Guidelines for Student Progress Committees - managing the academic progress policy and procedures

Intent and objectives

This document provides guidance in managing the Academic Progress Policy and identifies good practice principles for the conduct of Student Progress Committees.

Most of the principles contained in this guide were originally documented by Professor Mark Shortis of the College of Science, Engineering and Health. His valuable contribution to this work is gratefully acknowledged.

Academic progress policy

The key objectives of the Policy are to:

  • Provide improved management of student academic progress
  • Improve student retention rates

The policy promotes the early identification of students who are not achieving acceptable academic performance to enable the provision of proactive assistance and to ensure such students are aware of the range of support services available to them at the University.

The management of student academic progress is a clear priority of the University.

The importance of the Student Progress Committee

The Student Progress Committee plays a critical role in the management of student academic progress. It is an investigative, guidance and decision-making body. It is essential that the Committee is properly constituted and that its members have a good knowledge of the Academic progress policy and procedures.

The Terms of Reference for Student Progress Committees

Course assessment committees and program assessment boards procedure clearly detail the establishment, membership, quorum and responsibilities of the Committee.

Results entry – a key management responsibility of the Head of School

Student Progress Committees cannot carry out their responsibilities effectively unless all results have been entered by the published deadlines. Timely finalisation of results is therefore of fundamental importance to the management of student academic progress.

The determination of a final mark for each student in a course is a key milestone in the formal acquittal of the teaching and assessment process. The responsibility for timely finalisation of results rests with the Head of the School that owns the course. It is expected that Heads of School will ensure that planning and appropriate resources are allocated to enable timely completion of this key responsibility.

Good practices for Student Progress Committee meetings

Frequency of meetings

The Student Progress Committee must meet at the end of each semester/term (refer to definitions section of the Policy), as course results become available. It may be necessary for the Committee to meet on more than one occasion to consider results arising from the Deferred, Re-sit and Supplementary Assessments, and to consider Show Cause submissions received from students who have reached the Final Stage of unsatisfactory academic performance.

Timing of meetings

The Academic progress timeline document provides suggested timelines for both Higher Education and VET for each semester.

Scheduling meetings

The secretary of the Student Progress Committee should prepare a schedule of meetings including dates, times, venues and participants in accordance with the following scheduling principles:

a) Ensure meetings are planned in advance and scheduled to coincide with the critical timelines (Refer to the Academic Progress Timeline document)
b) Schedule meetings by school, then by program (by year-level within each program). course coordinators should only need to be in attendance during year level discussions where they have a course in that year level
c) Schedule double degree programs with the same second component in a planned way to ensure minimising the time representatives from other Schools/Colleges need to be in attendance
d) At the end of the year, meetings considering final year students should be scheduled first to allow time for graduation processing
e) Meetings considering very large first year classes should be scheduled last to allow the maximum time for finalisation of marking and results entry prior to the meeting
f) Action any Student Progress Committee generated result amendments at the meeting (where access to the results database is available) or as soon as possible after the meeting to avoid the need to process official result amendments after the advertised date for official publication of results

A key role for sub-committees (Program examination boards)

Due to the tight timeframes between the completion of assessment, official publication of results, graduation eligibility confirmation, and the need to accommodate a broad range of off-shore delivery arrangements it is suggested that Schools consider delegating some activities to a Sub-Committee whose decisions will be ratified by the full Student Progress Committee. As an example, in the College of Science, Engineering and Health some functions are performed by Program Examination Boards prior to, and for ratification by, the Student Progress Committee.

These functions can include management of results at a course level prior to the entry/upload of results via Results Processing Online. They can also include the consideration of student ‘show cause’ submissions arising after the full Student Progress Committee meetings.

Schools may opt to operate informal Sub-Committees in which program coordinators meet with individual course coordinators; however it is essential that any scaling of results or capture of missing results is carried out before Student Progress Committees meet.

