Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
Page 6
Page 7

(J....................NATE 

?

.Fro 

......SENATEcp.I 

...................... 

.N ..DADUATE.............. 

STUDIES 

Subject.RECOINENDATIONS - POLICY CU.DELfNES 

?

.

Date. 

OCTOBER 23, ? 

979

?

............................................. 

FOR GRADING PRACTICES 

Action undertaken by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate 

Studies at its meeting of October 9, 1979 leads to the motion which 

follows: 

MOTION: ? 

"That Senate approve, as set forth in S.79-10 

-

8, the pro- 

posed Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices." 

Paper S.79-88 on this topic was discussed 

,

at the Senate 

meeting of October 1, 1979. At that time an amendment was proposed 

for page 3 of the document, "Should Departments have guidelines on 

expected distributions in particular types of courses they will be 

made public prior to the beginning of the course and will be accom- 

panied by a rationale for the expected distribution.* Instructors 

• ? 

may be required to justify major deviations from these norms." 

There was considerable debate on the proposed amendment 

and Senate referred the Item back to SCUS for further consideration. 

Meanwhile there was attempt to proceed further with the document at 

the meeting. After further discussion Senate approved the following 

motion: "That this paper be referred back to the Committee with 

understanding there will be opportunity to raise issues on which there 

is concern." Senate moved into committee of the whole to clarify 

referral and a number of points were raise but without clear agreement 

on some of the Items. 

The Committee considered the amendment which had been 

proposed at Senate and appro'ed the first sentence to be added as 

the last paragraph of Section II, page 1 of the Policy Guidelines 

statement. 

In view of the debate at Senate and the further considera- 

tion of the Committee, the second sentence of the earlier proposed 

amendment was deleted. 

The Committee considered also other points which had been 

raised at Senate but agreed unanimously that further changes to the 

paper should not be made. It noted that the paper over the years 

had undergone extensive scrutiny and that the paper as now presented 

represented the efforts of the Committee to accommodate the various 

'

?

viewpoints which had been expressed. 

For additional background information the transmittal memo 

submitted to Senate with. Paper S.79-88 is included with this sub- 

mission. 

From

SENATE COMMITTEE ON UNDERGRADUATE E')IS 

H. ? 

M.

?

EVANS, ? 

....................... 

SENATE 

SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY

MEMORANDUM

RECOMMENDATIONS - POLICY GUIDELINES.... 

?

Date SEPTEMBER 

.

7.1

­1 . 

9.7.

......................................................... 

FOR GRADING PRACTICES 

Action undertaken at a series of meetings of SCUS in 1977, 1978 and lastly on 

September 11, 1979 leads to the motion which follows: 

MOTION: 

?

?

"That Senate approve, as set forth in s.79-88, the proposed 

Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices." 

General Background Information 

1.

?

i)

In September 1976 Senate approved motion as follows: 

"That Senate direct the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies to review 

grading standards and procedures and to report back to Senate regarding ap- 

propriate policy guidelines for grading." 

ii)

SCUS established a sub-committee which, after several meetings, presented 

its report to SCUS. 

?

The Chairman of SCUS chaired the sub-committee. 

?

That 

report was discussed extensively at SCUS and many revisions were made. 

?

In

revised form it was distributed in July 1977 to the Student Society, to 

S

its

Chairmen of Departments, and to Deans for comments and suggested revisions. 

Those responses were discussed at a number of meetings of SCUS in the late 

Spring of 1978. 

?

The earlier months of Spring 1978 were devoted to the 

"Report on Grading," which was paralleling in part the "Recommendations on 

Grading Practices." 

?

Lengthy documents had been received from some areas on 

each of these documents (notably from Science). 

?

The "Report on Grading" was 

submitted to Senate last year and approved with some revisions. 

?

Discussion 

continued at SCUS and elsewhere on the "Recommendations on Grading Practices." 

iii) 

A procedure had been adopted by SCUS for considering the "Report on Grading" 

and a similar procedure was adopted for the "Recommendations on Grading 

Practices." 

The responses to the July 1977 enquiry were summarized and tabulated and a 

SCUS. 

series of motions (with alternatives) were listed to focus discussion at 

The material provided to SCUS included (1) copy of the SCUS report distributed 

broadly in 1977, 

?

(2) copy of responses received, (3) a summary tabulation of 

responses by items, (4) a suggested procedure for dealing with the topics with 

motions and alternatives. 

At a series of meetings commenting-May 2, 1978, SCUS considered and revised 

the original report. 

?

Meetings were held May 2, May 23, May 30, June 6, June 

20, 1978. ? 

