The meeting was called to order at 3:50 by John Kolena. Guests attending included students Daniel Wilson, Raoul Clements, Anthony Anagnostou, SLIs Anita Keller, Nick Saint-Victor and Jeff Bray, and other staff members Joan Barber, Peg Manring, Waren Basket, and Steve Warshaw.
Announcements
Agenda Item - Mini Term
Steve Warshaw explained the process that is in place for determining if we will have a mini-term, and if so, what format it will follow. The Curriculum Council will be the body to gather information and make a recommendation. They are currently gathering data by means of a survey and are discussing other aspects of the proposal, including the cost, the number of days, the impact on student and faculty workload, and the feasibility of scheduling students. The Curriculum Council will meet weekly, on Mondays from 3:45 - 5:00 PM in Bryan Conference Room. Anyone may attend their meetings. They hope to have a recommendation by late October, and if the recommendation is to have a mini-term, the model will be presented in early November to the Faculty Council and other groups for reactions. A final recommendation will go to the Cabinet in mid-November for consideration and their recommendation will go to the Board of Trustees in time for their December meeting.
Dr. Warshaw said that he personally thinks the mini-term is something that we should do, but that it needs the support of a large part of the faculty to be successful.
John Kolena suggested that we begin our discussion by addressing those issues over which the faculty might have some control. These included
Initial comments addressed the issue of credit. If elective credit is given, will this change the number of electives needed for graduation? If graduation requirements are not increased, elective courses taken during the mini-term might be used to reduce a student's workload during the regular semesters, but it was noted that it would do little to relieve the workload for juniors, as few of them get to take many elective courses. If credit is given, should it be 1/2 or 1/4 credit? If the credits were flexible, different types of courses could be offered. After a brief detour into the merits of the mini-term concept, John Kolena refocused the group and asked everyone to focus on the framework set up in the agenda. Once the details have been discussed, faculty will have an apportunity to vote the entire issue up or down.
After additonal discussion on the credit issue, several proposals emerged. First, some credit is necessary to send the message that this is an academic experience. This could be credit similar to the current SPW requirement.
A vote was taken on the different proposals that emerged from the discussion. Faculty voted for all options that they felt they could live with.
| All course carry 1/4 elective credit | 17 |
| 1/4 or 1/2 credit | 13 |
| Mini-term credit, like current SPW requirement | 34 |
| All courses carry 1/2 credit | 12 |
The discussion turned to the issue of spw-like projects versus mini-courses Some felt that is would be nice to have some projects. It was suggested that an independent project should be required in one of the two years. Most agreed that if we did projects that they would have to be more closely supervised than the current SPW projects. Others felt that research or independent work could or should be a part of any mini-course that we might offer. Raoul Clements hoped that projects would be allowed but agreed that we would need to be much more selective. There was some opposition stated toward allowing for extended mentorships in the mini-term period. There was serious concern about the time outside of class for the mini-term period. Currently the SLI staff feels that they have to work twice as hard during SPW as students have too much time on their hands. If courses or projects are offered, someone will have to approve these offerings. SPW has been less than ideal because of our failure to regulate the projects.
Again a vote was taken on the different proposals that emerged from the discussion. Faculty again voted for all options that they felt they could live with.
| Courses only, with projects and research perhaps as a part of the course | 30 |
| Courses and Projects | 4 |
| Courses, but Projects if more carefully approved | 29 |
Who can teach? The general concesus was that courses had to be supervised or taught by NCSSM faculty. We would have too little leverage with visiting instructors. To insure that certains standards are met, we could pair an NCSSM staff member with a visiting instructor. Daniel Wilson suggested that students could teach or help teach some courses. SLIs might be interested in teaching, but since this would be in addition to their increased workload, wondered if there would be extra pay for the extra work. With an NCSSM faculty member directing a course, students, parents, or other visiting instructors could be invited to teach a part of a class. It seemed unlikely that we would have the money to pay an outsider to teach for two to three weeks. The concensus was that an NCSSM faculty member had to take ultimate responsibility for any course we might offer. No vote was taken.
Workload It was suggested that the Faculty Welfare Committee check into our current contract to see if there were days in our contract so that extending the school year by a week was a possibilty. Would extending the school year by adding this term violate the terms of our contract?
The curriculum council has a survey in our boxes and faculty were urged to complete them, keeping the increased workload in mind. We were reminded of the discussion last year about workload, both ours and the student's and urged to think about how this proposal would effect both.
A motion to have a called meeting prior to the next scheduled meeting on October 20th carried only 20 votes and John Kolena stated that the next meeting would be the regularly scheduled meeting. He urged members to use the Bulletin Board on the Faculty Council Website to continue the discussion and to attend meetings of the Curriculum Council.
The meeting adjourned at 5:03 PM