other Faculty Senators. Of 181 BOR-appointed faculty

members who were eligible to vote, the Senate received 141 votes. One ballot was

marked “Abstain,” while 6 others were voided because the option, “Define the “N”

grade,” had been marked, but nothing was marked in Parts 2 and 3, as instructed on the

ballot to determine how the “N” was to be used. In sum, out of the 134 valid votes that

were actually counted, the results were as follows:

1. ___77 (57%)__ Discontinue the “N” grade for all courses taught at LCC.

___57_(43%)_ Define the “N” grade (if you select this option, continue to answer

questions 2 & 3).

2. I recommend that the following courses at LCC be required to include the “N” grade

on all course syllabi.

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

6

_16_ Entry-level English, math, and ESL courses (numbered under 100 level).

_14_ All courses numbered under 100 level.

_27_ All courses taught at LCC.

3. I recommend that LCC define the “N” grade using the following definition.

__17_

Definition A:

The “N” grade indicates that the student has worked

conscientiously, attended regularly, finished all work, fulfilled course

responsibilities, and has made measurable progress. However, the student has

not achieved the minimal student learning objectives and is not yet prepared to

succeed at the next level.

__ 7_

Definition B:

The “N” grade indicates that the student has made consistent

progress in the class; however, due to extenuating circumstances (major health,

personal or family emergencies) is unable to complete the class.

__33_

Definition C:

Combination of A and B above .

At the Senate meeting held on that same day, 2/18/04, the voting results were

announced. After discussion, the following motion was voted upon:

“The Faculty Senate, in agreement with the recent formal certified vote of BOR

appointed faculty members, recommends that the “N” grade be discontinued,

The motion passed: 12 Yes, 5 No, and O Abstain.

The action taken by the Senate was communicated to the campus community, including

the administration of Leeward Community College, on February 19, 2004 by Faculty

Senate Chair Goodman by mass e-mail (see Appendix).

Chancellor’s approval decision.

On February 20, 2004, Chancellor Mark Silliman

approved the recommendation of the Faculty Senate to discontinue or abolish the “N”

grade in the College’s grading policy, effective Fall 2004. He communicated that

decision by mass e-mail to the campus community on 2/20/04 (see Appendix).

Analysis of the Results Achieved to Date

The Leeward Community College Chancellor responded immediately to the notification

by ACCJC of the warning status and the deadline for the first Progress Report. On

1/27/04, one day after the receipt of the notification from ACCJC, the Chancellor notified

the campus and began setting the proper tone for a constructive response to the

expectations of the Commission. By February 1, the Faculty Senate Chair presented a

detailed plan distributed to the entire faculty/staff via e-mail announcing campus wide

open forums to assure a broad-based opportunity for faculty/staff/student discussion of

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

7

the “N” grade issue (see Appendix). The campus leadership, both administrative and

Faculty Senate, deserves recognition for the dispatch with which they moved to assure

immediate progress toward addressing the subject of the first progress report.

The Faculty Senate forums provided the faculty the opportunity to consider the original

purpose of the “N” grade as it related to the educational values of the founders of this

open-door institution. Moreover, the current faculty debate provided the opportunity to

collectively review the past efforts to clarify the “N” grade issue dating back to the

1980’s. Placing the current debate in the context of more than a decade of campus

discussion on the issue enabled the faculty to relive the circular nature of the

discussion. Moreover, participants seemed to sense the complexity of defining a grade

such as the “N” to be distinctly and clearly distinguishable from the “F” grade. The

Senate leadership learned from the forums and the straw polls that a formal vote on the

issue was necessary. The turnout for the vote reflected the high level of interest by the

faculty in resolving this issue. Out of the 181 BOR-appointed faculty members, 141, or

78% of the total faculty, participated in the process.

Only 27 faculty members, or 20% of the valid ballots cast, opted to keep the status quo

of an “N” grade option for all courses. The 30 faculty members who wanted to keep the

“N” grade for specific courses numbered below 100-level were almost evenly split

between those wanting the “N” only for developmental English, Math and ESL courses

and those wanting the “N” for all below 100-level courses.

The Senate decision to respond to the certified voting results with a recommendation to

the Administration to discontinue the use of the “N” grade represents the clearest of the

options available to the campus. In comparison, voting results reflect the absence of

any clear consensus among supporters of the “N” grade, most notably when one

reviews the distribution of votes for the preferred definition of the grade. If the “N” grade

had been retained, the campus would have been confronted with a substantial period of

ongoing deliberation to finalize its precise definition and the criteria for its use or

application. The certified vote provided a clear direction and preference expressed by

the majority of participating faculty members for the new grading policy without the “N.”

Additional Action to Be Taken

The change in the College’s grading policy to discontinue the “N” grade will be reflected

in the College’s next Catalog for academic year 2004-2005. Revisions to other affected

policies and Catalog sections will also be made.

Appendix

1. Chancellor Silliman to LCC Campus, e-mail ACCJC Action on LCC’s Focused

Midterm Report, 01/27/04.

2. Chancellor Silliman to LCC Campus, e-mail ACCJC “Guide to Evaluating

Institutions,” 01/30/04.

---

Leeward Community College Progress Report to ACCJC

8

3. Chancellor Silliman to All Full Time Faculty and Staff, memo ACCJC “Guide to

Evaluating Institutions Using ACCJC 2002 Standards,” 02/02/04.

4. Faculty Senate Chair Goodman to LCC Faculty/Staff, e-mail Open Forum: “N”

Grade: Define It or Discontinue It, 02/01/04.

5. “A Study of “F” and “N” Grading Patterns,” prepared by Andy Rossi, 12/05/03.

6. Faculty Senate Chair Goodman to Cindy Martin, e-mail F/N Poll Results

2/09/03(sic), 02/09/04.

7. “The “N” Grade: Discontinue or Define,” Information Sheet prepared by LCC

Faculty Senate, 02/11/04.

8. Faculty Senate Chair Goodman to LCC Faculty, e-mail “N” Grade Voting Notice,

02/11/04.

9. Specimen Ballot, “N” Grade: Discontinue or Define.

10. Faculty Senate Chair Goodman to LCC Faculty/Staff, e-mail Results of the

Faculty Vote on the “N” Grade, 02/19/04.

11. Chancellor Silliman to LCC Campus, e-mail Approval of Grading Policy Change

to Discontinue or Abolish the “N” Grade, 02/20/04.