Unacceptable anomalies or missing results will prevent Student Progress Committees from making decisions on student progress.

Key responsibilities of the sub-committees and full Student Progress Committees

Sub-committees - table 1 provides:

a) suggested range of good practice activities which could best be performed by a Sub-Committee prior to the meeting of a full Student Progress Committee
b) suggested Sub-Committee membership
c) minimum resources needed to effectively operate the Sub-Committee

Full Student Progress Committees - table 2 provides:

a) an overview of the key responsibilities to be carried out by the full Student Progress Committee
b) suggested full Student Progress Committee membership
c) minimum resources needed to effectively operate the full Student Progress Committee

Suggested academic progress sub-committee activities

1 Finalisation of missing results

The Student Progress Committee relies on all results being entered by the time of its meeting. It is the responsibility of the Head of School to ensure that all results are entered in a timely manner.

Where it is not possible for a final result to be identified for a legitimate reason an appropriate interim result should be entered. Staff responsible for courses taught on a service basis should ensure that results are provided in a timely manner and in accordance with the Service Agreement.

Under no circumstances should there be empty or blank results for courses assessed during the teaching period by the time the student progress committee meets. (There is an appropriate interim result for all legitimate scenarios).

Note that Results Processing Online should be used by all nominated staff to enter results using the simple web interface. Results Processing Online uses PeopleSoft grade rosters to hold the results.

Results Processing Online grading guidelines which provide clear rules for the use of all valid grades for both Higher Education and VET have recently been updated. They are available on the web.

Where results are not available the Sub-Committee should:

a) contact the Course Coordinator to obtain the result; where this fails
b) escalate the request to the Program Leader/Coordinator or Program Manager; where this fails
c) escalate the matter to the Head of the School responsible for the course.

2 Adjustment, scaling and moderation of results at the course level

For example, scaling could be considered for:

a) increasing all results for failure rates above 20% for entry level courses (first or second semesters)
b) increasing all results for failure rates above 10% for later year courses and
c) decreasing all results for honours categories above 30%

For transparency and audit purposes, any adjustment greater than 10% of the average mark for the course requires a justification recorded in writing from the course coordinator or program leader/coordinator.

Great care should be taken when applying scaling to results for small classes (e.g. < 50 students) because of the danger of statistical uncertainty associated with small samples of student results.

3 Ensure borderline scripts have been marked by a second examiner

This should have been arranged by the School and is a requirement of the University Assessment Policy.

The definition of ‘borderline’ should be included in the relevant course guide. Where it is not the following definition is suggested:

Borderline is within 5% of a pass grade; hence, if the pass grade is 50%, all results in the range 47.5 - 49% require a second examiner. If this process has not been carried out prior to the meeting then the Committee may appoint a second examiner to re-mark major assessments or examination papers for a course.

4 Graduation eligibility check

For completing students. This would normally be carried out by the appropriate program leader/coordinator/manager or their nominee as a separate process outside of the Student Progress Committee.

Please note that students with missing or unresolved interim results (RW, NEX, DEF, etc) for courses required to qualify for completion of the award are not entitled to participate in the graduation ceremony. Such students should not be marked as eligible to graduate.
Suggested staff attendance at sub-committee (Program Examination Board) meetings

a) Program Leader, coordinator or manager or their nominee to chair the meeting and record the decisions clearly and unambiguously
b) Course Coordinators for all courses.

Minimum resources required for efficient conduct of sub-committee meetings

a) List of the acceptable grades (Results processing online guidelines and grading basis tables)
b) List of results for all courses
c) Distributions of results for all courses, showing the percentages of classifications

Overview of the main activities of the full Student Progress Committee

1 Adjustment/moderation of individual results (including threshold review)

Ideally this should have been completed by a Sub-Committee and simply require ratification by the Committee (See item 2 of the Sub-Committee Table 2 above).

