INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY                                                                            FACULTY SENATE

The Graduate Council met 23 times this academic year.  We may meet one additional time this semester but do not anticipate meeting during the summer.

Attendance Record—as of April 18, 2005

The work of the Graduate Council (GC) is facilitated by the Assistantship/Fellowship Committee, the Graduate Faculty Status Committee, the Graduate Student Appeals Committee, the Program Development Committee, and several ad hoc committees.  This year, 38 graduate faculty members served on Council committees and assisted with the work of the Council.

Charges:

The Council received 5 charges from Faculty Senate this year:

1)         “Select one faculty representative to the Theodore Dreiser Distinguished Research and Creativity Award Committee.”

Carmen Montanez was selected to represent Graduate Council.  Shannon Barton substituted for C. Montanez during Spring, 2006.

2)         “Review the prioritization scheme developed in the book Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services by Robert C. Dickeson. Then, working tangentially with CAAC, develop, a set of criteria that can be used in evaluating program viability. We must not accept externally provided criteria without our modification and approval.  This is in the area of our primary authority.” 

            “The focus should be on establishing a multiple criteria scheme that captures the many various contributions that programs make that allow the university to accomplish its mission.  One size does not fit all.”

Graduate Council worked closely with CAAC and FAC to develop recommendations for the Program Prioritization process.  These recommendations were then forward to Academic Affairs.  Many of the recommendations were included in the process.  A complete copy of the recommendations forwarded are included in Appendix A at the end of this report and can be found at http://www.indstate.edu/acad-aff/doc/program_prioritization/grad_coun_sugg_2.pdf.

3)         “The Distinctive Programs Committee has been formed and has been charged. Sister Alma Mary Anderson is one of the representatives selected by the Executive Committee to be on this committee.  The CAAC committee should give input on the procedures, criteria, and accountability of the Distinctive Programs Initiative for Sister Alma Mary Anderson to carry forward. The Distinctive Program Committee chaired by Dean Foster is to have its charges completed by October 1^st, 2005. See documentation.”

Graduate Council worked closely with CAAC to review the Distinctive Programs Initiative.  Several recommendations were forwarded to the committee for consideration.  Many of these recommendations were included in the final Distinctive Programs document.  A copy of the recommendations for consideration can be found in Appendix B located at the end of the report.

4)         “The Faculty Senate Executive Committee forwards the below charge: “While giving input to the Program Prioritization Committee Task Force, please make sure that the Task Force is aware that Curriculum is in the primary domain of the Faculty, and the work accomplished by the task force needs to proceed through CAAC and through the Graduate Committee, and through the Faculty Governance process in a timely fashion.

The Executive Committee would hope to see the recommendation come out of the Program Prioritization Committee that the Process to be employed would fully recognize the proper primary role of the Standing committees.”

Graduate Council worked closely with CAAC and FAC to develop recommendations for consideration in the final Program Prioritization document.  Careful consideration was given in the recommendations (see Appendix A) as well as information forwarded on to the Prioritization Committee regarding the necessity for such attention to Faculty Governance.

5)                  “The Faculty Senate Executive Committee forwards for review “Draft #5, Policy on Academic Integrity” received from the Academic Integrity Taskforce.

The Executive Committee has requested that findings of the Graduate Council be forwarded to Joseph Grcic, Chair of the Student Affairs Committee, for integration into a final recommendation submission.”

David Wright and Blanche Evans, co-Chairs of the Academic Integrity committee (AI) and Karen Schmid from Academic Affairs were invited to attend Graduate Council meetings to discuss the policy.   The revision of the policy was first presented to GC during Fall, 2005.  The following general recommendations were given to the AI committee members in Spring, 2006:

• Overall the document was good and easy to follow

• A change in the core values of the institution is needed to make this a priority

• Some questions on how it will work for web based courses were discussed.

• Need to include specific information regarding plagiarism and the use of the World Wide Web

• It was suggested that a web-based seminar be developed for students and faculty to take regarding plagiarism and the ISU policy.  Possible have certificate printed off similar to IRB.  Also, have face to face meetings with departments for training purposes.

• All syllabi should have a statement regarding this policy.  It was suggested that the university develop standard language to use, possible 4 or 5 different statements to choose from.

• Need to have the students sign an agreement to abide by the policy when they are accepted to the university.

• It was pointed out that there is no language regarding Artistic License is currently in the document and this needs to be addressed.

