Biannual Exclusion Forum 1-2006

10am to 11.30am, Tuesday 30 May 2006, Council Chambers, first floor, Building 3a, Clayton campus.

Agenda

Objective

To discuss any matters arising out of the exclusion cycle for the 2005 academic year.

Notes from the Biannual Forum held on 27 May 2005 were circulated and are attached.

The Exclusion Procedures Working Party of Education Committee met on 20 February 2006 and 23 May 2006. The unconfirmed minutes of meeting 1/06 are attached and the recommendations are to be discussed.

Faculties are advised to source APC student members much earlier and improve communications between the APC secretaries and the Education Officer.

Student Rights would forward a list of student rights officers to the Faculty APC Secretaries prior to the start of the hearings.

Recommendation:

That the Faculty APC Functions and Procedures be amended to request verification from student APC members of student IDs as a prerequisite to receiving papers before the hearing.

Following feedback from student members, the Exclusion Procedures working party agreed to seek feedback on the maximum number of APC members at the Forum.

It has been confirmed that the Language and Learning Services has been integrated into the Centre for the Advancement of Learning and Teaching (CALT). A copy of the amended mid-year Early Warning Letter is attached.

The Academic Board has recommended, for approval by Council, an amendment to the Regulations:

3.1.1  in the period commencing in December of the previous year and including at least two semesters of candidature, passed less than 50% of the student's enrolment;
3.1.1  completed at least two semesters of candidature and, in the period commencing in December of the previous year, passed less than 50% of the student's enrolment.

The proposed amendment retains the requirement that a student must have completed at least two semesters of study before being referred to an APC and permits a Faculty Board to refer a student who has passed less than 50% of the student’s enrolment to an APC without requiring that the failure be across two semesters.

For information.

Student Systems has proposed that it would be possible to write a Monash report that would extract unsatisfactory progress data from Callista for a range of purposes, including faculty or central auditing and to generate the Exclusion Appeals Committee report to Academic Board directly from the data in Callista. Data centrally held in Callista would enable further analysis and benchmark of unsatisfactory progress data. It does appear, however, that the data entry in the progression fields has been inconsistent in Callista. Ms Rebecca Dianiska and Ms Lena Troitsky from Student Systems will speak to this item.

That faculties agree to enter unsatisfactory progress data into Callista for the 2006 academic year, commencing from the 2006 early mid-year warning letter.

The Chair will speak to this item.

For information.

An appeal against exclusion was upheld on the grounds of procedural irregularity in the case of a student who cited he was not given reasonable notice of the APC hearing. The student claimed he did not receive the confirmation of hearing date and time letter that was sent by express mail. No supporting email was sent by the faculty and proof of the receipt of mail could not be established.

Faculties should be advised to send supporting notification of the confirmation of date and time of APC hearing via email to the student’s email address. The email is to contain reference that correspondence has been sent to the student by mail.

Documentation is attached.

The Chair will speak to this item.

For information.

October 2006