The last action taken by SCUS on June 20, 1978 was to approve motion 

as follows: 

"That the revised paper be forwarded to the Student Society for comment and 

to Deans of Faculty for any further Faculty comments, for return to SCUS for 

are required                                           

.

final consideration before transmittal to Senate. 

?

Any comments 

31, ? 

1978." 

by the Chairman and by the Secretary of SCUS not later than July 

The action of forwarding was undertaken with covering memorandum dated 

June 21, 1978, entitled "Recommendations - Policy Guidelines for Grading 

Practices," with copies to the President of the Student Society, to Deans 

of Faculties and to Chairmen of Faculty Undergraduate Curriculum Commit- 

tees. The paper then attached, "Policy Guidelines for Grading Practices," 

incorporated all changes made by SCUS up to June 20, 1978 inclusive and 

represented the position at that time. 

iv)

In its earlier communications to the various bodies SCUS emphasized that 

its intention was to clarify the role of Department Chairman as a collegial 

one emphasizing the Chairman's responsibility in upholding what is expected 

to be a common departmental concern for the maintenance of academic stan- 

dards. In outlining specifically the procedures for reconsideration of a 

grade SCUS did not wish to nullify practices which were currently working 

effectively but to ensure that the parties involved were cognizant of 

general expectations and responsibilities. Departments with explicit 

procedures were invited to submit copies with responses to the proposed 

policy guidelines. 

v)

All responses received to that 1978 enquiry were distributed to SCUS 

members, were summarized and tabulated and a series of alternative motions 

were presented in a procedure similar to that previously followed. Final 

discussion was held at the SCUS meeting of September 11, 1979 resulting 

in the attached paper - Policy Guidelines on Grading Practices now recom- 

mended to Senate by the Senate Committee on Undergraduate Studies for 

approval. 

(1)

As amended by SCUS 

policy       

?

Grading Practices 

?

to October 9, 1979 

I. ? 

OBJECTIVES 

1. To set forth the basis of grading practices at SFU and, specifically to 

clarify: 

a)

the basis on which grades will be assigned. 

b)

the responsibilities of the instructor and the Department Chairman with 

respect to grading, and 

d) the responsibilities of the student, the instructor, the Department Chair- 

man, and the Dean with respect to reconsideration of a grade, and the 

place of Senate in such reconsideration. 

2. On the basis of 1. above, to ensure continued maintenance of high academic 

standards, reasonably consistent and equitable evaluation practices within and 

across courses, and appropriate procedures on grade reconsiderations. 

II. THE BASIS ON WHICH GRADES WILL BE ASSIGNED 

This paper is not designed to restrict unduly the basis on which final grades 

for a course are assigned, but to stress that students, the instructor and the 

Chairman should know in advance the general basis for awarding of grades. This may 

include in various combinations such items as results on a mid-term examination, a 

final examination, frequent tests throughout the term, classroom attendance/partici- 

pation, projects, term papers, essays, laboratory work, evidence of extensive reading 

and so forth. There should be clear indication of the general procedures to be fol- 

lowed in arriving at the final grade Grades will reflect demonstrated achievement 

in course objectives. 

In addition, students should know the general manner in which a grade will be 

assigned for any specific work required throughout the term. For example, if an 

essay is to be graded for style, format or documentation the student should be 

informed of that. 

Should departments have guidelines on expected distributions in particular types 

of courses they will be made public prior to the beginning of the course and will be 

accompanied by a rationale for the expected distribution. 

III. GRADING 

A. Responsibilit 

; te 

.

S

,

of the instructor 

1. To provide the Department Chairman (normally six weeks in advance of 

the start of the semester), with a course outline and a statement of the course 

requirements and how these will be related to course grades. If circumstances 

require a change in requirements, to provide such statement of such changes to 

students within the first week of classes. Course outlines usually should advise 

students of allocation of marks as between final exams, mid-term exams, tests, 

term papers, tutorial participation, projects, laboratory work and any other re- 

quirements. 

(2)

2.

To grade and return as promptly as possible mid-term, essays, and 

other course requirements. (See III. A. 4.; IV. 5., 6.) 

3.

To provide the Chairman, upon request, with a clear rationale for 

whatever grading approach is proposed. (See III. B. 2., 3.) 

If a Department Chairman is unwilling to accept a proposed grading 

approach the instructor would have recourse to the Faculty Dean whose resolution 

of the matter would be considered final. 

4.

To maintain clear records of the marks given and to weighting of 

those marks to establish a final grade and to ensure that those records and any 

student work retained (exams, essays, etc.,) are kept for at least one semester 

following the end of the semester (and after that until any outstanding request 

for reconsideration of a grade is resolved). Such records and material will be 

available to the Department Chairman on request, and should be filed with the 

Department for the subsequent semester if the instructor will be absent. 

5.