• All violations need to be reported and how they were handled.  Possible set up a office with Student Judicial affairs. 

• Need to have individuals speak about plagiarism and academic integrity to the students during orientation.

Graduate Council Standing Committee activities:

1.         Assistantship/Fellowship Committee—This committee met several times during the fall and spring semesters.  The primary topic of discussion during the fall semester was the re-organization to review graduate school scholarships on campus.  The committee completed the following actions:

1.         The committee was charged to work the graduate school on awarding of grants from the student research fund.

a.       The committee revised the application form asking for more information, focusing on (1) previous awards, (2) other external or internal support, and (3) a required signature from the department chairperson.

b.       Established due dates for Fall, Spring and Summer awards.

c.       Determined a distribution by semester of 40% each for Fall and Spring and 20% for Summer.

d.       In the past students have been penalized for securing other funding.  This year we viewed it as a positive, but not overriding factor.

2.         Reviewed graduate catalog copy related to our area and had no recommended changes.   As a side note, the Graduate Council was working on this process and committee input was not sought.  That decision was not made by this year’s Graduate Council.

2.         Graduate Faculty Committee—This Committee met a number of times during the year.  The committee considered and acted upon a total of 144 Graduate Faculty Status applications.  These included applications for Regular, Associate, and Special Purpose Graduate Faculty applications.  Additionally, the committee was charged with finalizing their recommendations for the revision of the current Graduate Faculty Status Policy.  These recommendations were brought forward to full Graduate Council for review.

3.         Graduate Student Appeals Committee—No additional charges beyond addressing appeals were received.  The committee met 7 times and will meet at least one additional time this academic year and several times in the summer.  Two of those meetings were conducted by members of the 2004-2005 Academic year committee. Overall, 28 petitions were considered, 24 were approved, 3 were denied, and 1 remains tabled and has not been resubmitted.  Additionally, the revision of time limitation for doctoral degree completion for students who began their program in 1998 was recommended to be changed to the 9 year completion time as is the case with the rest of the campus

4. Program Development Committee— The Graduate Program Committee met 10 times and forwarded the minutes to the Graduate Council. Early in fall semester the committee discussed its potential role in Program Prioritization. It later found out it would not be part of the process until Fall, 2006.  There were two difficulties encountered this year. (1) Finding a time when every one was free due to the large number of committee members and diversity in teaching schedules.  (2) The committee was unable to maintain a secretary throughout the year.

In addition, the Program Development Committee was very active in assisting the full Council with addressing the above Faculty Senate Charges (see where appropriate). The GPDC Executive Committee was very active reviewing the minor program changes.  This was completed along with operating guidelines. The following course changes were approved by the Program Development Committee:  Revision of Student Affairs and Higher Ed Program, elimination of MS - History for Teacher Licensure Program, Revision of History 571, Global Business MBA 631, Changes to SEd 625, CIP code change for Science Education Program,  IMT 513,  COUN 738 title change, RCSM 691, RCSM 692, THTR 552, THTR 584, THTR 585, THTR 586, LING 685, MEd School counseling revised, and Elimination of M.S. Marriage and Family Therapy program, Nursing 698R- Culminating project option. Psych 784 Culminating internship

Additional Activities:

• Dean Bentil brought forward a request to modify the Graduate Student Assistantship Policy.  Graduate Council worked closely initially with Dean Bentil and then when he left Interim Dean Kuhlman to revamp and approve revisions to the current policy.  The revisions were forwarded to Faculty Senate for review and approval.  The new policy will be in effect for Fall, 2006. Motion (B.Dallman, A. Gilberti):  Approve the Graduate Assistantship document with provisions that it will be revisited after 1 year in place with a report from the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.  (5-2-0).  See Appendix C for an approved copy of the policy.

• The Graduate Faculty Status sub-committee drafted a revision of the current Graduate Faculty Status policy via recommendations forwarded last year.  These recommendations were received and reviewed by the full Graduate Council.  Graduate Council then made further changes to the policy.  The policy was approved this Spring and will be forwarded to Faculty Senate for consideration in Fall, 2006. Motion to approve Draft 6 of the Graduate Faculty Membership language with changes (Boyer/Demchak) passed 5-0-1.

