By Michael Scoular (The Cascade / Photo) – Email
Published online April 15, 2015
As UFV governance expedites a new round of consultation on the February decision to change the Writing Centre into the Academic Success Centre (ASC), questions remain about how this action will affect the large-scale project already in motion.
One question, a matter of scheduling, was addressed at the beginning of the April 10 Senate meeting. Because UFV’s decision-making body, the Board of Governors (BoG), does not meet frequently, any decision from Senate in April would wait until the June BoG meeting to be addressed. Just as Senate was about to discuss whether it should provide advice to the Board on the Writing Centre, UFV president and Senate Chair Mark Evered announced that in an in-camera discussion from the previous BoG meeting, the Board decided to ask for Senate’s advice.
“The Board, of course, has been kept apprised of the controversy and the conversations around this particular issue,” Evered said. “Regardless of the debate over whether or not this centre, as defined, falls within the category of one of those items that the Board must seek the advice of Senate, and Senate must provide advice on, [the Board] nevertheless felt it of value to do so.”
Here Evered referred to the provincial University Act, which sets out specific cases of educational policy development in which Board-Senate consultation must happen. Both student protestors and committee members have stated that UFV administration failed to follow the Act, a sentiment that informed the motion presented at Senate.
Evered then read the BoG’s motion: “That the Board asks Senate to provide by June 12, 2015 its advice on the proposed expansion of the Writing Centre and whether the proposal is consistent with the approved Education Plan and Strategic Enrolment Management plan.”
Political science professor Hamish Telford attended the meeting, and says the motion is an important recognition of responsibility in the Writing Centre decision.
“The motion is highly significant for two reasons,” Telford writes in an email. “First, the university has acknowledged that the decision to close the Writing Centre and establish the Academic Success Centre is a decision of the Board. And second, although the Writing Centre is now closed and work is being done on the new Academic Success Centre, the Board has not in fact made its decision on these matters.”
As UFV administration has explained the decision on the Writing Centre, they have referred to “best practices” at other institutions in the province and “economically sustainable” models of operation. This motion tasks Senate with investigating neither, instead refocusing the discussion to pre-existing documents.
UFV’s Education Plan, which dates back to 2011 and is in its final year, is a document that mostly looks to what UFV could add or change, with recommendations from each department. Peer tutoring appears as one of seven “student success initiatives” and is briefly described: “Develop a standardized system including training and ongoing support for peer tutoring. Work with the Development Office to establish community funding partners such as professional associations. Identify high school peer tutors and engage them to continue these efforts at UFV.”
The SEM plan is a document that analyzes and reports on admissions, population trends, retention, and graduation figures. It does not provide an overview of educational services. In its sixth section, on campus infrastructure, it does cite “George Kuh’s work on high impact practices (HIPS).” Kuh is a professor at the University of Illinois, and HIPs is from a book published in 2008. Of the nine HIPs, multiple (like common intellectual experiences and learning communities) could fit the current discussion, but are broad enough to apply to either the Writing Centre or the Academic Success Centre.
While the decision to take what was an administration-only decision into the discussion chambers of Senate and its committees is clarifying the matter for some members of the UFV community, there is still a certain amount of confusion even among those closest to the discussion.
Following Evered’s announcement, psychology professor Zoe Dennison asked a question, as the two motions — one proposed by the Academic Planning and Priorities Committee (APPC), the other handed down from the Board — differ.
“Just to be clear: so, is the change now delayed, Mark, until such time as the Board receives this information and recommendation from Senate?” Dennison asked.
“Yes,” Evered said. “No,” responded Eric Davis, VP academic.
Dennison repeated the question, and Evered responded: “I’m sorry, I misunderstood — thank you, Eric — ‘No.’”
Davis then added, “I mean it’s already happening. It’s begun.”
The Writing Centre is closed, and faculty have been transferred to other departments; Gloria Borrows, Nadeane Trowse, Dana Landry, and Kim Norman are now listed as English and Communications faculty.
Davis also mentioned that “there is a recently laid-off employee who has been bumped into the learning management strategist position in the [Academic Success] Centre and is currently working in the centre.”
These decisions, and the changes and expenditures that would come with following the current timeline of hiring and training tutors, among other preparations for the fall semester, became a point of debate. With the ASC moving into operations in the background, members considered how this would affect the development of a review.
After an amendment by Dennison to the Senate motion removing a request for postponement, it passed unanimously “that Senate direct APPC to provide a recommendation on the structure of the Writing Centre and the proposed Academic Success Centre to Senate by May 27.”
The APPC meets April 15 and May 13, and there is no guarantee the full proposal will be available for review by that first date. As APPC Vice-chair Christine Slavik pointed out, it has been two months without substantial information.
“The suggestion that we actually talked about it at three meetings is not accurate,” Slavik said. “There’s never been any written information about the proposal to make the changes — the only information that came to use was at the discussion meeting, and [that] was about the Academic Success Centre.”
English professor Melissa Walter moved to separately recommend postponement to the Board of Governors, even if that would not be decided until June along with the eventual APPC review and Senate recommendation.
“I think it’s still an important point,” Walter said. “It’s a motion about process and to register that this is the type of process there should be and have that be clear. That’s my intention, anyway.” The motion failed.
Without referencing any specific contingency plans, Evered said it is within the Board’s power to reverse the entire decision if necessary.
“There were changes that were made at the request of faculty, in terms of their appointments, that would be very difficult and, at some level, unfair [to undo]. But the Board spoke about the need to change direction based on the advice of Senate. The Board approved the budget, but acknowledged that there may be elements within the budget — not uncommon as we work our way through a year — [where] we change direction, we change the allocation of resources,” he explained.
He also offered a speculative compromise should the Senate recommendation incur such a decision by the Board.
“The issue, I think, will be around: what do we do about a Writing Centre? Is there a separate Writing Centre; is there writing guidance [and] support within the context of the Academic Success Centre? I don’t think it’s quite as problematic as we imagine.”
The APPC recommendation is scheduled to be discussed by Senate at its June 5 meeting on the Abbotsford campus.
Correction: In the original post, Christine Slavik was attributed as Christine Neigel.