To attempt to resolve each request from a student for reconsideration 

of a grade and to cooperate with the Department Chairman in the resolution of any 

request the instructor is unable to resolve directly. (See IV. 2., 3., 4.) 

B. Responsibilities of the Department Chairman 

1.

To obtain from instructors and make available to students (normally 

six weeks in advance of the start of the semester), course outlines including 

statements of course requirements and how these will be related to course grades. 

(See III. A. 1.) 

2.

To consider requests from instructors to assign letter grades on some 

basis other than that stated in II. above and to approve those requests in which 

the evidence suggests the alternative approach is warranted. (See III. A. 3.) 

In special cases - after the first week of classes to consider, and 

than approve or disapprove, requests from instructors with class approval to assign 

letter grades on some basis other than that stated in III. A. 1. 

3.

To review with the instructor the grades assigned in each course in 

order to ascertain that grading has been done with reference to academic achieve- 

ment (unless some other basis has been approved in advance), and that it is con- 

sistent with the course requirements and basis stated in advance, and to countersign 

the grade sheet for a course when he/she is satisfied that students in the course 

have been graded appropriately. (See III. A. 1., 3.) 

If a Department Chairman has refused to sign an instructor's grade sheet, 

it is expected that the faculty member concerned and the Chairman will do every- 

thing possible to resolve the difference and, failing that, the faculty member 

(3)

would have recourse to the Faculty Dean whose resolution of the matter would be 

considered final. 

4.

To review grading practices from time to time in consultation with 

all faculty members of the department, to encourage the department to consider 

issues related to grading, and to encourage consistency in grading practices 

within the department. 

5.

To assist an instructor and a student in achieving fair reconsidera- 

tion of a grade in the event the instructor and student are unable to achieve 

such reconsideration without assistance. (See III. A. 5.) 

IV. RECONSIDERATION OF A GRADE 

1.

A student who is unclear about course requirements or the basis for 

grading, or who is concerned about the marking of a particular assignment, is 

expected to seek clarification or to express his concern to the instructor in a 

timely manner. 

2.

The student who is seeking reconsideration of his/her final grade in 

a course is expected to raise his/her concern with the course instructor without 

•

?

delay. 

(See 

III. A. 5.) 

•

A grade reconsideration may raise the grade, or lower the grade, or 

leave the grade unchanged. 

3.

The student who is unable to contact the course instructor, or who 

receives no reply from the course instructor after a reasonable period of time, or 

who wishes to pursue a request for reconsideration of a grade after receiving a 

response from the instructor, may present his/her request together with the 

reasons for it in writing to the Chairman of the Department in which the course 

is offered - normally within sixty days of the release of grades. 

4.

The Chairman shall, first seek to resolve the concern by dealing with 

the student and the instructor. If it cannot be resolved at that level it is the 

responsibility of the Chairman, after consultation with the student and the 

instructor, to arrange for a re-evaluation of the work on which the grade was based 

by an appropriately qualified person(s) and the establishing of a grade based on 

that re-evaluation, or to take such other steps as are necessary. Should the student 

request anonymity in such a re-evaluation reasonable steps shall be taken to ensure 

it.

. ?

5. In the eventof a request for reconsideration of a grade, it is the 

student's responsibility to provide all the relevant work which has been returned 

to him or her and it is the instructor's responsibility to provide all relevant 

work which has been retained. (See III. A., 2., 4.) 

(4)

6.

In a course which includes a final examination the marked examina- 

tions shall be retained by the instructor or, if the instructor is to be away 

from the campus, all pertinent papers and items are to be filed with the 

department to be retained for at least one semester following the semester in 

which they were written. (Should a request for reconsideration still be pending 

longer than one semester later, the marked examinations for that course will be 

retained as long as it is pending.) (See III. A. 4.) 

7.

The student who is concerned that his/her request for reconsidera- 

tion has been dealt with inappropriately at the departmental level may convey 

his/her concern to the Dean of the Faculty. The Dean will review the events and 

a)

confirm the grade awarded at the departmental level if he/she is 

satisfied there is no new evidence and that judicious and proper 

procedures have been followed in the reconsideration at that level. 

b)

if there appears to be significant evidence not considered at the 

departmental level, the Dean may refer the reconsideration back to 

the Department Chairman with instructions. 

c)

initiate reconsideration (by alternative means where necessary) if, 

in his/her judgment, the matter cannot be resolved at the departmental 

level. 

The decision of the Dean shall be final, subject only to an appeal 

to Senate. Such appeal may go forward only with the permission of the Chairman 

of Senate on clear evidence satisfactory to her/him that there have been improper 

procedures in reconsideration as undertaken. The Chairman of Senate periodically 

will report to Senate on the disposition and nature of such requests to appeal to 

Senate which have not gone forward to that body. 