Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 4 September 2001

President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

 Minutes

At 3:47 Joe Liles announced that we would need to begin immediately so that Myra Halpin, who would be presenting the first agenda item, could get to her distance learning class on time.

Agenda Item 1: Adjunct Faculty Position

Proposal: Adjunct faculty members are unranked, part-time teachers at the school, appointed on annual or term basis, and may teach up to quarter time (no more). Adjunct faculty members should have at least a master’s degree and several years of teaching and/or work experience. They will be recommended by departments, assigned to disciplines, and approved by the Director of Academic Programs.

The school would provide:

• E-mail accounts

• Copy service through assigned department

• I.D. card

• Library and multimedia privileges

• Permission to transport students using the school van

Myra thanked Joe and explained the history of her proposal.  Myra currently works with two instructors (Bob Gotwal of the Shoder Foundation and former chemistry teacher in Maryland, teaching for the fifth year gratis, and Linda Schmalbeck, former NCSSM teacher, now with Sigma Xi and teaching at NCSSM for the second year gratis), who give freely of their time and energy to work with NCSSM students.  A few years ago, there was a Japanese seminar whose instructor did the same.  These people make valuable contributions to the NCSSM community and we should give them some of the privileges enjoyed by faculty members so as to facilitate their teaching; hence, the above proposal.  “Unranked”, Myra explained, means there are no faculty evaluations each year, etc.  She checked with personnel to see what would be required for them to be covered under liability.  She found that they would need an honorarium of $100 or so, and would need to be on contract—but not necessarily a teacher’s contract.  That would allow them to, say, take students to a park.  (Schmalbeck was not allowed to do this last year.)

Myra then took questions from faculty members about her proposal.  The following issues were raised by faculty members.

• Would these adjunct professors be given building or office keys?  (Myra: That would be a decision made by each discipline.)
• Would these adjunct professors teach seminars only?  (Myra: Yes.  Teachers of regular courses should be paid a regular teacher’s salary.)
• Why is “quarter time” even mentioned in the proposal if the intention is not to have adjunct professors teach regular classes at all?  (Myra: I would not object to removing that phrase from the proposal.)
• Steve Warshaw: As an alternative to an honorarium, we could pay these people to drive vans on those field trips.  Tom Clayton: Ed McBride spoke to me very recently about that issue and said that it is uncertain whether that option is possible.  Steve: It would have the advantage of giving us people who may be able to drive vans at other times.
• Would being an adjunct faculty member help these people to get grants?  (Myra: Yes.  These people “live by grants”, and titling them adjunct faculty would enhance our partnerships with the organizations to which they belong.)
• Who sees a downside?
• We need to make sure that this is never used to hire someone to teach a day class.
• We need to make sure that this is never used to hire someone to teach any class.  Seminars are not classes.
• We need to make sure that this is never used to count as part of any teacher’s teaching load.
• Myra: Adjunct faculty members, under my proposal, would not be paid to teach any classes.
• Steve Warshaw: The department heads have discussed this.  We want to encourage people who would be good at teaching seminars, but who are not skilled at the administrative side of teaching.  Perhaps a faculty member could be responsible for grading the seminar, etc.?  An unlikely (but possible) scenario is for the seminar to be a necessary component of a student’s graduation requirements, part of the 1.5 elective credits, and for the adjunct faculty member to cancel it.  We would need to make sure that a faculty member from the appropriate discipline took ultimate responsibility for the course so that it couldn’t be cancelled abruptly.

At this point in the discussion, Myra excused herself, and Joe assured her that we wouldn’t lie to her about what transpired in her absence.  Immediately after she left, there was a motion to accept her proposal, but more discussion then ensued:

• “Unranked” is a vague word.  Can we remove it from the proposal?  (Joe asked whether that would be a problem and got no complaints.)
• We need to make sure that emeritus faculty privileges are not less than those of adjunct faculty if they’re working with us in a similar role.

Joe asked whether the resolution had support with those two changes.  Namely, the removal of the word “unranked” from the first sentence, and the assurance that emeritus faculty taking a similar role receive at least the same privileges.  There was a motion and a second, and a vote followed.

