6. Selected Academic Affairs Policies

6.1     SEARCH PROCEDURES FOR FULL-TIME FACULTY

Faculty Search Committees are established to help develop a faculty search strategy, assist in establishing candidate selection criteria, review applicants’ qualifications, and to make recommendations to the Division Dean, Provost and President.

• The Division Dean will establish a Search Committee comprised of:
  • Committee Chair;
  • At least two faculty members currently in the division;
  • A faculty member from another division;
  • Former faculty members may act as advisors to the search committee, if deemed helpful;
  • Search committees should have at least four, but no more than seven members. The appointing authority, hiring authority or supervisor cannot be a search committee member;
• The Faculty Search Committee will follow HR Procedure 207, which outlines the faculty search process.
• Once the Faculty Search Committee has completed its review of the candidates, the committee shall recommend 2-4 finalists to the Division Dean (the Provost in the case of a Dean search.)

6.2     ORIENTATION OF FIRST-YEAR FACULTY

The Provost has primary responsibility for orienting first-year faculty to the policies, regulations, and procedures of the College. The orientation will include familiarizing new faculty with personnel policies; faculty rights, obligations, and responsibilities; the role of faculty in governance; relevant student policies; expectations; and support services for faculty and students.

An informative resource is maintained on the Academic Affairs website covering policies, procedures and contact information.

6.3     FIRST-YEAR EXPECTATIONS

Faculty in their first year of service should concentrate on developing their assigned courses and performing effectively as a teacher. In order to assist first-year faculty in this regard, they may be exempt from, or have reduced responsibility for, formal academic advising assignments, service on institutional and senate committees during their initial year. First-year faculty should have a conversation with their Academic Deans and come to an agreement about expectations and their workload.

6.4     FACULTY EVALUATIONS - AMENDEMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVAL

At the end of a faculty member’s appointment term, each faculty member is evaluated on how successfully he or she has met the outlined expectations in the areas of teaching, service, and professional development and achievement.  For those with one year appointments, such as newly hired Assistant Professors, this would mean the evaluation process is completed annually.  For more senior faculty, including those who carry the rank of Associate or Full Professor, this process would apply only in years in which appointments would need to be renewed. For example, a faculty member with a five year appointment term would engage in the review process outlined here in his or her fifth year.

6.4.1     EVALUATION CRITERIA

The typical faculty member is evaluated according to a weighting schema of 75% for teaching, 15% for service, and 10% for professional development and achievement. However, the faculty member and his/her Dean may adjust these typical weightings by joint agreement at the beginning of the academic year. In unusual circumstances, such as reassignment of faculty responsibilities, by mutual agreement between the  dean  and  the faculty  member,  the  weights  may  be  approved  for  change  during  the academic year to reflect the change in assignment.

6.4.2     EVIDENCE

Faculty members submit evidence to the Dean to document goal attainment and performance in teaching effectiveness, service, and professional development and achievement. Evidence shall include a self-evaluation and statement of the goals and commitments that were agreed to in the prior year.

When completing the summative evaluation, the Dean must consider the following data sources: goals from the prior year, the self-evaluation, instructional load and types of course, student reactions to instruction and courses (such as IDEA results), teaching characteristics reports, and a minimum of one other source from the list on the summative evaluation form. These primary data sources for the evaluation of teaching should hold approximately equal weight in determining the overall teaching rating.

6.4.3     DEAN’S EVALUATION

After weighing multiple factors and several perspectives (including the faculty prepared self-evaluation and discussion with the faculty member), the Dean assigns one of the following overall qualitative summative evaluations to each faculty member: Needs Improvement, Successful, or Exemplary.  The Dean’s narrative should discuss the rationale for the rating.  See Appendix for a copy of the Dean’s Summative Evaluation Form.

6.4.4     ANNUAL PROGRESS

During years in which the faculty member need not engage in the full evaluation process as outlined above, the faculty member will continue to meet with his or her dean at least annually to review and update progress on goals outlined in the last full evaluation.  These goals may be longer-term in scope, and so discussion may be focused around progress toward, not completion of, such goals.  These goals may also be modified at any time by mutual agreement of the faculty member and Dean.

