Meeting No. 4/2002 of the Education Committee was held on Thursday, 1 August 2002 in the Council Room, Administration Building 3A, Clayton Campus, between 2:15pm and 4:35 pm.

Ms K Wilson-Reid

Executive Officer

Professor A Lindsay (Chair), Mr K Bentley, Professors A Farley and S Joy, Dr P Richardson, Associate Professors I Prince and J Hurst, Mr C Abram, Professor S Campbell, Associate Professor T Luff, Ms G Ives, Associate Professor M Page, Dr K Stewart (alternate for Associate Professor L Roller), Professors C Browne and J Harris, Ms S Narayanasamy, and Mr T Pritchard (by teleconference).

Mr P Lawford, Ms C Harboe-Ree, Associate Professors M Lindorff, V Clifford and H Edwards, Ms A Lazar, Ms I DiTrocchio, Ms J Vero, Ms S Stafford, Mr T Hogan and Ms K Wilson-Reid.

Apologies were received from Professors G Webb, M King, M Evans and W Young, Associate Professor L Roller, Dr H Kreutz, Dr D Corrigan, Dr T Patti, Mr C Brooks and Mr R Morgan.

The Committee welcomed Dr Heinz Kreutz, Associate Dean Teaching, Faculty of Arts, as a new member.

Members noted that Associate Professor Valerie Clifford, Head of the Higher Education Development Unit (HEDU), CeLTS, had been invited by the Chair to attend meetings of the Education Committee on a regular basis and welcomed Associate Professor Clifford.

The Chair welcomed the following people who were invited to this meeting:

An extract from the Minutes of Academic Board Meeting 3/2002, regarding the Report of Education Committee Meeting 3/2002, was circulated for reference (p 1-2).

5. MATTERS ARISING FROM THE MINUTES RMO1998/2085

A report from the Working Party on Extra Exam Time for NESB Students was considered at the last meeting. Following the receipt of comments at and after the meeting and further amendments to the Report, a final version of the Report was circulated, forwarded by the Convenor, Associate Professor M Page, for consideration at this meeting (p 3-12).

This item was starred at the meeting by Associate Professor Page, who noted that the minor amendments below were required to the document prior to approval:

Action/Information: Associate Professor M Page; Executive Officer; Faculty Managers; Mr T Hogan

Professor A Lindsay, Chair, introduced this item and highlighted the need for renewed focus on key academic issues, and a re-balancing of priorities in relation to the university’s ongoing directions. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor informed the Committee about recent processes that were followed by Council in relation to the management changes and commented on the diligence and care taken by the Council during this difficult time. Members noted Professor Lindsay’s advice about the importance of focussing on the internal impact of recent changes and engaging the university’s considerable strength and positive attributes to move forward with confidence. A comment was received that the Marketing and Public Affairs division had made outstanding efforts in managing the media and other areas during this time.

The Committee discussed a number of the key academic challenges facing the Monash Community and effective responses to these issues. Some of the issues, which were noted by the Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic and Planning), included:

Noting the significant role the Committee played in the university’s academic directions, Professor Lindsay thanked members for their valuable discussion and comments and invited members to provide him with any further feedback about issues and directions.

Action/Information: Members

A document entitled ‘Developing Monash Graduate Attributes’, that was forwarded by Associate Professor H Edwards, Quality Advisor, Academic Programs, Audit and Training, Centre for Higher Education Quality (CHEQ), was circulated (p 13-20).

Members noted that further documentation about this matter, including a research report on the graduate attributes project and appendices to the report, was located at:

http://www.adm.monash.edu/cheq/academic/index.html

At its Meeting 4/99, the Education Committee established a working group (Dr K Macrae, Professors G Webb and A Farley) to give consideration to the University’s graduate attributes. They appeared with some differences in presentation and content in ‘Leading the Way – Monash 2020’, the ‘Learning and Teaching Plan’, and other documentation. It was envisaged that the key elements of the University’s strategic directions would be incorporated and the graduate attributes would be re-cast into a consistent format.

At its Meeting 3/2000, the Education Committee considered the existing Monash graduate attributes and the proposed re-cast set of attributes presented by the working group; gave initial consideration to the development of a more detailed description of what was entailed in each of the core attributes and how the core graduate attributes could be embedded in the Monash curriculum; and agreed that further development of various aspects of the proposal by the working group was required, in the light of the suggestions at that meeting (refer Minute 5.1). A copy of that latest working group report from Meeting 3/2000, together with the graduate attributes as included in the main publications, was also circulated for reference (p 21-32).

Associate Professor H Edwards spoke to this item and informed members about the background to the joint project, the positive work that had already been done in faculties in relation to graduate attributes, and the need for a more proactive, consistent and systematic approach to this issue. Members noted Associate Professor Edwards’ advice about the detail of the recommendations before the Committee.