• Worked with CAAC to review and make recommendations on the CAPS Manual.  Karen Schmid, Academic Affairs, was invited to GC to discuss the concerns and potential areas of change.  Particular focus was given to the approval of International programs.  The recommended and approved changes were forwarded to CAAC for inclusion in the revised manual. A motion (Boyer/Mayer) to endorse the CAPS Manual International and Off Campus Programs language with edits was approved (7-0-0).

• The Graduate Assistantship Policy committee worked closely with the SOGS to revamp the Graduate Student Research fund.  Revisions of the policy were forwarded to Graduate Council.  Motion to approve changes in the Graduate Research fund policies was passed (6-0-0) (Mayer/Frank)

• Graduate Council approved all Graduate Program Development Committee proposals that came forward.

• The College of Arts and Sciences brought forward a concern regarding the blending of 400/600 level courses.  Graduate Council considered the appropriateness of blending such courses and approved the following motion: Graduate council does not approve of 400/600 level courses being blended. Boyer/ Macdonald (8-1-0)

• Graduate Council continued to work closely with Financial Aid, the School of Graduate Studies, and Academic Affairs to review the Satisfactory Academic Policy.  Two meetings were held (one in Fall and one in Spring).  It was agreed between all parties to continue to use the current policy (150% rule) with greater communication between Financial Aid Office, SOGS, and impacted departments.  For example, students violating the policy will be identified earlier and the department chairs contacted to help determine if the student needs to appeal.  A Graduate Council representative will continue to work with Financial Aid regarding the SAP Policy.  In addition, Graduate Council will continue to review the policy and its implementation.

• Graduate Council and the School of Graduate Studies supported one Department Chairs and Program Directors meeting in the Fall.

• Graduate Council supported two Graduate Student Town Hall meeting hosted by the School of Graduate Studies and Academic Affairs.

• Graduate Council provided consultation to the Dean on curricular and procedural matters as requested.

• Graduate Council was represented at each of the PPARC meetings throughout the year.

• Graduate Council identified volunteers (both faculty and students) for the Academic Integrity Committee.  The names were sent forward to the School of Graduate Studies.

• Graduate Council reviewed and made recommendations to the SOGS Dean on the Graduate Catalog copy.

• Graduate Council continued to work with the Dean of SOGS to implement the course numbering changes previously approved.
  APPENDIX A:

Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services

Graduate Council Suggestions for Implementation

October 18, 2005

• This document is written within the context of “Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services” (ISU 10/4/05, available in PDF format from http://www.indstate.edu/acad-aff/facultyres.html) which indicates that all programs will be reviewed.

• The “Prioritizing Academic Programs and Services” document suggests that programs be divided into either thirds or quintiles, and we suggest quintiles. The implication is that 20% of programs will be identified for “phasing out, reduction, or consolidation” and 20% will be identified for “enrichment”.

• A new Criterion area “Centrality to the ISU Mission” is suggested here. If we are to have a meaningful university mission statement, then it should be the basis for many decisions.

• The questions in each Criterion area were written with an emphasis on data and information that is available to department Chairs. Most of the questions ask for specific data and some ask for narrative answers.

• Most of the data required in this report should be available from BANNER or other ISU data bases and generating this date for each program should be an institutional, not a departmental, priority.

• We suggest that the report generated should be limited to 10 pages of text, with no supplemental material or appendices.

• Clarification needs to be provided on what constitutes a program on ISU’s campus (see Dickeson Chapter 4).