6.4.5     FACULTY EVALUATION APPEAL PROCEDURE

This appeal procedure is intended to provide an impartial, third-party review of the decision- making process used by a Dean in making a summative evaluation and rating of a faculty member’s job performance.  A faculty member may pursue an appeal review of the Performance Evaluation decision if he/she believes that it:

• Results from improper procedure, or
• Rests on grounds which violate academic freedom, or
• Is substantially arbitrary or capricious, or
• Considers irrelevant or non-valid performance factors, or
• Fails to consider all relevant evidence or mitigating circumstances.

The burden of proof in an appeal rests with the faculty member.

The following steps will normally be taken in seeking resolution of a grievance related to performance evaluations. The time limits may need to be adapted within reason due to scheduling conflicts.

1. When a faculty member and a Dean disagree about the conclusions of a Dean’s Summative Performance Evaluation, the faculty member will arrange a special meeting (or series of meetings) between them to try to resolve the disagreement cooperatively and amicably. The scheduling of this meeting (or meetings) should allow sufficient time for both parties to reflect on the issues, but it should occur not more than ten (10) working days after the faculty member has received the original Dean’s Summative Performance Evaluation.
2. If it is apparent that resolution cannot occur during a follow-up meeting (or meetings), then the faculty member must submit a letter of appeal to the Provost within five (5) working days of the final meeting with the Dean. The Provost may discuss the issues separately with each party, or jointly with them both, to determine the possibility of resolving the grievance amicably through mediation and discussion. The Provost shall attempt to resolve the issue within five (5) working days of receiving the faculty member’s letter of appeal. If, by the end of this five-day period, the Provost judges that the issue cannot be resolved by conciliation, then the Provost shall immediately begin the process of convening an Appeals Panel.
3. The Faculty Evaluation Appeals Panel shall be composed of the Provost, as Panel coordinator, and four additional members: The faculty Senate President, one faculty member chosen by the employee, one faculty member chosen by the Provost, and one Dean chosen by the Provost and representing a Division other than the Division of the faculty member pursuing the appeal. The Provost shall cast a vote on the Panel’s final recommendation only in the event of a tie among the other four Panel members. The Director of Human Resources and Organizational Development will attend the appeals meeting but is not a voting member of the panel. As outlined below, the panel may hear testimony from both the appellant and the appellant’s Dean; however, the panel will hear this testimony separately from each party. The panel members can request clarification of this testimony during their deliberations as needed. Neither the appellant nor his/her Dean shall be present during the deliberations of the panel. The minutes of the hearing and the deliberations of the panel will remain confidential. (Note: Faculty Senate was advised on May 17, 2010 of a procedural change introduced in this paragraph, starting with the sentence “As outlined below.”)
4. Faculty members pursuing appeals may represent themselves or be represented by an individual of their choice at their sole expense.
5. The Provost will schedule the hearing, notify the parties in writing of the date, time, and place of the hearing; secure necessary documents for the records; and arrange for an audio tape recording of the proceedings. The date of the hearing will be set not more than ten (10) working days from the date of the Provost’s decision to convene the Appeals Panel. All pertinent documents related to the appeal must be forwarded by both parties (the faculty member and the Dean) to the Provost at least five (5) working days prior to the scheduled hearing.
6. After deliberation, the Faculty Evaluation Appeals Panel’s decision to support or reject the appeal will be made by a simple majority vote (with the Provost’s vote as tie breaker.) The decision shall be based strictly on the evidence and exhibits presented at the hearing.
7. Within five (5) working days of adjournment of the Appeal Panel’s hearing, the Provost shall forward the Panel’s decision in writing to the faculty member and the Dean. Simultaneously, a copy of the decision letter and a complete record of the hearing will be sent to the President of the College. The Appeals Panel’s decision will be final.