Results for individual courses that are within 1 mark of a threshold (e.g. 44*, 49, 59, 79) should be considered based on the overall performance of the student and, to enable a pass or higher honours level, the grade may be adjusted up by 1 mark or allowed to remain.

* Note: The ‘44’ threshold only applies to students who may be eligible for a Pass by compensation – refer to item 6 below.

2 Approve moderation of results in courses

This should have been completed by the Sub-Committee and simply require consideration and approval by the Committee.

3 Ensure borderline scripts have been marked by a second examiner

This should have been arranged by the School and is a requirement of the University assessment policy.

The definition of ‘borderline’ should be included in the relevant course guide. Where it is not the following definition is suggested:

Borderline is within 5% of a pass grade; hence, if the pass grade is 50, all results in the range 47.5- 49% require a second examiner. If this process has not been carried out prior to the meeting then the Committee may appoint a second examiner to re-mark major assessments or examination papers for a course.

4 Approve final results awarded for courses

The Committee is responsible for approving the final marks recorded for each student on behalf of the Head of School.

Students who have failed a core or pre-requisite course but who are not classified as ‘At Risk’ should be required to repeat the failed course.

Where a student has missing or unresolved interim grades, check whether special consideration has been granted. It may not be possible for the committee to accurately assess the student’s academic progress until these issues are resolved. Such students may need to be assessed after the marking of supplementary/deferred and re-sit assessments.

5 Award of supplementary assessment

Supplementary assessments should only be granted in extremely limited situations where the student has participated fully in the course and all assessments but there is inadequate evidence to determine whether a student has achieved a pass.

The grounds upon which a supplementary Assessment has been granted should be documented by the School and retained for audit purposes, and as evidence in the case of any appeal against results.

The only grade available for students who pass a Supplementary Assessment is SP.

  • Supplementary assessment policy

6 Determine eligibility for, and award of pass by compensation

To be eligible the failed course must be:

a) taken in the final semester of study; and
b) have a result in the range of 45-49%; and
c) be weighted no more than 12 credit points (or equivalent); and
d) the student must have at least a pass result for all other courses in the teaching period.

It should be noted that postgraduate programs and VET programs assessed via competency based assessment are not eligible for the award of a pass by compensation.

  • Pass by compensation policy

7 Determine honours classifications for completing students

This can only be done where all final grades have been recorded and approved.

It is suggested that any honours calculation that is near a threshold between honours levels should be assessed to determine whether the result should be amended to the higher honours level.

Moderation of honours level should consider the GPA values for the penultimate and/or final years of the program (Higher Ed).

Other than thresholds, the University rules for GPA-based honours classifications for graduating students should only be varied in extraordinary circumstances and with an auditable and defensible justification (Higher Ed).

8 Determine pass with distinction for completing students

This can only be done where all final grades have been recorded and approved.

9 Determine allocation of prizes and awards

This can only be done where all final grades have been recorded and approved. All high achieving students should be evaluated for suitability for University Prizes and Awards. Their name should be added to a list of potential candidates and contacted to obtain required documentation such as a CV and a statement of support for the nomination.
Various – Both school and University-level.

10 Monitor student compliance with previously issued Academic Performance Improvement Plans

Where an Academic Performance Improvement Plan (APIP) has been created for a student in the previous semester/term which set minimum academic performance targets, the Committee should check that the student has met those targets in the current semester/term.

11 Identify students who are at risk of unsatisfactory academic progress (First Stage)

a) Identify which first stage ‘at risk’ option the school will adopt in accordance with the Academic Progress Procedures, (i.e. option 1 is sending the Academic Performance Improvement Plan (APIP) together with the invitation to attend the interview or option 2 is creating the APIP at the time of the interview).
b) Nominate an academic advisor to develop an APIP in accordance with either option 1 or 2.
c) The Secretary is to email the relevant template (dependant on the option) to the student and maintain a copy on the file.
d) Record the At Risk status on the student’s record on PeopleSoft (Quick navigation guide – available from the Academic Registrar’s Group).
e) Ensure any follow up emails (dependant on the option and the student’s interaction) is emailed to the student (e.g. an APIP for option 2).