Noting the advice and the documentation presented, the Committee considered the following recommendations regarding the university’s graduate attributes, that:

1. The University develop a clear statement on the Monash graduate attributes and incorporate this into its planning and operational documents;

2. Faculties develop and made explicit their approach to develop and achieve Monash graduate attributes. This includes describing how graduate attributes are taught and assessed in courses and develop a system whereby students and employers can be assured that graduates have attained the attributes;

3. Monash actively support the development of Monash graduate attributes, especially in existing courses;

4. Monash University and faculties adopt the Quality Cycle to monitor the development of Monash graduate attributes; and

5. Education Committee adopt the recommendations in this paper and devised strategies for implementation.

Considerable discussion occurred regarding:

Action/Information: Professor C Browne; Professor S Joy; Associate Professor H Edwards

The Executive Officer, Ms K Wilson-Reid, informed the Committee that the new university system for exclusion and appeals, that was approved by the Academic Board at its Meeting 2/2000, was in place. Members noted that the appropriate substitute legislation had been approved by the university Council late last year. Statute 6.2 was then approved by the Minister on 6 May 2002, enabling implementation of the new system that would be applicable from (and including) the 2002 academic year.

The Committee noted that detail about the new legislative framework, including ‘Statute 6.2 – Exclusion for Unsatisfactory Progress’ and the Exclusion for unsatisfactory progress regulations, was located at:

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/calendar/statutes/statutes06.html#Heading150 ;and

http://www.monash.edu.au/pubs/calendar/regulations/regulations19.html

In addition, the approved report of the ‘Education Committee Working Party to Review Exclusion for Unsatisfactory Progress’ was located at:

http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/com/ec/ecx/exclrep.htm

Members noted that drafts of the new procedures for the Exclusion Appeals Committee of Academic Board and the Faculty Academic Progress Committees were currently being produced and would be circulated shortly to relevant areas for input and to the Education Committee for consideration.

A memorandum from Professor S Campbell, Associate Dean Teaching for the Faculty of Law, together with a response from the Deputy University Solicitor, Ms A Lazar, were circulated (p 33-40).

Professor Campbell introduced this item and took the Committee through each of the legal, policy and procedural issues that had been identified for consideration. The Committee received advice from the Deputy University Solicitor regarding clarification of legislative and procedural points and legal considerations to be taken into account in certain interim procedures for 2002. Detailed discussion occurred and a range of different views were considered.

Extensive and unresolved discussion occurred, further to the previous discussion of this issue at Education Committee Meeting 2/2000, regarding the management of exclusion of double degree students where "the faculty board of one of the faculties of enrolment is of the opinion… that the academic progress of the student is unsatisfactory" (Statute 6.2 – section 11.2). The Committee considered whether a student in this situation should have a guaranteed ‘right’ to be admitted, if they were excluded from the double degree course, into the single degree from the other faculty. An alternative view was put by a number of members that it was always the intention of the working party to ensure that the other faculty’s position on admission of the student to their single degree would be sought prior to the decision about exclusion from the double degree being made (this was also consistent with Statute 6.2 - sections 11.2 and 11.5). In this view, admission to the other faculty’s single degree would not be a guaranteed right. Rather, the decision about admission would remain at the discretion of the faculty concerned.

Secretarial Note Subsequent to the Meeting: In relation to the above issue on exclusion of double degree students, the group met and agreed that a student should not be given a ‘right’ to be admitted to a single degree if excluded from the double degree. The group agreed on an outcome that was consistent with the current Statute 6.2, with further supporting/clarifying detail to be spelled out in the procedures currently being drafted. Therefore, the Chair agreed that no policy recommendation was required to be made to the Academic Board for approval. The group’s report is attached to these minutes for information (Attachment A).

Action/Information: Associate Professor J Hurst; Professor A Farley; Professor S Campbell; Ms A Lazar; Ms S Narayanasamy; Ms I DiTrocchio; Faculty Managers & Associate Deans Teaching

Requests for Education Committee approval of variations to the university’s uniform progress criteria were circulated from the Faculties of Business and Economics, Education, Engineering, Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and Pharmacy (p 41-54). Also attached for background information about relevant implementation issues was a memorandum from Ms A Lazar, Deputy University Solicitor (p 55-56).

Noting the devolution of the academic decision about exclusion to the faculties would involve a greater level of consistency of procedures across the university, a uniform set of minimum criteria for unsatisfactory progress was approved by the Academic Board (Meeting 2/2000). At that meeting, the Academic Board delegated to the Education Committee the authority to approve more stringent criteria.