6.5     STUDENT SAFETY IN ACADEMIC SETTING

Faculty should provide instruction in safety procedures to students who are engaged in academic activities (e.g., in classrooms, laboratories and/or off-campus activities that are officially and directly related to instruction) where a known potential danger is present. Unsafe conditions of equipment or facilities should be reported by faculty to the Provost (or an appropriate designee.)

6.6     COURSE OVERLOADS

Faculty members are not assigned course overloads, except for unusual circumstances, as approved by the academic dean and Provost. Faculty who teach overloads are compensated an amount equal to the higher standard rate paid to adjuncts.

6.7     INDEPENDENT STUDY COURSES

Faculty members may choose to work on a volunteer basis with students on an independent study course.

Students may take an independent study course under the following conditions:

• Elective credits only will be given, with the number of credits (not to exceed 3) determined by the appropriate Division Dean.
• The student must propose the course to the supervising instructor at least five weeks prior to the beginning of the semester in which the work will be completed.
• The student and faculty member will jointly develop a formal proposal, which must include:
  • Reason(s) for requesting independent study in lieu of existing elective course(s);
  • Course title, suggested level (100, 200, etc.) and description;
  • Names of instructors who have agreed to supervise;
  • Number of credits to be granted, including a description of how the credit hour policies will be met;
  • Learning outcomes to be pursued;
  • Method of measuring achievement of learning outcomes.
• An instructor who has been asked to supervise such a study project must submit the project for approval to the division Dean not later than three weeks prior to the beginning of the semester. At least five days prior to the beginning of the semester, the Division Dean must notify the instructor, the student, the Provost and the Registrar’s Office, in writing, of his or her approval or reasons for rejection. A student who fails to complete an independent study course within a semester may be granted a period of time in which to finish comparable to that extended to those taking traditional courses.

6.8     MINIMUM ENROLLMENT CLASS CANCELLATION

Champlain College’s minimum class enrollment is six (6) students. If class enrollment falls below this minimum, the class may be cancelled.  The Division Dean will work with faculty to determine if an under-enrolled class should be held or cancelled. The College may also offer faculty the option of pro-rated payment for an under-enrolled class, especially if the class is needed by students in order to graduate or complete studies in their major.

6.9     FACULTY-AUTHORED BOOKS

Champlain College faculty members may adopt books or textbooks they have authored or edited only upon demonstrating to the dean of the division in which the course is offered that the selected material:

• Is relevant to the objectives of the course;
• Supersedes other available work in the field;
• Generally does not constitute the majority of books/texts for the class.

6.10     RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN FACULTY AND STUDENTS - AMENDMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVAL

In general, Champlain College prohibits sexual or romantic relationships between faculty and students, and considers such relationships to be inappropriate and contrary to a professional code of conduct that is expected of faculty in an academic community.  The only exception to this prohibition would be in situations where a faculty member and a student were in a relationship before the student began his or her studies at the College. Such situations would be handled in accordance to the “Related Persons as Students” policy stated immediately below.

6.11     RELATED PERSONS AS STUDENTS - AMENDMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVAL

Faculty members should avoid being placed in a position of authority over relatives or significant others concerning their teaching or advising. In the event that avoidance of conflict is not possible, or unfair to the student, the faculty member must disclose the relationship to the academic dean who must approve exceptions to this policy and who will oversee the evaluation process of the student.

For the purpose of this policy, a “related student” is a spouse, civil union partner, child, child of a civil union partner, stepchild, ward, foster child, parent, parent of a spouse or a civil union partner, sibling, or sibling of a spouse or civil union partner.

6.12     GRADUATE FACULTY QUALIFICATIONS - AMENDMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEE APPROVAL

It is expected that graduate faculty, whether regular full-time or part-time will have a terminal degree or appropriate credentials in the field they will be teaching. The graduate Program Director determines whether a faculty member with documented, professional experience but without a terminal degree is qualified to teach in the program. If possible, faculty with terminal degrees shall constitute a vast majority (70% or more) of the faculty in a particular program. All graduate faculty members are expected to remain current and involved in their disciplines, engaging in such activities as presentations, research and publication, conference attendance, membership in professional societies, professional work in  their field  of  expertise, performances, and/or other scholarly activities. This policy applies in a general way to all programs; individual programs may develop specific policies as appropriate for their field and for their respective professional accreditation standards.