12 Identify students with established unsatisfactory academic progress (final Stage)

This includes students who have had a previous semester/term of unsatisfactory academic performance.

The Secretary MUST email the template invitation to the student to show cause why they should not be excluded from the University and maintain a copy on the student file. It is strongly recommended that the invitation to ‘show cause’ be given priority to facilitate the timely management of any possible exclusion and appeal issues. Suggested timelines have been included in the Academic Progress Timeline document. Please ensure that the School contact details provided in the invitation to show cause email and templates will provide constant and reliable points of contact for students.

13 Record the relevant details of the meeting in an unambiguous and permanent manner

These records can be called upon as evidence in response to student appeals, both internal and external (such as the Victorian Ombudsman and DEEWR).

Minimum standards identified in this guide and Attachment 2

14 Provide an annual report to the Academic Board (via the Academic Registrar)

The report must include the number of students identified at each stage of unsatisfactory progress. Minimum standards identified below.

15 Consider student ‘show cause’ submissions (This function could be performed by a Sub- Committee of the Student Progress Committee)

a) The Committee must decide whether the student has demonstrated cause to remain in the program, or recommend exclusion to the Head of School. Exclusion has a significant impact on the student and it is expected that the Committee will have ensured the School has made reasonable attempts to gain the student’s engagement during the period since academic difficulties were first identified.
b) Where the Committee decides to allow a student to continue in the Program the student must be invited to attend a further meeting with an academic advisor and another Academic Performance Improvement Plan must be completed and provided/emailed to the student (whether the student attends or not).
c) Where the Committee decides to recommend exclusion it must specify any conditions for acceptance back into the program.
d) Where the Committee decides to recommend exclusion and the student submitted a timely ‘show cause’, the Committee must provide a detailed review of the ‘show cause’ and the reasons why the Committee has not accepted it.

Suggested staff attendance at Student Progress Committees

a) Senior Member of the academic staff of the School (nominated by the Head of the School) to chair the meeting
b) Program Leader, Coordinator or manager or their nominee; and/or,
c) Discipline director; and/or,
d) Teaching and Learning Director, and
e) Director of Undergraduate programs (as required), and
f) TAFE Director or similar to provide consistency across all programs and act as Deputy Chair of the meeting, and
g) Year or Course Coordinators, as applicable (to provide specific advice on the year of the program or courses in the program respectively), and
h) Representatives from other Schools or Colleges as required (to advise on double degree courses and/or service courses), and
i) Teaching and Learning Administrator or an alternate (to act as secretary to record decisions), and
j) Administration staff member from the School (to provide ancillary information on student enrolments and history).

Minimum resources required for efficient conduct of full Student Progress Committee meetings

1 Data on academic performance for all students by program, by year level

Higher Education programs

A consolidated report is created by the Academic Registrar’s Group and dispatched to Schools within 48 hours of upload of results into PeopleSoft. The report will flag students who may have had unacceptable academic performance in reference to a number of the key criteria specified in the Academic Progress Policy. It also indicates which students have been granted Special Consideration during the semester.

VET programs:

Two reports can be generated by Schools directly via IExplore:

1) Students with multiple fail report
2) Students who have failed 50% or more of enrolled load

A ‘Generating VET student at risk reports user guide’ is available from the Academic Registrar’s Group.

A separate report on all VET students who have been granted special consideration will be provided by the Academic Registrar’s Group.

2 Key data on students previously identified as at risk in the previous semester.

This information will assist the Committee to know whether a student has previously been identified as At Risk and enable an assessment of whether the student has met any previously imposed performance conditions.

This information has historically been maintained via individual School systems. It is anticipated that from semester/term 1, 2011 schools will be able to record key information on students identified as at risk directly on PeopleSoft. A ‘Recording at risk student on PeopleSoft user guide’ is available from the Academic Registrar’s Group.

