Forum Post
The Senate office received an anonymous concern related to how this section is being interpreted in action:
Rule 38: Academic Probation and Recess for At-risk Students
(a) Undergraduate students whose semester (excluding summer session) or cumulative grade point average drops below a 2.0 for the first time must apply for reinstatement to continue their enrollment at Washington State University. Students are placed on probation after reinstatement. Certified majors on academic probation may be decertified by the academic department.
(b) First-time, first-year undergraduate students are recessed from the university after their first term of enrollment if their semester grade point average is below 1.0. Individuals are recessed from the university for one full semester (fall or spring).
The concern voiced was that there have been multiple transfer students caught in section b and recessed, while the intent is for first time first year students
Response
Please see the response from the Office of the Provost on the Faculty Senate Constituent Concern – Interpretation of Rule 38b: Academic Notice and Recess for At-risk Students
Comments
As one of the parties who helped to identify this problem and attempted to elevate concerns regarding this disjoint in policy definitions versus administrative practices without receiving an adequate explanation or further exploration of its full scope and effects at the time — and who has now left the university in part due to this and concerns regarding the reactions I received to my continued inquires on this and other matters — I’m glad to see this accident getting addressed to the benefit of those transfer students.
I want to acknowledge that due to the pandemic Rule 38b was put on hold. Further, I want to acknowledge that this subset of transfer students would still fall under Rule 38a. The difference in outcome being that Rule 38b results in recession for a term while Rule 38a does not result in a recession for a term. Given that Rule 38b was suspended during the pandemic, the practical effect of being recessed for a term was not being felt by these transfer students during those terms when the academic regulation was under suspension.
I’m glad to know that these policy definitions and administrative practices are coming into alignment. As noted, my concern was that under Rule 38b students who had been marked in our student information system as transfer students, but were within a year of their high school graduation date, could have inappropriately had this academic regulation applied to them.
The term “first-time” student is unambiguous in state and federal reporting. Per the IPEDS 2024-25 glossary, first-time student is defined as:
A student who has no prior postsecondary experience (except as noted below) attending any institution for the first time at the undergraduate level. This includes students enrolled in academic or occupational programs. It also includes students enrolled in the fall term who attended college for the first time in the prior summer session, and students who entered with advanced standing (college credits or recognized postsecondary credential earned before graduation from high school).
In addition, the term “transfer-in” student is unambiguous in state and federal reporting. Per the IPEDS 2024-25 glossary, transfer-in student is defined as:
A degree/certificate-seeking undergraduate student entering the IPEDS reporting institution for the first time but known to have previously enrolled at a different postsecondary institution (not as a high school student). The student may transfer with or without credit. For systems of coordinated institutions (multi-campus system), students are to be identified as transfer-in students upon entering an institution from another institution within the same coordinated system.
However, I want to note that IPEDS glossary definitions have shifted over time to further clarify this language. For example, the IPEDS 2024-25 glossary definitions are different than the IPEDS 2022-23 glossary definitions for these same items.
In my communications with ASCC around February 14, 2023 regarding my concern, it was expressed to me that the application of Rule 38b to this subset of transfer students happened as a matter of course (or usual practice) and was occurring in the same manner across the university system. It was stated that the academic regulation was not being applied differently across campuses. And that for the students coded as transfer students, ASCC takes into consideration their high school graduation date in deciding which academic regulation (or academic standing code) to apply to them. If that high school graduation date is more than a year out, then the transfer student is re-coded with the academic standing code of R38-1 for their first Rule 38a violation. If the transfer student was not recoded, then they had a high school graduation date within the time frame for an academic standing code of R38B to be applied to them. At the time, this response did not bring into alignment a transfer student designation and how these students would have been subject to a Rule 38b violation under its definition in the text that is published and publicly available online.
I’m glad to see this issue is now being given attention. I’m also glad to know that the accidentally recessed students have been identified. I would hope that looking backward a full accounting has taken place and that going forward these policy definitions and administrative practices remain in alignment and that this one-time issue due to personnel turnover has been resolved.
I recognize that the university has looked at getting rid of this academic regulation altogether and I defer to everyone else still there if that is the correct pathway to take in the future. But I just wanted to acknowledge that as well.
Thanks everyone.
While I highlighted the IPEDS definitions for the first-time student and transfer-in student terms in my earlier comment, I should clarify that I did that because the institutional definitions for first-time student and transfer student that the university employs have paralleled those IPEDS definitions as they are frequently used in state and federal reporting.
Because I saw this concern was raised here, it was my belief that it would be taken up by the Faculty Senate. It was not. At least so far. Hopefully, it will be in the future. It is no longer my place to make sure that happens in this forum. Beyond this singular issue, I would like to think that the institution that I served believes in and has the courage to do what is right by its students and its staff. I have only tried to bring awareness to those things that I thought mattered. I believe we have a responsibility to ethics and to others. And sometimes that means admitting to the most common and human of failings, which is making mistakes.
As Senate Chair I would like to remind Senators that this section of regulation was a discussion item at the first Senate meeting and will be subject to vote at the next meeting. Please review the concerns as well as the response from Dr. Davis.