6.13     OUTSIDE AND PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

While the primary responsibility of a full-time faculty member is to Champlain College, limited consulting and other outside activities of a professional nature are encouraged. These activities may help the faculty member’s professional development and/or contributions to student learning. However, these activities should not interfere with fulfilling responsibilities to the College.

6.14     FACULTY EMERITA/EMERITUS - AMENDMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEE APPROVAL

Faculty who retire from the College and who meet the criteria described below may be accorded th designation of Faculty Emeria or Faculty Emeritus. The designation identifies the designee as a continuing member of the College community.

6.14.1     CRITERIA FOR EMERITA/EMERITUS STATUS

The College grants emerita /emeritus status to retired faculty in recognition of their sustained contributions to Champlain College. The designation of emerita/emeritus status is awarded to those who throughout their distinguished careers have excelled in the multiple roles of the professoriate: teaching and student engagement, institutional service, professional development, scholarship, and collegiality and who have served a significant portion of their careers at Champlain. In awarding this designation, the College extends a culminating honor to the recipients for their past contributions and encourages a future relationship through sustained participation in the social and ceremonial functions of the faculty.

6.14.2     PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING EMERITA/EMERITUS STATUS

The Chief Academic Officer will evaluate faculty who, upon retirement, may meet or exceed the criteria for emerita/emeritus status and make a recommendation to the President. The President will evaluate the candidate and make a recommendation to the Academic Affairs Committee of the Board of Trustees. Upon recommendation of the Committee, the Board of Trustees will confer emerita/emeritus status to the individual.

6.14.3     EMERITA/EMERITUS PRIVILEGES

• Listing with faculty in the Champlain College publications and websites;
• Library privileges;
• Campus mailbox, if desired;
• Campus email address, if desired;
• Invitation to participate in public ceremonies, convocations, commencements, academic processions and other College functions open to faculty;
• Use of campus recreation and fitness facilities;
• Employee discount at Bookstore;
• Opportunity to audit courses, subject to instructor consent and space availability.

6.15     INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD (IRB) - AMENDMENT REQUIRES BOARD OF TRUSTEES APPROVAL

In accordance with federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.109) Champlain College’s Institutional Review Board (IRB) will have the exclusive authority to:

• Approve, require modifications in (to secure approval,) or disapprove of all research activities involving human subjects conducted at Champlain College.
• Suspend or rescind approval of research involving human subjects not conducted in accordance with the IRB’s requirements or that has been associated with unexpected serious harm to subjects.

Officials of the institution may not approve a research proposal if Champlain College’s IRB has disapproved it (see 45 CFR 46.112).

Scope of Authority

Anyone formally affiliated with Champlain College who engages in research involving human subjects, either on- or off-campus, must apply for IRB approval. Researchers not affiliated with Champlain College but who want to conduct research with human subjects under the auspices of Champlain College must apply for IRB approval. Anyone using unpublished institutional data from human subjects collected at Champlain College for research purposes, as defined in the document Champlain College Institutional Review Board Policies and Procedures, must have IRB approval.

It is the responsibility of faculty overseeing instructional activity that may involve human subjects to abide by professional and legal standards of conduct, including Champlain College’s Principles for Ethical Research Involving Human Subjects (see below).  Instructors should seek, or require students to seek, IRB approval for course assignments in which students are required to engage in substantial independent research with human subjects.

