Announcements:
Students
at the Speak Out expressed concern about the honor code primarily because these
items are already contained in the code of conduct. Students also stated that
they wanted an honor code to be for both the residential and academic
environments. SGA is pursuing this
further but an honor code will not be in place next year.
Tom
Clayton thanked faculty for participating in regional testing. Interactions at regional testing help inform
people who have not had information about the school.
Discussion:
Jim
Litle reported on behalf of the Welfare Committee
that was considering whether we should change how the Evaluation Committee is
chosen. This issue arose because the
same people end up serving in a one year on, one year off pattern.
Two
options:
1) go to a one year election
with 2 years off to serve a regular two year appointment on another committee –
mandatory two years off
2) faculty council officers appoint members to a
two year term with total numbers reflecting the number to be evaluated –
(faculty suggested each member be responsible for the evaluation of 2 faculty
members)
Gail
stated that the Evaluation Committee would prefer that more people get a chance
to be a part of this process because it is possible to learn a lot from
participating.
The
faculty voted in favor of appointing members of the committee in the same way
as a regular committee. This will allow
people who have not served on the evaluation committee recently to serve.
Student
Code of Conduct
John
Woodmansee reported on the NCSSM Code of Conduct. The Action Plan Committee passed the honor
code process on to another committee and focused their energy on dealing with
problems with the current system.
They
are proposing a revision of the current code of conduct.
Changes:
We
will go from a 4 level system to a 3 level system. Currently Level 1 would stay the same. Adults
observing inappropriate behavior are to notify the student that the behavior
violates accepted behavior and inform them of the consequences.
Level
2 will include current level 2’s and some current level 3’s. Warren and Tom will discuss procedures and
decide who will hear the violations. The Assistant Director will decide the
punishment based on the seriousness of the offense.
Major
changes are suggested for level 3 (to be the highest level). These violations include theft, vandalism,
drug use, alcohol, and assault. The hearing board would consist of faculty, SLIs, students, and one division director. The division directors and the director are
the only ones who may dismiss a student from the school. Level 3 hearings will
be heard by one faculty member, one SLI, one student, and one division
director. (We currently report drug and
alcohol convictions to the authorities.)
Cheating
is under both level 2 and level 3.
Some
faculty members raised the question of whether all students caught with alcohol
should go home on the first offense.
However, specific sanctions are not given in the code of conduct. If we
dismissed every student who violated this rule, we would face increased legal
action. Every student involved with
illicit drugs has been dismissed. Procedures are being developed to go with the
code of conduct and these will define a range of responses but the
recommendation will not be automatic dismissal for alcohol offenses.
The
goal is to keep consistency in the discipline system, while taking into account
the circumstances and the severity of the behavior. Low to high range response depends on the
behavior.
Faculty
pointed out that the language in the document needs to be clear so that the
violations are not misunderstood.
Faculty questioned whether the document should say things more explicitly
since some offenses appear in level 2 and level 3. It was also stated in response that there is
some advantage to being vague and then having room for a case not to
continue.
Joan
suggested we have a discussion about cheating in a future faculty council
meeting. She would like information on
how teachers are handling it since Tom and Joan have not had a level 3
violation in the academic environment in the last 3 years. Are faculty hesitant
about turning people in because violations are hard to prove?
Dot
began a discussion about student work load.
Are
students doing 25 hours/work outside of class each week?
Would
an average of 3 hours a night be reasonable?
From
the research of the curriculum council 2 years ago the survey indicated 50-53 hours
of in class and out of class work for juniors and 47 for seniors each week on
average.
There
are a number of issues the faculty need to consider:
Can
we achieve flexibility in our graduation requirement?
Can
we make this a kinder and gentler place?
Why
are juniors leaving?
What
other things affect the work habits of students?
How
effectively are they studying?
What
other activities and responsibilities do they have?
How
can teachers address the same amount of content?
This
year students who are leaving are saying that they are leaving because they are
not happy because they are asked to do too much busy work. Two counselors reported hearing reports that
the classes are not interesting anymore.
This leads to the question of what teachers can do to make this a more
positive environment.