Criterion 0: Centrality to the ISU Mission

1. What are the program’s mission and other basic statements, such as a values and a vision statement?

2. What do program faculty, students, and staff do that links directly to the ISU Mission.

3. Specifically how does the program link to the ISU Mission?

Criterion 1:  History, Development, and Expectations of the Program

1. How has the program changed over the years to meet or lead social and economic changes in Indiana?

Criterion 2: External Demand for the Program

1. What organizations or companies do graduates work for?

2. How do external demands suggest the institution should continue this program?

3. List other similar academic programs in the state.

4. What would be the consequences to our principle stakeholders in the state if this program were to be discontinued?

5. What do the students and faculty in this program produce that are used by our principle stakeholders in the state?

Criterion 3: Internal Demand for the Program

1. What other ISU programs or departments does this program support, for example general education?

2. What would be the consequences to other ISU programs is this program were to be discontinued?

3. What do the students and faculty in this program produce that are used by other parts of the ISU campus?

Criterion 4: Quality of Program Inputs and Processes

1. Cite evidence of:

   1. Student standardized test scores before and at ISU (if applicable)

   2. Student class ranking before and at ISU (if applicable)

   3. Student GPA before and at ISU

   4. Student involvement with appropriate department committees and processes

2. Cite evidence of:

   1. Faculty academic preparation, including ongoing professional development

   2. Faculty service to ISU

   3. Faculty service to the profession

   4. Faculty teaching quality

3. Cite evidence that:

   1. The curriculum reflects best practice in the discipline.

   2. The curriculum was recently reviewed.

   3. Program accreditation, certification, or other professional recognition.

   4. The academic program was reviewed by non-ISU personnel.

4. Cite evidence of how technology is used in student learning and teaching

5. Cite evidence that equipment, facilities, and other resources are sufficient to support student learning and teaching.

Criterion 5: Quality of Program Outcomes

1. Cite evidence of:

   1. Graduation rates for majors

   2. Accomplishments of majors

2. Cite evidence of:

   1. Faculty publications

   2. Faculty professional presentations

   3. Faculty creative works

   4. Faculty professional activities, service, and consultations (See Criterion 4, 2, b and c)

Criterion 6: Size, Scope, and Productivity of the Program

1. List the number of majors over the past 5 years (Note that all of this data should come only from the “10 day reports”.)

2. List the number of graduates over the past 5 years

3. List the program’s maximum capacity for majors, given current resources

4. List the number of faculty and staff assigned to the program over the past 5 years

5. List the faculty instructional load in the program

6. List the FTE faculty to FTE student ratio in the program

7. List the number of credit hours generated over the past 5 years

8. List the amount of service provided to ISU and outside ISU (See Criterion 4, 2, b and c) by:

   1. Faculty

   2. Students

Criterion 7: Revenues and Other Expenses Associated with the Program

1. List financial resources generated by the program from ISU sources

2. List financial resources generated by the program from non-ISU sources such as grants, contracts, externally funded assistantships, licensing, fees, etc.

3. List key relationships between the program and other areas of ISU such as service courses taught or direct services provided to other departments or programs

4. List key relationships between the program and areas outside of ISU such as ongoing collaborations, student teaching opportunities, work with nearby organizations, schools, and colleges.

Criterion 8: Costs and Other Expenses Associated with the Program

1. What are the faculty costs for the program, based on faculty salaries and benefits and faculty FTE dedicated to the program?

2. What are staff costs for the program, based on staff salaries and benefits and staff FTE dedicated to the program?

3. What are the specialized equipment and facilities costs associated with the program, other than general classroom and faculty/staff/department office space? For example specialized laboratories, computer, or teaching facilities.

Criterion 9: Impact, Justification, and Overall Essentiality of the Program.

1. Demonstrate how this program has had, and will continue to have, a positive effect on ISU.

2. How does this program help distinguish ISU from other institutions?

3. How does this program help further the ISU Strategic Plan?

Criterion 10: Opportunity Analysis of the Program

1. Demonstrate how the program might take advantage of current and future opportunities for students, faculty, and ISU.

2. Demonstrate how this program might change its curriculum or teaching strategies to take advantage of current or future opportunities.

3. Demonstrate how, if appropriate, the program might take advantage of the technology initiatives at ISU.

Additional Considerations:

1. Include here any other appropriate information, such as:

   1. Student, faculty, or program accreditation or recognition that would reflect student, faculty, or program quality.

   2. Accreditation requirements restricting enrollments or section size, for example clinical practice class size limits.

   3. Department policies restricting enrollment or section size, for example section size limits for laboratory or for distance education classes.

APPENDIX B: Input on Distinctive Programs Initiative

September 27, 2005

The following is in response to the Charge to CAAC and taken upon by Graduate Council to give input on the procedures, criteria, and accountability of the Distinctive Programs Initiative.  Through careful discussion and consideration and working in collaboration with CAAC, Graduate Council would like to comment and make recommendations on the Institutional Distinctiveness document.  We are in agreement that the following issues should be taken into consideration before moving forward with the initiative.  The following comments are divided into two sections:  1) a reiteration and reinforcement of comments forwarded by CAAC; and 2) additional comments and recommendations by Graduate Council.