Principles for Ethical Research Involving Human Subjects

Champlain College affirms that all policies and guidelines related to research involving human subjects will be aligned with the following principles. Champlain College is committed to protecting the safety, health, dignity and privacy of individuals and groups participating in research conducted either at Champlain College or by any employee or student doing research in their capacity as an employee or student of Champlain College.  All researchers at Champlain College are responsible for ensuring that all research practices involving human subjects satisfy the following requirements:

• Risks are minimized: All research methods are safe and involve no undue risk to the life, health or well-being of the research subjects.
• Benefits outweigh risks: The benefits of the research clearly outweigh the anticipated risks of that research.
• Privacy is respected: The research will avoid unneccessary invasions of privacy and maintian, when appropriate, confidentiality.
• Autonomy is respected: Active participation in the research is voluntary, and a process is in place to obtain and, when appropriate, document informed consent from all subjects. When some or all of the subjects are likely to be vulnerable to coercion or undue influence, such as, but not limited to, children, students, prisoners and mentally disabled persons, additional safeguards have been included to protect the rights and welfare of these subjects.
• Data is monitored closely: When appropriate, information gained from the research will be used for the stated research purpose, and adequate provisions to monitor the data will be made to ensure the safety of the subjects.
• Equity is sought: When selecting subjects for research, the distribution of burdens and benefits is equitable considering the methodology, purpose and setting of the research.

Responsibilities

The responsibilities of the Institutional Review Board are to:

• Provide integrated oversight of ethical and regulatory issues in human subjects research conducted at Champlain College;
• Develop common tools and resources including standardized application forms, consent form templates, operating procedures and a database for managing and tracking protocols;
• Provide additional resources to improve services and functioning such as compliance and monitoring as well as training and education.

Membership

Champlain College’s Institutional Review Board will consist of a minimum of seven voting members including:

• One member from the Stiller School of Business;
• One member from the Division of Education and Human Studies;
• One member from the Division of Communication and Creative Media;
• One member from the Division of Information Technology and Sciences;
• One member from the Core Division.

The composition of this committee must include:

• At least one member from Graduate Studies;
• At least one member whose expertise lies in a scientific area;
• At least one member whose expertise lies outside of the sciences;
• A representative from the public without activities to the College or to an organization sponsoring research; and
• An administrator (ex officio.)

One voting faculty member, nominated by the President of the Senate and approved by the Provost, will serve as Chair of the IRB for a three-year term.  Faculty members of the IRB will be appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, also for three-year terms (with initial appointments being staggered.)  The administrator will be appointed by the Provost of the College.   The representative from the public will be invited to serve by the Provost of the College on a yearly basis, although this member may serve for as many consecutive terms as he or she is invited and willing.

In addition to the members of the IRB, the IRB Chair may, at his or her discretion, enroll one additional member, either from within Champlain College or from outside, on a temporary basis to review a particular research proposal. This member will have expertise in the research methods and/or discipline of the research project in question. This member may offer support but will not vote.

Every effort will be made by the Provost, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Chair of the IRB to ensure that the membership of the IRB adheres to federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.107.) Every effort will be made by the Provost, the Faculty Senate Executive Committee and the Chair of the IRB to ensure the continuity of the IRB by staggering terms of service if necessary. Members will, at a minimum, complete the NIH Office of Extramural Research Web- based training course “Protecting Human Research Participants.” A record of certification must be on file before a member may participate in the review of research.

Finally, an IRB member will recuse themself from the review of a particular research proposal if a conflict of interest occurs.

Procedures

All research proposals involving human subjects must be submitted for IRB review.   The IRB Chair will determine the level of review necessary for a project.   The IRB will review and respond to all research proposals in a timely manner so as to cause no undue delays in the conduct of the research project.

Proposals will fall into one of three categories, as determined by the IRB Chair: Full Review, Expedited Review or Exempt.