It is suggested that, as a minimum the following data be recorded in the PeopleSoft Comments Field (described in more detail in the abovementioned guide). This will enable this important information to become available to Schools to assist them at the following Student Progress Committee meetings and will ensure that historic at risk incidences in the same program are easily identified.

a) the ground/s upon which student was declared At Risk, and
b) the At Risk Stage (i.e., First or Final) and the semester/term student has been identified as At Risk
c) any minimum performance (or other) conditions placed on the student.

3 Information on where special consideration has been granted to a student during the semester/term

For Higher Education programs this information is already included in the consolidated report identified in item 1 above.

For VET a spreadsheet is provided to the School by the Assessment Support Unit of the Academic Registrar’s Group.

Please note that this report does not include information on any extensions of time for submittable assessment tasks which have been granted by the School (as opposed to the centralised Special Consideration process), or information on assessment adjustments granted as a result of an equitable assessment arrangement.

4 Criteria for awards/prizes

Can be both School and University based.

5 Grading reference (*)

6 Computer and data projector

It is strongly recommended that meetings utilise computer and data projector equipment to achieve time and administrative efficiencies.

This will facilitate:

a) access to data (IExplore, Results Processing Online, PeopleSoft); and,
b) efficient recording of the meeting and follow-up action.

(*) Note: The grading tables have yet to be revised to include the Supplementary Pass (SP) grade, which must be used where a pass has been achieved via a supplementary assessment. The student database has however been amended to accept that grade.

Actioning committee outcomes

Result amendments

Result amendments arising from either the Sub-Committee or the full Student Progress Committee should be actioned immediately via Results Processing Online (i.e. before the deadline for official publication of results). Failure to achieve this will mean that individual result amendment forms will need to be completed for each student affected.

Dispatch of notices to students identified as at risk, first and final stage

Although the Academic progress policy does not stipulate deadlines for these activities it is recommended that they take place as soon as possible following the meeting, and that priority be given to ‘final stage’ notices to ensure timely management of show cause consideration and any subsequent appeal activity.

Suggested timelines for these activities can be found in the Academic progress timeline document.

Minimum standards for recording the business of the meeting

The Student Progress Committee must create a permanent, unambiguous and auditable record of its decisions. This record can be called upon as evidence in student appeals (both internal and external [Ombudsman Vic. and DEEWR).

At the meeting

A permanent record of the meeting must be created including at a minimum:

a) time, date and venue of meeting
b) attendance list
c) record of all decisions with reasons for the determinations

Attachment 1 provides an example of good practice in Student Progress Committee meeting recording.

Action arising after the meeting

A permanent record of the actions taken subsequent to the meeting must be maintained (in most cases it will be placed on the student file).

In the case of matters relating to student academic progress the advice on the templates contained on the Policy web site facilitate the creation and management of this information.

Further Assistance

Minute-taking courses are available for University staff. Contact Human Resources for further information.

Recording student at ‘risk status’ on PeopleSoft

It is anticipated that Schools will be able to record that a student has been identified as At Risk on PeopleSoft from semester 1, 2010. This will streamline the management of that information for the School and enable it to be automatically included in the consolidated Academic Progress reports from semester 2, 2010.

When commissioned this process will automatically satisfy the requirements of the ‘Minimum Reporting Standards’ below without further action by the School.

A user guide which describes the data input procedure is available from the Academic Registrar’s Group.

Minimum reporting standards

Student Progress Committees are required to provide a report to the Academic Board (via the Academic Registrar) each year including the number of students identified at each stage of unsatisfactory progress.

At a minimum the report should be by Academic program and should contain the following information:

a) Total number of students identified as At Risk First Stage by semester; and
b) Total number of students identified as At Risk Final Stage by semester

[Next: Supporting documents and information ]