Faculty Council Minutes 2-6-01

Announcements:

1.      Joe Liles announced the upcoming Pow Wow.  There will be over 25 different tribes and 200 performances on Saturday, February 17.  Volunteers are still needed; please contact Joe.  The “Dreammaker Program” is already a success as over 50 Native American students have applied for the program.  Initially, Joe felt that NCSSM could handle only 25-30 students, but Gail Hudson raised the possibility of accepting all those who applied.  Science and Math Departments are providing sample lessons for this group on Friday the 16^th.

2.      Gloria Barrett reported on last Monday’s SLI meeting.  Two issues were highlighted.  The first was encouraging students to obey the “travel in groups” recommendation of 5 in number.  They should always sign out.  If you are travelling with students, please remind them to sign out.  Also, there is no walking off campus after dark, no matter how large the group.  Faculty was asked to support these rules.  Marlene Blakeney reminded the faculty of “the Loop” vans’ schedule (every day except Sunday and Thursday).  The second item of focus was drug use on campus. Faculty are encourage to speak with members of a student’s support team if you are concerned that a student might be using drugs or alcohol.  All pieces of the puzzle are needed to put anecdotal information together.  Tom Clayton offered that sharing this info was good because it may help the school to begin an intervention program.  Gail Hudson said that as soon as concerns are voiced, students are called in.  They are told that adults are concerned about their health and are offered access to counseling, but few accept

3.      Dr. Steve Warshaw informed the faculty that the applicant number is up this year to 750 (from 667 last year).  Additionally, the upcoming Leadership Conference has been highly subscribed to.  Last year there were 450 participants.  This year there will be 900 plus.

Discussion Items: (There was no quorum at the meeting)

1.      Recognizing student academic excellence:  Dot visited with the SGA about recognizing students who earned all As on their report cards.  While their preference was that we do nothing, the SGA suggested examining the privs system.  Is it time for them to be revised? 

Pros/Responses:  Faculty had a range of suggested responses, including creating a dean's list, receiving recognition from Steve via a letter, giving kids gift certificates for food or holding a dinner in their honor, and sending news releases to the student’s hometown. Nevertheless, many faculty thought that recognizing students was a good idea.  It would give juniors incentive, thanking them for the effort.  Still, some wondered if that should be institutionalized.  Dot countered that as an institution, we say Bs are OK – that Bs are good.  There is a reasonable amount of underachievement.  It would be interesting to see what would happen.  Athletics has a banquet to honor athletes.  Perhaps recognition would encourage kids to do better; it would be a positive carrot rather than a stick.  Dr. Warshaw said that, anecdotally, the kids who worked that hardest were on the A list.  He said he would be happy to write the letter and would like pragmatic input as to how often and to whom these letters should go.  With appreciation and motivation, he thought a letter was a nice thing to do. Marlene Blakeney commented that perhaps a certificate or card would be better so that it was a standardized item.  A letter may seem to be personal, but is not, which diminishes the achievement.

Cons/Concerns:  Others countered that we have been encouraged to combat stress among juniors.  Thus, perhaps a letter from Steve or Jerry would be most appropriate rather than entering into a hierarchy of food prizes.  Leading students already get high peer recognition, so doing something small is better. Some faculty asked “What is the purpose?”  Dot explained that as adults, we value academic excellence, and recognizing students would be a way to show this.  Some faculty pointed out that being excellent doesn’t just come in the form of straight As.  For some students, straight Bs are quite an accomplishment.  We’re defining excellence arbitrarily is grades are the only measure. One staff wondered what the general student population thought.  One faculty member recalled that once upon a time, NCSSM had a dean’s list and the kids were not amused. Some thought that a letter was OK, but nothing else, otherwise it would seem that you were admitted to a special club.  Still, faculty are concerned about this recognition and questioned how quality points would figure into the calculation of honoring students.  What would motivate students to take more difficult courses here if they were afraid of getting a B?  We are on a slow road to nowhere.  Faculty were urged to take the time to tell kids that they do well.  Congratulate them on fine performances.  For example, some comments he ahs read for As sound very blah.   Comments for As should reflect that excellence.  Gail Hudson offered that we would be shocked to see who is on the all A list.  They are not necessarily the brightest, but simply those willing to make the sacrifice.  Gretchen Skidmore said that she wished somebody had told her that a B was OK and pointed out that some kids make conscious choices to do more activities within the community and less in the classroom; they too, are a benefit.

Conclusion:  Dot Doyle then moved to closure, stating that there was no quorum.  She then asked the faculty to send her potential motions and that we would vote on them at the next meeting.

Academic Honesty:  Tom Trocano reported on the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on Academic Honesty. 

Tom stated that he had had a  great time working with the folks on the committee.  The process began by sharing stories concerning cheating, which where invariable negative.  How can the current process be fixed?  The group decided that there must be a system of shared values on academic honesty.  They examined other institutions’ honor codes and then developed a “statement of principles” to establish a building block for perhaps (at some point in the future) implementing an honor code at NCSSM.  The committee recommends education to inform students and faculty about the common values via summer reading.  Jim Litle asked why the committee decided that we needed a shared set of values.  Did the committee examine the failure of honor codes?  For example, at Duke, studies show that 30% of all students cheat.  Honor codes are very difficult, and especially so for us because our kids come from al over.  They have no shared values and are taught bad values by seniors.  Dot Doyle responded that this was not an honor code.  The goal was, at a minimum, to get the students and faculty to agree on what cheating is.  On page 12 of the Student Handbook, the academic honesty policy is a subheading of a subheading and it is vague.  She would like to see Tom’s academic honesty page in the Handbook.  Jon Miller thought we could have an honor code, but wasn’t sure we are ready, but that we do encounter cheating everyday.  Kids cheat because they are stressed and the summer reading the committee is proposing might help.  The first book is about study skills, and the second is about ethics.  Steve supported part of what Jon said in that schools with honor codes do have lower rates of cheating.  The more a topic is talked about, the more it affects the incidence.  Joan Barber stated that Steve and Jon met with kids and they are very concerned with telling on each other.  The important thing is to clarify definitions.  Leslie Brinson asked if the ethics reading would scare kids away who were from religious backgrounds that might question this moral type of instruction from the school.  Dot Doyle asked if the definitions on Tom’s page of academic honesty would fly, and most thought that it would.