• Level 1 (Exempt):  Research involving human subjects that poses very little to no foreseeable risk to the health or welfare of the research subjects, as described in 45 CFR 46.101(b), is generally exempt from an expedited or full-board review. Proposals will be deemed exempt by the Board Chair, with a report made to the full Board.
• Level 2 (Expedited Review):  Research involving human subjects that poses minimal foreseeable risk (see Appendix: Definitions) to the health or welfare of the research subjects can be expedited by the IRB Chair. Projects eligible for expedited review will be voted on by three Board members chosen by the IRB Chair.  Outcomes of a Level 2 review are accepted, return for revision/clarification, or move to Level 3 review.
• Level 3 (Full Review):  Research involving human subjects that poses more than minimal foreseeable risk, is funded by federal grants, involves deception, or involves subjects from a group awarded special protections (see Appendix: Definitions) requires a full- board review. Projects requiring full review will be voted on by a quorum of the full Board. A majority of the members must be present to constitute a quorum. The Board will usually approve, disapprove, or return for revision/clarification proposals by consensus, but if consensus cannot be reached, then the Board will decide in favor of the majority opinion. If the committee is split, then the administrator will vote.

A review from the IRB, regardless of level of review, will result in one of three outcomes: approval of the proposal, disapproval of the proposal, or return to the investigator for revision/clarification.

• Approval: If a research proposal is approved by the IRB, an IRB Certificate of Approval (CoA) will be supplied to the investigator, and the CoA will be filed with the Board, as well as the appropriate authorities of Champlain College. The principal investigator is free to proceed with the research under the auspices of Champlain College and its Institutional Review Board. The IRB will determine the length of the approval period.
• Disapproval: If a research proposal is disapproved, the principal investigator will be notified in writing. The notification will include a statement of the reasons for the Board’s decision. The notification will be filed with the Board, as well as the appropriate authorities of Champlain College. The disapproved research cannot proceed under the auspices of Champlain College or its Institutional Review Board. A research proposal can only be disapproved by a quorum of the full Institutional Review Board.
• Return for Revision/Clarification: A research proposal may be returned to the principal investigator for revision and/or clarification. The Board will explain the reasons for the proposal’s return in writing, along with requested changes or portions of the proposal that need further explanation. The return letter will be filed with the Board, as well as the appropriate authorities of Champlain College. The investigator may submit the revised proposal for full Board review.

Any proposed post-acceptance changes to a research design or its implementation must be reported to the IRB. Major changes in research design constitute a new research proposal and necessitate a new review submission and review process. Minor changes in research design can be approved by  the Board  as  an  amendment to  the  original proposal.  The IRB Chair will determine whether changes made to a research design must be re-submitted as a new proposal or approved as an amendment.

Renewals and Extensions: The  IRB  will  determine  the  period  of  time  between  the  initial approval and the subsequent renewal date. Most protocols will be approved for continuing review on an annual basis in accordance with federal regulations (see  45 CFR 46.109). The term of approval will be provided on the Certificate of Approval. Protocols must be renewed with the IRB by the date stipulated on the Certificate of Approval.

Appeals: If an investigatordisagrees with an IRB decision to disapprove a research proposal, the researcher may appeal the decision by re-submitting the same application form to the IRB with:

• A letter of appeal stating the arguments for approval, and
• Any additional information in support of the appeal.  Applications submitted for appeal will be considered by the full board at the next scheduled meeting date.  If the proposal is not approved during this meeting, the research cannot be conducted under the auspices of Champlain College.

Reporting Activities

Following federal regulations (see  45 CFR 46.115), Champlain College will keep a record of all applications for approval of research involving human subjects, including all submitted research documents. Further, records will be kept that identifies the IRB members (including the Chair) who performed the review, the Chair’s notes, email correspondence between the researcher and the IRB, and the approval, disapproval, and clarification/revision notices. These documents represent the complete records kept by Champlain College of any IRB submission. Records will be kept for seven years after the conclusion of research.

The IRB will conduct an annual review its records to maintain compliance with federal regulations (see 45 CFR 46.115).

Researchers are responsible for maintaining all data and documentation gathered during research including signed consent forms resulting from the research.  Sponsors of student research (teachers or advisors) will arrange for the storage of these documents. These records must also be kept for a minimum of three years.

See Champlain College Institutional Review Board Policies and Procedures for definition of terms used in this section.

6.16     COURSE WITHDRAWALS

There are two ways in which students may be officially withdrawn from a course. The student may voluntarily withdraw or the student may be involuntarily withdrawn by the instructor.