 For: 33.  Against: 0.  Abstain: 5

Announcements

• Tom Clayton introduced Tracey Aviles, the new three-quarters time attendance person.  Her office is on ground Watts next to Jim Litle’s and her telephone extension is 2929.  She was warmly received with applause.  Joe exhorted the faculty to turn in their attendance sheets daily.
• Floyd Bullard spoke about the eradication of a worm that parasitizes people in rural Africa, eliciting confused looks from many faculty members and from Therese Taxis, who had expected him to ask the faculty to contribute to the Annual Fund.  He finally did so, to her relief.  She made her own request for contributions and added that donations have been very good recently ($4300 last year from faculty).  Joe then volunteered that the participation by the faculty in the NCSSM Foundation’s support (which itself supports many student activities) indicates the health of our institution as a whole.
• Steve announced a change in the procedure of the administrative evaluation of faculty that would make it more similar to administrators’ evaluations.  A deficiency of the present system (in which an administrative team visits faculty members in the n-1 year of their contracts and writes a fairly lengthy report based on their performance record, etc.) is that the evaluation emphasizes work done at the end of the contract period rather than continual improvement.  Steve said he would like to try a new procedure for a short time and see how well it works.  This procedure would consist of each faculty member evaluating him or herself on the ten criteria typically used in peer and administrative evaluations of faculty (committee work, extracurricular work with students, knowledge of subject matter, professional development, enthusiasm for teaching, etc.).  The new procedure would end with a listing by the Department Head of “notable strengths,” “suggestions for improvement,” and a section for general comments.  Some advantages of the new procedure are that it includes what you’ve done in the past, you don’t have to give a long list of professional organizations you belong to in your n-1 year (because it will always be in your folder), an administrative committee doesn’t have to write a long report, and it incorporates the goals procedures that we currently have.  Steve stated that he felt it would be less of a load on faculty and would more accurately reflect faculty performance.  It will be done this year with only a limited number of people, those on one-year contracts.  Then next year we’ll evaluate the procedure before instituting it for everyone.  There was some brief discussion about this announcement:

• Having “adequate” as the best possible evaluation may be dissatisfying to some people. 
• Steve: It’s much easier to say “I’m adequate” than “I’m stupendous”.  What do other people think?  (Two people agreed with Steve’s statement.  Tom added the intent was, essentially, to have a pass/fail system without hair-splitting for quick evaluation.)
• Steve encouraged people in the future to continue to give him feedback.
• Tom clarified that although the new evaluation system was in place for only some faculty this year, everyone was to write their goals on that form.  He added that an expandable, electronic copy was available and he would send it to anyone who wanted it.
• Will administrators still come to visit classrooms?  (Steve: twice for first-year teachers and once for everyone else, yes.  Department heads will do fewer full evaluations.)

• Tom announced a change to the “Service-to-School” policy from last year.  Purple pages explaining the change were distributed.  Jerry wanted a better way to reward faculty for service to school through such voluntary work as Move-In Day, Welcoming Day, etc.  (“Better” in that all faculty finished on the same day, rather than some leaving a day earlier than others as happened last year.)  The two rewards being offered this year for 8 hours of service to school are taking 3 May off (normally a teacher’s workday preceding the last extended weekend) or having 10 June not count as a vacation day (normally a mandatory vacation day for faculty following the week after graduation).
• Joe announced that Letita was having surgery (nothing threatening) and couldn’t make the Faculty Council meeting.  Sandra Jackson spoke on her behalf, stating that 25, 26, and 27 March (Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday) will be the days that the selection committee meets this year, which is a bit earlier than in years past.

Agenda Item 2: ALT Days

Via an overhead transparency, Joe Liles shared a document written in 1994 by the Curriculum Council when ALT day was created.  It stated:

ALT Day Philosophy and Rationale

ALT Day was developed to extend opportunities for learning and teaching outside of the classroom.  More specifically,

For students, ALT Day is intended to:

a.   Provide extended periods of time for projects and research (i.e., independent and group).

b.   Provide an opportunity for students to learn to make productive choices regarding usage of their time.

c.   Provide flexibility to accommodate different learning styles.

d.   Provide time for learning activities that go beyond 1 ½ hours (i.e., field trips, work on extended projects).

e.   Provide a predictable, prime-time place for Student Life 101 in the academic schedule.

f.    Provide more opportunities for students to meet with teachers.

