NUSA gains ground in changes to review of progress procedure policy
NUSA GAINS GROUND IN CHANGES TO REVIEW OF PROCEDURE POLICY
A couple of weeks ago, Veronica and I co-wrote and sent a submission to academic senate concerning the review of progress procedure. We pointed out a number of problems in the procedure making particular reference to the fact that the procedure was of a punitive nature rather than remedial.
We requested that the policy be altered such that a student who has to face a Faculty Progress and Appeals Committee can have a person in attendance who is able to represent them. The policy currently states that a student facing such a committee may be accompanied by a person but that this person may only speak at the discretion of the chair. This was a major problem with the policy which adversely affected students, for example most students are not going to be well versed in University policy or may be intimidated by the panel. We also requested that the conditions surrounding automatic exclusion for failure to respond to the show cause letter be altered (this had already be done it turned out in the new draft policy).
Yesterday the NUPSA president (Amelia), Rose Gosper and I met with the president of academic senate. They (Val Robertson and Nerida Lithgow) agreed that the procedure should be of a remedial rather than punitive nature and agreed that there should be some form of representation for the student. For those not aware, this year the University had undertaken the task of redrafting the policies to make a more coherent document. This redraft includes this particular policy and they gave us a verbal assurance that there will be some measure in the policy for students to have a representative from NUSA or NUPSA with them (i.e. student representation) who will be able to speak. The policies will go under review next year and they said that they will be very happy to include NUSA and NUPSA in that process.
Thank you Veronica Meneses for helping me draft the submission, thank you Tim Chaston for checking it, thank you for Eduardo for making the points about remedial action, thank you Hilary Calderwood for helping me with the initial policy and thank you Rose Gosper for attending the meeting with me.
Thanks,
Heather Richards
NUSA President 2011
These people made this happen:
 |
 |
|
| Heather Richards | Tim Chaston | Eduardo Carvajal |
 |
 |
|
| Veronica Meneses | Hilary Calderwood | Rose Gosper |
Background information
The Review of Progress Procedure Policy is a policy which describes the actions that take place when a student fails more than 50% of their courses. Such students are deemed to be, 'at Risk' and are supposed to receive support from the University. If a student fails more than 50% of their courses in two consecutive terms of study, then they are required to 'show cause', essentially give an explanation for their academic results. The student must document their reasons and this is reviewed by the Faculty Progress and Appeals Committee. Subsequently, a student may be interviewed by this committee and has the option of bringing a support person, who may only speak if directed by the chair.
The policy can be found here.
We had three main concerns regarding this policy and below is an extract from our submission detailing our concerns.
1) Lack of representation
This policy states that students when facing a committee may choose to bring a support person who does not have an automatic right to speak. Students must be able to bring a person who can act in a representational role and represent the student at such a meeting. This should be a fundamental right of the student. There is no reason to expect students to be well versed in University policy and as such they require representation. It is the norm in Australia for persons who must face a disciplinary hearing, a court, a tribunal or any other form of case hearing to have the right to representation. There is no good reason as to why students at the University of Newcastle should not have this same right. As mentioned above, a possible outcome of a review of progress procedure is that a student be suspended or excluded from their studies. This is a very serious outcome and students are entitled to best represent their cases. We formally request that this policy, and all other relevant policies, be altered to remedy this oversight.
2) Right to appeal
This policy does not contain any sections or clauses which give the student the opportunity to appeal a decision. This must be remedied to ensure that any student who is subject to an unfair decision has both means and opportunity to reverse this through an appeal process.
3) Duty of care
The University has a duty of care to ensure that students who are not progressing are giventhe assistance they need. This means that all students must receive support where necessary and that there can be no exceptions. This is a legal requirement as outlined in the ESOS Act. This policy does not stipulate the measures which those directly responsible for students progress must adhere to nor does it allow for a circumstance where the University has failed in this duty to a student which has resulted in a review of progress procedure. We encourage the University to develop and make a public a procedure outlining the measures that must be taken by those directly responsible for a student‟s progress.
Remedial rather than punitive approach
We wish to note that suspension and exclusion are not normally considered to be remedial actions but rather are punishments. We encourage the University to consider remedial actions at her disposal and where they are lacking to create them.
Comments (0)