Comments from CAAC

1.         There are specific structural issues for individual departments.  There are concerns that programs will be discouraged from applying for the money for two reasons.  First, a program could spend the same amount of time it will take to collect documentation and input to complete the Institutional Distinctiveness Application on external grant writing and funding. Second, the initiative does not recognize the limits on the caps.  Therefore, programs may not apply or under the current initiative not be recognized as a Program of Distinction or Promise because they do not apply for the funding.  There should be some mechanism to recognize those programs of distinction initially.  Also there should be a plan to show which of these programs qualify. 

2.         The initiative will create competition rather than fostering collaboration.  Currently the only provision for collaboration is listed under the Programs of Promise.  This should be extended to the other two categories.

3.         Currently there is no mechanism for feedback for programs not funded.  Feedback should be provided.

4.         The expectations listed under the criteria need to be elaborated.

5.         There are concerns that programs will choose not to apply for Category II Programs of Regional or State Distinction because of the differences in award amounts listed between Categories I Programs of National Distinction and III Programs of Promise (each for $100,000) and II Programs of Regional or State Distinction ($75,000).

6.         Implication for how many programs will be funded.  Implies 10 per category.

7.         There is a question regarding the length of terms of the committee members.  Should there be limits on the terms.

8.         There is no preliminary budget included.

Comments from Graduate Council

9.         In the application packet, departments applying for the money must relate how their specific program relates to the mission, core values, strategic goals, and brand images of the university.  Current information on these items needs to be provided by ISU in one central location.  In addition, there needs to be some clarification regarding which strategic goals are to be used.

10.        Clearer guidelines on what is required for both pre-application and full application are needed.  It is our recommendation that the Institutional Distinctiveness Program committee consult external agencies such as the National Science Foundations IGERT program or the National League for Nursing Center for Excellence for some guidance on the application process.

11.        The language in Category III Programs of Promise should include a statement that “Valid measures must be used to secure this level of recognition”.  If there are no valid measures, then there is question to the validity of the programs being put forward.

12.        Given the resource constraints experienced by many departments, there is concern that it will take a significant amount of time to complete the application and self-study with little reward.

13.        A question was raised whether it would be more an incentive to have a smaller number of programs of distinction identified with a larger reward/pool of money.

14.        Currently the description and application do not include any guidelines on how the money can be used.  Guidelines should be included outlining how the money can or specifically can not be used.

15.        Specific guidelines for the evaluation of the programs should be included.

16.        On page 6, the document contradicts itself when defining the font size.  The pre-proposal calls for an 11 point font and the full proposal calls for an 11 or 12 point font.  It is the desire of Graduate Council that the committee consider changing the requirements to a 12 point font or at a minimum make the requirements parallel.

17.        Graduate Council would appreciate more direction on the entire document.  In addition, a broader discussion or description of the overall goal of promotion programs of distinction.  What is the impact on the whole system.

18.        A concern was raised over how the funding will be continued after the completion of the grant.

19.        What happens to the funding if at the 6 month or subsequent reviews the committee believes the department is not fulfilling their promise and funding is removed?  Would the funding go into a different pool of money for departments not initially rewarded or would those who did not apply be given another opportunity to apply for funding.  This is not addressed in the document.

20.        The recommendation was presented that the Institutional Distinctiveness committee, through careful evaluation of the applications, should decide which programs fall in each of the categories.  Currently, the program must indicate which category they believe their program falls into.  It is the concern of the Graduate Council, that a number of programs may apply for one category and even if a particular does not get funded in the category for which they applied they may meet the criteria for another category but be excluded from consideration.

APPENDIX C:

INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY

PROPOSED GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIP AWARD REFORM GUIDELINES

(Approved by Grad Council November 29, 2005, revised January 24, 2006)

The fact that the graduate assistantship stipends at ISU are low and not competitive, when compared to our peer institutions, is well-documented. Currently, there are no clear and uniform institutional guidelines to distinguish stipend amounts among degree levels. Graduate Students who serve as teaching assistants have expressed concerns about stipend levels. Concerns about the low stipends and the inequities across our campus were also expressed by students at the “Town Hall” meeting held in Fall 2004. In addition, colleagues from other institutions who have visited our campus as part of regional accreditation organizations, external  program review teams, as well as a campus-wide committee appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate studies have all identified this matter as a serious problem that needs to be addressed. This problem is exacerbated by the inconsistency in award advertisement, criteria, standards and expectations. Furthermore, students who receive these awards are subject to more than $600.00 in additional fees (building services fee, student services fee and technology fee) every semester. These additional fees are not covered by tuition scholarship/fee waivers.

