The
fee for National Certification will most likely be raised from $2,000 to $2,300
next year.
We
should tell legislators to endorse the Excellent Schools Act. The supplement for a master’s degree will
increase 6% - 10% if this law is passed.
Tom
Clayton offered to answer questions about mini-term.
Students
will be working 8 hours a day and will be in an organized activity for 6 hours.
Homework outside of class is intended to be about 2 hours a day. Faculty have been given forms for signing up
for rooms and other needs for the week.
Approximately 40 students did not receive one of their first three
choices, and they will be placed in seminars being designed by faculty and
students in each of the departments. The
students were placed into the courses using purely random selection. Any other questions about mini-term should be
sent to Tom.
Following
the committee meetings of the March 3 board meeting, board members will attend
classes across campus. They will be led
to classrooms by students and staff and will attend 2 classes per period during
2nd and 8th period.
Departments heads are working with faculty to choose classes that will
help showcase our new facilities. This
will be the last day of the third quarter.
Julie
Graves reminded faculty that the ASHME exam is next Tuesday morning.
The
test is important as a stepping stone to more competitions for
mathematics. It also qualifies students
for the state math contest. Students who
do well on the state exam can gain scholarships.
Minutes
from January 11 meeting were approved.
Call for faculty
participation in fundraising (Ken Steen)
Ken
encouraged faculty to support annual giving.
He stated that he supports it because he personally believes in the
institution’s programs and student body.
Some private financial supporters of the school do ask what percentage
of the faculty personally give to the school.
It can be arranged through payroll deduction. NCSSM can also be designated through the
Gary
Greenberg who is President of the Parents’ Council talked with Ken Steen, Phil
Nelson, and Therese Taxis about ways in which parents can be more involved in
activities on campus. Given that 38% of
parents have given to the parents’ fund this year, Dot stated that it would be
a good thing for us as well to let the parents know about the good things that
we are doing on campus. Faculty may send
volunteer needs to Therese Taxis who will manage the requests and match them
with volunteers. Dot gave an example of
having parents bring snacks for the students working on the math modeling
competition over the weekend.
Discussion:
Honor
Code (SGA)
The current version of the Honor Code developed by
students is intended to focus on the academic environment on campus and
eventually will expand into a code that also addresses issues in the
residential environment. The Action
Plan Committee has spent time focusing on the code of conduct but the APC did
not have time to deal with the honor code specifically along with the other
goals it had set. The APC’s Code of
Conduct, however, will include academic honesty. The SGA is presenting the draft of the honor
code to faculty to obtain feedback and get advice on how to strengthen it.
Faculty asked for clarification on
how the code would really work. The code
states that if you see someone cheating,
you are to go to your advisor who would turn in a written report to the Student
Attorney General who would then contact the teacher.
Some
faculty expressed a desire for the teacher to know about this event in the
beginning or as soon as possible.
Cheating should not be reported without stating who the cheating student
is. According to the SGA plan, if you
see a violation of the honor code you should turn it in as a report, but you
would not have to turn in a name of a person you are accusing. Faculty questioned how it would be helpful to
have information that cheating had taken place without a name of a student. Students stated that it was hoped that most
people would turn in a name but that it would not be required. Some faculty pointed out that an honor code
implies that you are honor bound to report an incident with the student’s name
and that faculty should be told immediately of violations in the classroom. Students answered that the honor advisor was
intended to be a back up resource for students who do not know where to go with
their information. While the middle
person creates more time, it allows for the anonymity of the accuser.
Faculty asked about why there is a need for an Honor
Code if there will be an academic code of conduct and if we already have an
honor system in place. Students
explained that the issue of cheating has not been adequately addressed on campus. They want students to sign a statement that
says they will not cheat and for teachers to define what behavior is acceptable
on their assignments. This would then
give students a firmer guide for their own behavior and encourage them to
create a positive environment for learning.
The Honor Council under the proposed honor code organizes what to do
when the honor code is broken. The
current process involves going through the hearing board.
Faculty
encouraged students to keep the expectations high in order for this to be an
effective honor code. Faculty praised the efforts of the students and
encouraged them to continue to work towards making the plan more feasible
within the current time constraints on faculty and students. They also noted the need to have the majority
of students behind the plan so that it would be effective; otherwise, it is
unclear whether this would actually stop people from cheating.
Faculty also encouraged the students to revise the
code to allow a teacher who observes cheating to take action immediately and to
make the hearing board procedures very clear and organized.
Students
outlined the procedures as they are currently written: the honor advisor
reports accusation to the Student Attorney General, the SAG decides whether it
is a case or not by appointing a prosecuting attorney and defense attorney who
would investigate the allegation and talk to witnesses to attempt to ascertain
the truth, then the jury would decide whether the student is guilty or not
based on the all of the information presented.
Faculty expressed concern about the people and time involved in this
process and the drawbacks of false accusations.
The SAG would keep a file for cases that are dismissed to look for
repetitions that might indicate that charges later would be taken more
seriously. Students stated that this
would be a work service assignment and that they would plan to do the work on
cases in shifts.
Faculty again recognized the efforts of the students
who had gone to the trouble and thought to put together the honor code draft
and stated that they want to support the students in their efforts to instill
more feelings of responsibility and honesty in the student body. It is crucial that everyone be invested in
it, and the faculty are taking it seriously and giving as much constructive
feedback as possible. One final
suggestion was to take the ideas the students had generated and incorporate
them into the existing judicial board system.
The students pointed out the power of peer pressure over the hearing
board.