Staff should announce project topics they would sponsor. This may serve to channel students who want to do projects away from teachers who are planning big mini-courses, a desirable objective. Student and sponsor ensure the proposal form is completed fully, thus giving the sponsor a chance to mentor the student on how to sell both herself and an idea. The project review committee should be chosen as the SPW Committee currently is, with broad expertise but not -necessarily representative of every discipline. The committee should develop the request for proposals and proposal form, and it should serve in the dual role of advising and approving. Perhaps students could be involved in peer review of proposals before the committee sees them.

The approval process should be similar to the one developed and used by the SPW committee. However, this should be spelled out clearer before mini-term use.

3. What does "teacher responsibility for a mini-course" mean? That is, what is

Faculty members should be the persons who sign off on mini-courses, although they could collaborate with non-faculty. Non-faculty could sponsor projects and trips. The Council expressed some concern that a difference in quality may develop between mini-courses and projects. This is a possibility since faculty will approve mini-courses and an oversight committee approves projects. The academic rigor should be the same for both mini-courses and projects.

Rather than just doing another survey for student input, we should have serious brainstorming sessions. For instance: solicit input during discussions on SPW sharing day (non-mandatory); list some tentative mini-courses and have a 20 minute discussion in all English and history classes which will provide input from the entire junior class; have common interest group discussions by teachers during SPW; get input regarding mini courses from applicants during the interview process

We should collect a new list of possible mini-courses from faculty before sharing it with students for input.

Yes, as an experiment for the March mini-term we should try to implement this. It should be an option for students, but not required. Administration will work through discipline coordinators to have a designated "project person." This person should be committed to organizing projects in the discipline and willing to help develop plans for academic improvement and spend 30 - 45 minutes one-on-one per day with students who want to achieve mastery of key concepts where they are weak.

The Council discussed the minimum amount of time per day/week students should have contact with their teacher during mini-term. This requirement should be flexible because a lot depends on the course and teacher. However, teachers should plan for 8 hours per week and students should spend a minimum of 40 hours per week, at least 6 hours during the day and 2 hours in the evenings. There should be:

• evening activities planned connected to mini-courses;
• structured activities for parents to provide activities;
• an agreement by faculty/staff to channel to the mini-term all off-campus requests to
• provide activities;
• an ongoing effort to make sure the evening presenters have an audience.

Yes, it should be different than SPW Sharing Day. Even the name "Sharing Day" should be re-worked to indicate a new and different approach. Otherwise, there will be a tendency to do what we have always done. Being able to pull-off a polished presentation is an important skill. But, sharing needs to be more flexible. Not all sharing needs to happen at one time. Sharing does not have to be at the end product stage. Some mid-week (evening?) progress reports could work or even dramatic productions. Instructors should work with students to think of other models. We should make this part of the student input referenced in question 4, "What are some innovative ways to report out to the community on min-term courses and projects?

Registrar Kathy Allen should provide some ideas on this. Steve will invite Kathy to our meeting.

The Council discussed at length whether mini-term procedures should include the same one-year only rule currently in effect for SPW. Pros were that the one-year rule seemed more equitable both for tapping a finite pool of staff willing to travel, imposing some limit on those who would pick "high-price" options every year, and encouraging all students to do at least one campus-bound option. Cons were that there might be good reason for students to do an extended remote research study. The group decided to keep the one-year travel limit in place. A "trip" was defined by how many nights you are away. Rules of thumb will be half or more of the nights of mini-term off campus (more than 3 nights for next year). Travel can only be done as part of a mini-course, not a project.

10. and 11. How many teachers can be supported for mini-sabbaticals? How will

Steve had compiled a summary of selected points from the NCSSM Policy on sabbaticals. Review of that led to support for the following criteria:

• must be a regular faculty member
• application must be by written proposal
• proposals must be reviewed by a peer committee, with final approval at the administrative level

• all other guidelines in Section D.2 of the policy except D.2.f (history of faculty development awards)

We should decide some basic data to collect and collect this at the conclusion of SPW this year and at the conclusion of the next two mini-terms. This data might include: number and kind of staff sponsors, faculty work load, student work load, costs, depth and breath of courses, work on mini-course compared to project, number and success of students doing "academic improvement" projects. Data sources could be focus groups, registration data, survey, etc. Sally/ SPIRE will draft a plan and distribute it to Curriculum Council.

We will not issue letter grades or academic credit. However, some tiered evaluation input is desirable to include in the student's folder. The group liked: "Exceeds Expectations, Meets Expectations, Needs Improvement, Unsatisfactory." Instructors should be clear with students what are the expectations and how the student's work will be evaluated. Julie suggested we call a joint meeting with the 1991 SPW Committee to discuss a mini-term handbook and to insure expectations are clear and are written down.

14. What other "big questions" are there? Books: the School should not buy classroom sets of expensive textbooks for mini-courses that might only be taught once. Alternatives include having students purchase them, having the library buy a limited number of reserve copies, and photocopying materials. Provision should be made to provide books to any student who cannot afford them through the anonymous donor's gift administered by Joan Barber.

Teacher materials: these could perhaps be purchased with student fees.

The mini-term may be a fundable initiative and should be forwarded to Development as such.

Mini-term committee: It should be convened by early May. 'Ibis and other issues should be discussed in a joint meeting with the SPW Committee, with a possible meeting date of March 29.

Expected teacher workload: (See also #3) Julie Graves will provide some data for this discussion.

Division of Labor: Which individual or group should be in charge of each major area of activity? (Over-all coordination, scheduling, project review and approval, evening/weekend activities, sharing day, etc.)