Considering the current budgetary climate in the State of Indiana and our institution, it is doubtful that additional funds are going to be available in the near term. At the same time, ISU cannot afford to conduct business as usual. There is clearly a need to reform the overall awarding of assistantships. Therefore, the major goals of this proposed reform are to:

·         maximize the use of current available funding

·         provide fair compensation to our graduate students

·         make ISU stipends comparable to our peer institutions

·         increase funding level to help students defray the fees that are not covered by fee waivers (student and building services fees, technology fee health insurance, etc.)

·         create a uniform and clear distinction between the stipend amounts for the respective degree levels

·         increase the minimum level of stipends in order to attract a higher caliber of students

What follows are a series of proposed institutional guidelines, regulations, and procedures that can help ISU achieve the goals of this reform.

GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIP AWARD GUIDELINES (Effective, Fall 2006)

1. ACADEMIC CRITERIA

To be eligible for a graduate assistantship, a student must:

a). have a minimum cumulative Grade Point Average (GPA) of 3.0 at the time of award. However, at their discretion, individual academic units may set higher standards above this minimum GPA requirement.

b). have been admitted to a graduate degree program with a regular admission status.

c). be enrolled as a full-time student (as defined under section 3 of this policy) at

Indiana State University. Exceptions will be made for students who are enrolled in the Ph.D. Technology Management or other ISU-approved consortium programs, as well as students who are enrolled in their last and final semester at  Indiana State University.

d). be in good academic standing, by maintaining a cumulative GPA of 3.0 or

                              better.

2. INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

To be eligible for a graduate assistantship, an international student must:

a). meet all of the academic criteria as described in section 1 of this policy.

b). possess an appropriate and valid Passport and Visa at the time of award.

c).  be in good standing and not out-of-status in accordance with U.S Homeland     

      Security and U.S. Immigration laws and regulations. Any unit who wishes to

award a graduate assistantship to an international student must first  consult with the ISU International Affairs Center and obtain written verification of the eligibility of such student to work (visa, immigration status, etc.) before extending an  offer of an assistantship.

3. SATISFACTORY PROGRESS (ENROLLMENT) CRITERIA

Graduate assistantships shall be awarded  to only full-time students at either full-time level (20 hours per week, 15 hours per week for clinical programs) or half-time level (10 hours per week). For units (academic departments/programs or administrative offices) with fewer than ten assistantships, no more that one shall be half-time. For units with ten or more assistantships, no more than 10% of the total assistantships awarded shall be at the half-time level. In special cases under extenuating circumstances an exception to the number of assistantships awarded at the half-time level may be made, upon a request from a College and the approval of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.

Expectations for a student who is awarded either a full or half-time assistantship, include the following:

                  a). Must earn a minimum of 18 credit hours per academic year. Exceptions to

     these requirements are:

i).   Students enrolled in their final year in Graduate School may earn fewer than 18 credit hours.  For Students completing a thesis, dissertation, or final project and when the thesis, dissertation, or final project is the single remaining degree requirement, enrollment may drop below these minimum requirements, but not lower than 3 credit hours during the student’s last semester of registration.  This exception will be allowed only once.

ii).  Students serving as Teaching Assistants (Instructors) and teaching more than three credit hours or more than one course per semester may earn fewer than 18 credit hours, but no fewer than 12 credit hours in any given academic year, due to the time demands of the teaching load.

iii). Students in clinical programs may earn fewer than 18 credit hours,

but no fewer than 12 credit hours in any given academic year, due to the time demands of clinical placements.  A clinical program is defined as a Health or allied Health Services provider program.

b). Must earn a minimum of six credit hours during the Summer period (those six credit hours can be in one or more Summer terms in any given year), if an full-time assistantship is desired and awarded in the Summer. Must earn a minimum of three credit hours during the Summer period for which they are awarded the assistantship, if a half-time assistantship is desired and awarded in the Summer

c). Must work 20 hours per week for a full-time award and 10 hours per week for a half-time award. Students in clinical programs must work 15 hours per week

for a prorated award.

4. TERM LIMITS

Assistantships will be funded for the term limits as outlined in Table I.

Table I:  Assistantship Funding Term Limits

5. STIPEND AMOUNTS

Academic units must pay minimum stipend amounts, based on the student’s degree level, in accordance with the amounts in the following tables. However, at their discretion, units may pay higher amounts from their allocated budgets or supplement these amounts with funds from other sources.

