 |
|
|
November 13, 2002
Senate raises questions about proposed student disruption policy
A proposed policy to deal with disruptive students raised several questions
during the Nov. 12 Faculty Senate meeting, including how to define
disruption and protect students' rights.
The proposed Policy for Dealing with Classroom Disruption defines disruptive
behaviors as actions that interfere with an instructor's ability to ensure a
safe environment, control the class agenda and deliver the approved
curriculum.
Under the proposed policy, a student who disrupts a class first would be
asked to stop. If the disruption continued, the instructor could ask to have
the student suspended from the class, pursue student disciplinary
regulations or seek police intervention.
Suspension requests would need approval of the department chair or program
director. Upon that approval, the student would be suspended while the chair
conducted an investigation. The student would receive written notice of the
suspension and results of the investigation.
Those results might include conditions for allowing students back in the
course. Further disruption could result in termination from the course and
disciplinary action, according the proposed policy.
If the department chair determines a student should terminated from the
course, the chair would notify appropriate university officials and inform
the student of the reasons for the dismissal and his/her right to appeal
through the Appeal of Academic Grievances process.
During the investigation, the instructor or chair also would determine if
the incident should be reported to the Dean of Students for disciplinary
charges.
Some senators argued that the definition of disruptive behaviors was too
vague, while others cautioned against developing a "laundry list" of
disruptive behaviors.
"Sometimes disruption can mean the student doesn't agree with my opinions or
perspective," said Gary Mattson, community and regional planning. "The
policy needs to be more specific about what disruptive behaviors are."
"I know we can't define every instance of disruptive behavior," said Gary
Phye, psychology, "and I agree it's nice to leave it up to the professor,
but students have rights too. There needs to be a trigger mechanism that
starts the process. What I read now (in the policy) is that it is whatever I
as the teacher defines disruptive behavior to be."
Carolyn Heising, industrial and manufacturing systems engineering, suggested
the policy refer to "serious or extremely serious disruption so it's not
just a disagreement with the instructor. We need to protect the students'
rights too."
Stephanie Madon, psychology, opposed too specific a definition of disruptive
behavior. "If it's too narrowly defined, then we're boxed in."
Other senators raised questions about what termination from the class meant
and how it would be treated. Some said students should receive an "F" for
the course, and others said it should be treated as a withdrawal.
The proposed policy deals mainly with students who are enrolled in a course,
and makes it clear that anyone not enrolled in a course, such as those
auditing a course or visitors, may be in the class solely at the discretion
of the instructor.
The proposed policy will be revised and considered by the senate at its Dec.
10 meeting, which will begin at 7:30 p.m. in the North Prairie Room, Gateway
Center.
|
Ames, Iowa 50011, (515) 294-4111
Published by: University Relations,
online@iastate.edu
Copyright © 1995-2001, Iowa State University. All rights reserved.
|
|