For staff, ALT Day is intended to:

a.   Provide an opportunity to work on projects and special activities with students during extended periods of time.

b.   Provide time for individual as well as staff collaboration on curriculum development and course planning.

c.   Extend opportunities to meet with students.

d.   Extend the opportunity to plan and participate in occasional outreach and professional development activities.

e.   Provide an opportunity to have a day without assigned committee work being done.

From the faculty’s perspective, the student’s ability to complete extended, broad, or small group assignments is enhanced through ALT Day.  It is not a day to assign special homework or projects.

In keeping with this philosophy, the only required activities on ALT Day will be community activities (i.e., All School Assemblies, Science Symposium Day, SPW Planning Day, and Student Life 101).  Other organized activities may occur on ALT Day; however, they should either be optional or also offered on a non-ALT Day.

With the guidance of their Academic Advisor, students will develop their goals and priorities and outline their activities for each ALT Day.

Joe commended Steve Warshaw for meticulously keeping records on how ALT Days have been used and Joan Barber for working so hard to make ALT Days happen.  He then invited Steve to talk about the history of ALT Day.

Steve shared overhead transparencies detailing how ALT Days have been used.  One of them was a compilation of ALT Day activities, broken down by activity.  (The data from September 1994 to October 1997 were counted by Dot Doyle, those from November 1997 to May 2001 by Steve Warshaw.)  The second transparency showed a breakdown by hours.  The content of these overheads was as follows:

 ALT Day Activities 1994-2001

Number of Activities                                  9/94-10-97               11/97-5/01

Number of ALT Days                                    26                                27

All School Assemblies                                    9                                  7

Field Trips                                                     22                                13

Films                                                             20                                3         

Staff Only Activities                                      35                                40

Students Only Activities                               42                                30

SL 101 Sessions                                          24                                23

SL 102 Sessions                                          10                                13

“Community Activities”                                 31                                55

Events routinely occurring on ALT Days since 1994 include all school assemblies, SL 101 and 102 sessions, the Student Research Symposium, the American High School Math Exam, and the PH110 State Fair lab field trip.  More recently routine events have also included new staff orientation, Faculty Colloquium, all staff meetings.

Time Allocated to ALT Day Activities* 1998-2001

(Total Hours for the Year**)

                                                                                        1998-99        1999-2000    2000-2001

Inservice/Required Professional Development                    3.5                11.0             18.0

Voluntary Professional Development                                   1.0                  5.0             13.25

Required Student Activities                                                 42.5                30.0            29.25

Voluntary Educational Activities For Students and Staff     27.0              25.75           17.75

*     Activities were included if a substantial portion of the target group was required or invited (voluntary activities) to attend.

**    Hours were determined from times given on the ALT Day schedule for each month.  ALT Day was considered to run from 9:00 AM to 3:30 PM

Joe shared another overhead transparency, this one showing the tentative schedule for the ALT Day to be held on Friday, 14 September 2001.  

Joe stated that all these things were intended to provide a context for a discussion that he wanted to flow from the following questions:

• What were the original goals?
• Is ALT Day achieving those goals?
• What are the costs of ALT Day?
• What are the benefits?
• Are there alternatives?

Joan Barber requested permission to speak first, and Joe gave her the floor.  She said that she was trying to stay positive but was now gunshy, having been burned before over this issue.  Seven years ago, she said, Student Life 101-102 was made a graduation requirement because we want our students not only to be educated academically, but to be good citizens as well.  Our model for student development is a total wellness model that incorporates sexual and drug issues, social, physical, and cultural development, etc. She stated that 50 minutes on ALT Day was not enough to accomplish this satisfactorily, and beginning with the ALT Day in October, students would be spending more time in Student Life 101.  Just like a regular classroom activity, Student Life 101 would include a pre-class activity and a follow-up session.  She stated that NCSSM takes Student Life 101 seriously as a graduation requirement.  Then she asked Kevin Cromwell to speak.  Kevin  reiterated some of Joan’s remarks, and expressed his optimism and enthusiasm about making Student Life 101 more valuable for students.  Joan then spoke once more, expressing some unhappiness with “cheap shots” being taken at ALT Day.  She then concluded by saying that ALT Day forms would be distributed a week before ALT Day, and she urged everyone to meet with their advisees to plan ALT Days so that the students’ academic activity could be more confidently assured.  (Steve interjected that fewer than 50% of academic advisors submitted ALT Day forms last year.)