Table II: MINIMUM STIPEND AMOUNTS (FALL 2006 & SPRING 2007)

Table III: MINIMUM STIPEND AMOUNTS (2007 THREE-WEEK SUMMER TERM)

Table IV: MINIMUM STIPEND AMOUNTS (2007 FIVE-WEEK SUMMER TERM)

Table V: MINIMUM STIPEND AMOUNTS (2007 EIGHT-WEEK SUMMER TERM)

Table VI: MINIMUM STIPEND AMOUNTS (FALL 2007 & SPRING 2008)

Note: The minimum Summer stipends shown in Tables II, III and IV are based on the minimum monthly stipend amounts during the Fall 2006 and Spring 2007 semesters. Therefore Summer stipends must be adjusted accordingly, in subsequent years, whenever the Fall and Spring stipends are changed.

   6.  SCHOLARSHIP/FEE WAIVER AWARDS

For students who are awarded full-time assistantships, up to 18 credit hours of fee waiver may be awarded during the academic year, and up to six hours during the Summer period. For students with half-time assistantships, up to nine credit hours of fee waiver may be awarded during the academic year and three credit hours during the Summer period. However, at the discretion of the awarding unit, additional credit hours may be granted in special cases.  Fee waivers may be awarded to students without assistantship at the discretion of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies

Table VII: SCHOLARSHIP (FEE WAIVER) CREDITS

7.  JOB DESCRIPTIONS FOR GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS

 A graduate student who is awarded an assistantship must have a job description that includes the name of department/program, the name of faculty member the student will be assigned to as well as the following minimum information, based on the applicable categories listed below:

Graduate Teaching Assistant: Course title, number and credit hours with an indication as to the actual duties (e.g. instructor, grader, etc.)

Graduate Research/Clinical Assistant: Title of research/clinical project and a description of student’s duties, assignments, and expected outcome.

Graduate Administrative Assistant: A description of administrative duties, activities, assignments and work expectations.

Relative priority order for awarding assistantships should be teaching, research/clinical and administrative, respectively.

8.   POSTING OF GRADUATE ASSISTANTSHIPS

All units that have assistantships must publicly announce the availability of assistantships and whether or not those assistantships are reserved for students in their degree programs (in the case of academic departments).  This posting should also provide a general description of the types of

activities expected of the graduate assistants and special qualifications, if any.  Note that postings on departmental/program websites are considered to meet this requirement, but units may also wish to post in other places (e.g., student employment office in Human Resources, student placement center in Student Affairs).

9.  AWARD PROCEDURES AND DEADLINE

Units that award assistantships must have a selection committee that reviews applications (and in the case of instructors, qualifications for teachers) and recommends awards to the head of the unit.  In academic units, this committee may be composed of the same members as the admission committee, and determination of assistantship awards may be made as soon as admission is confirmed.  However, in all cases, stipends and fee waivers must be awarded no later than two weeks after the first day of class during the Fall or Spring semester, and no later that one week after the first day of class during the Summer period. Assistantships that are not awarded by these deadlines, may be subject to re-allocation. Exceptions to this policy are at the discretion of the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.           

10.   TERMINATION OF GRADUATE ASSISTANTS

Academic units who award assistantships are expected to monitor such awards regularly and immediately report any violation of this policy to the School of Graduate Studies. In addition, as a minimum, graduate assistants must be reviewed annually by the awarding unit. Assistantships must be immediately withdrawn from students who:

a). do not make satisfactory academic progress as defined in section 3 of this policy.

b). do not satisfactorily perform their assigned duties.

c). fail to report to work.

d). withdraw from school.

e). are placed on academic probation, suspended or expelled.

f). violate academic policies (academic integrity, etc.) of Indiana State University.

g). are international students and become out-of-status or violate any of  Federal

     Regulations governing foreign students.

In order to terminate a graduate student, a written notice must be given to the student and copied to the School of Graduate Studies. Notice should be given as soon as the [SUPERVISOR/PROGRAM HEAD/DEPARTMENT CHAIR] becomes aware of the problem and may occur during an academic term.  T, by submitting copy of such termination notice immediately. The School of Graduate Studies will, in turn, notify the appropriate office(s) (payroll, etc.) on campus to immediately effect the termination..   Students may file an appeal of termination with the appropriate committee.