Reasons for involuntary withdrawal include,but are not limited to, violations of the College’s Standard of Conduct, disciplinary problems, or damaging the College’s relationships with internships or project sites. A grade of “W,” “WP” or “WF” is recorded, as determined by the date of the withdrawal and the student’s academic status at the time, or by the circumstances of the withdrawal.

6.17     FINAL TESTING PERIOD

Faculty must convene a class during the final testing period. Faculty will be notified by email as to when and where the final exam schedule will be posted.

6.18     COURSES WITH AN EMBEDDED TRAVEL COMPONENT

The Office of International Education works with faculty / staff members to facilitate planning, risk management, and budgeting for all faculty/staff led study abroad programs. All short term study abroad programs need approval from the appropriate Division Dean or Department, the Office of International Education and the Finance office. The Travel Course Approval Form is available online at  http://www.champlain.edu/Documents/international/faculty/Champlain-College-Education-Abroad-Program-Approval-Form.pdf

All courses with an embedded travel component must go through the same curriculum approval process as all other new courses. A section of an existing course being proposed to include an embedded travel component is considered a new course for the purposes of this policy if the originally approved course proposal did not include such a requirement.

In order to receive approval, faculty/staff need to submit a syllabus/program description, a detailed itinerary, and propose a budget. A link to the budget form is available at  http://www.champlain.edu/faculty-and-staff/academic-affairs/teaching-and-support-resources/study-abroad-program-planning.

Participating faculty/staff and students need to participate in pre-departure orientations and complete all program application and participation forms. Please review the faculty and staff led education abroad manual for guidance.

The Office of International Education has set policies that cover the risk management needs for all education abroad programs.  Each education abroad program may have unique risk management  needs,  and  it  is  important  to  work  closely  with  the Office  of  International Education to navigate the program specifics.  All students, faculty, and staff are required to purchase a comprehensive international health insurance policy.  Additionally, students must fill out essential forms which consist of a Contract for Participation, Travel Waiver, and an Emergency Contact/Medical Information form.  Faculty should contact the Study Abroad Coordinator to purchase the study abroad medical insurance and receive samples of the essential forms.

Champlain College reserves the right to cancel a program due to health, safety and/or security concerns, low enrollment, or any other reason. In the event of a cancellation, every effort will be made to return recoverable costs to students.

Should a student decide to withdraw from a program after signing the contract for participation, he/she is accountable for all program related fees.

6.19     COURSE CREDITS

Federal regulation and the policies of the New England Association of Schools and Colleges (NEASC) provide a definition of the credit hour to be used in designing courses and determining credit allocations for educational experiences. In the following policy, quoted from the NEASC Policy on Credits and Degrees, the term “hour” is equivalent to 50 minutes.

Federal regulation defines a credit hour as an amount of work represented in intended learning outcomes and verified by evidence of student achievement that is an institutionally established equivalence that reasonably approximates not less than:

• One hour of classroom or direct faculty instruction and a minimum of two hours out of class student work each week for approximately fifteen weeks for one semester or trimester hour of credit, or ten to twelve weeks for one quarter hour of credit, or the equivalent amount of work over a different amount of time; or
• At least an equivalent amount of work as required in paragraph (1) of this definition for other academic activities as established by the institution including laboratory work, internships, practica, studio work, and other academic work leading to the award of credit hours.

By federal regulation, at the time of the Comprehensive Evaluation, the Commission will review the institution’s policies and procedures for determining the credit hours that the institution awards for courses and programs and how those policies and procedures are applied to the institution’s programs and coursework. As part of its review, using sampling or other methods, the Commission must make a reasonable determination of whether the institution’s assignment of credit hours conforms to commonly accepted practice in higher education. If, following this institutional review process, the Commission finds systematic non-compliance with this policy or significant noncompliance regarding one or more programs at the institution, the Commission is obliged to promptly notify the Secretary of Education.

Note: Refer to the Academic Policies and Information section of the College Catalogs for policies relating to graduation requirements, course withdrawals, retaking courses, etc.  The College Catalogs are available online.