The relevant progress criteria, set out in Regulations, are:

Associate Professor Hurst spoke to this item and informed members that the wording of the Regulations omitted reference to the criteria being a minimum standard and that it appeared in the Regulations that any variation to progress criteria, more or less stringent, could consequently be considered for approval. Members noted Associate Professor Hurst’s advice that an inconsistency had also been noted in the working party’s report that indicated that less stringent criteria would not be a concern. Members noted that the Education Committee could certainly consider requests for more stringent criteria for approval. The Committee was asked to consider whether it also wished to consider requests for less stringent criteria. Discussion occurred and the Committee agreed that it was acceptable for a faculty to use less stringent progress criteria than those set out in the Regulations.

The Committee considered the requests before it at this meeting for variation to progress criteria. Queries were raised about the proposals and rationale for the requests from the Faculties of Education, Business and Economics and Pharmacy. There was no representative present from the Faculty of Education at this stage of the meeting. Professor A Farley, Associate Dean Teaching, Business and Economics, noted that that Faculty’s request (fail a unit twice rather than a core unit twice) had been based on ensuring equitable treatment of local and international students following advice about the recently introduced ESOS legislation. Following discussion about the most recent formal interpretation of the requirements of the ESOS legislation, Professor Farley noted that further consideration by the Faculty would be required and withdrew the Faculty’s proposal for variation at this time. Dr K Stewart, Faculty of Pharmacy, also noted that further consideration of that Faculty’s progress criteria would be required and withdrew the request for variation of criteria from the Faculty of Pharmacy from this meeting.

Action: Ms I DiTrocchio; Ms M O’Shea; Mr P Lawford; Mr D Secomb;  Mr M Lewenberg; and Ms J White
Information: Ms A Lazar; Faculty Managers & Associate Deans Teaching

9. CHARACTERISING GRADUATE COURSES AND STUDENTS RMO1998/3117

A document was circulated that was presented by Professor M Evans, Director, Planning and Academic Affairs (p 57-58).

[Secretarial Note: This item was submitted to the Academic Board for approval.]

Action: Executive Officer;

Information: Professor M Evans; Faculty Managers & Associate Deans Teaching; Ms P Herman; Monash Postgraduate Association; Mr P Yates; Ms C Knowles

A document was circulated (p59-60).

The next scheduled meeting of the Education Committee (Meeting 5/2002) will be held at 2:15pm on Wednesday, 18 September 2002. All final submissions for the agenda for that meeting are due by no later than Wednesday, 4 September 2002.

Other information about the Committee can be located on the Secretariat web site at:

http://www.adm.monash.edu.au/unisec/com/ec/index.html

Professor Alan Lindsay (Chair)

Dr Heinz Kreutz

Dr Denise Cuthbert

Mr Karen Bensley

Professor Alan Farley

Professor Sally Joy

Dr Debbie Corrigan & Dr Paul Richardson

Associate Professor Ian Prince

Professor William Young

Associate Professor John Hurst

Mr Chris Avram

Professor Susan Campbell

Associate Professor Tony Luff

Ms Glenice Ives

Associate Professor Michael Page

Dr Tony Patti

Associate Professor Louis Roller

Professor Peter Stewart

Professor Max King

Professor Chris Browne

Professor Merran Evans

Professor John Harris

Professor Graham Webb

Mr Michael Josem (MONSU-Caulfield)

Mr Chad Brooks (MONSU – Peninsula)

Ms Shen Narayanasamy (MSA - Clayton)

Ms Natalie Lo’Ngok (MUBS - Berwick)

Mr Terry Pritchard (MUGSU - Gippsland)

(Pharmacy Students Association) – position vacant

Mr Richard Morgan (MPA – masters by coursework)

(MPA – Masters) – position vacant

Mr Clive Vernon

Mr Peter Lawford

Mr Peter Marshall (alternate - Mr Peter Yates)

Associate Professor Valerie Clifford

Associate Professor M Lindorff

Ms Kerri Wilson-Reid (Executive Officer)

Faculty Managers/Registrars (*9)

Mr T Calder

Mr D Mernagh

Ms P Williams

Ms P Herman

Ms S Stafford

Ms B Le Grand

The working party met this morning and was finally convinced that a student cannot be given a right to transfer into a single degree if excluded from the double degree. The working party seemed to think that section 11.2 in the Statute should be spelled out as follows:

"Under section 11 of the Statute, where a student is failing in one degree only, the case should be considered by the Academic Progress Committee (APC) of the faculty in which the student's progress is unsatisfactory. Where the student's progress is unsatisfactory in both degrees, the case will be considered by the APC of the managing faculty."

The working party then decided that the following words should be included in the procedures:

"Where a student's progress is unsatisfactory in one degree only, the APC must, prior to the hearing, seek advice from the relevant associate dean (teaching) and the general manager of the other faculty, as to whether the student would be able to transfer to the single degree if excluded from the double degree."