Joe then opened the floor to discussion by the faculty, stating that the five questions intended to guide discussion need not be taken in order.  Some questions and concerns raised are given below.

• Can field trips be scheduled during ALT Day?  Can they be a required part of a class?  (Steve: Yes to the first question, no to the second.)
• Can ALT Days be used for comp time?  (Steve: ALT Days are supposed to “provide an opportunity for students to learn to make productive choices regarding usage of their time”.  If we usurp ALT Days, then we undermine that goal.)
• As our days (as faculty) have gotten more filled, there’s less time to do things with kids.  Every hour, there are adult things scheduled.  There is no way to meet with students, and they could be in bed for all we know.  That has changed over the years for the worse.
• ALT Days count as academic days.  The concern from many faculty members is that classroom days have decreased in number.  Student Life 101 is the one part of ALT Day’s purpose that has remained the same.  But many of the other goals of ALT Day are now precluded by required meetings.  (Joan: Request what you need, and we’ll try to accommodate you.  Give me an example now of what you need.  Response:  If my day is full, I can’t meet with students.  Joan: Apart from 1½  hours on the next ALT Day, you’ll have the whole day to meet with students.  Someone else: I believe there are required meetings that are not on that schedule.  Joan: Well, that’s another issue.  First speaker: Perhaps, but that does affect how you get to work with students.)
• One of ALT Day’s goals was to “provide an opportunity to have a day without assigned committee work being done”.  That’s not happening.  (Joan: Who’s doing that?  Another faculty member: We do it to ourselves because it’s the only time all members of a committee are available.)
• Joe: Can we address the question: “what are the costs of ALT Day?”
• A better way of analyzing how ALT Days are used is by people-hours.  Some events are for 550 kids, others for 10 or even 3 kids.  So the earlier breakdown of time is deceptive.  I tried to solicit information from faculty a few years ago about how much time they and their students spent together on ALT Days, and found that only 20% of students’ people-hours could be accounted for.  We just don’t know what students are doing.
• ALT Day is great in principle.  It’s an innovative way for students to approach learning that’s not in the classroom.  Field trips are possible, etc.  I explained it to my juniors and they were excited about it.
• ALT Day is wonderfully exciting theoretically, but the wonderfully exciting things aren’t happening.  I can’t meet with students because I’ll be engaged for 4.5 hours on the next ALT day.  And they put on their schedules: “Do homework from __ to __.”  That’s not acceptable.
• I’m concerned about not being able to require an activity for students on ALT Day.  Even though ALT Day is an academic day, I feel compelled to give comp time to students for attending an academic activity.  “Kind-of-requiring-but-not-really-requiring” creates many logistical problems.
• I try to meet with my advisees to plan ALT Day, and they seem amazingly put upon if their day has any required structure to it whatsoever.  “What do you mean I have to be up by 9:00?”  I feel mean.  They view it as a Saturday in the middle of the week.  There are potential benefits of ALT Day, but weighed against the scale of lost class time, the scale doesn’t seem balanced.  The new Monday schedule abbreviates our class time by three days total, and I feel the difference on Mondays.  We keep losing time.  We added a graduation requirement [Student Life 101] but we didn’t make time for it in our calendar.  We reallocated time, and I lost it in my classroom.  ALT Day is supposed to be innovative, but I don’t see much that’s innovative or exciting on my advisees’ ALT Day schedules.
• “Idealism is pretty intoxicating”.  Why are students not excited by ALT Day?  Because they’re bushed already.  There’s a frenetic feel at NCSSM.  It’s unhealthy.  We’re laying waste to the limited amount of energy we have, not paying attention to what’s really important.  We need to think about where learning really takes place.  I want to reclaim my humanity rather than feel like a creature.  There’s something more serious and organic to who we are.  A common reaction to ALT Day is: “Leave me alone.”  That seems symptomatic of something else.
• I’d love to have speakers on ALT Days.  Reynolds Price was great, as was a fractals guru who spoke at a required assembly a few years ago.  Many juniors came to hear Price and it wasn’t required.  (Two teachers said that they gave their students extra credit for attending.)
• Joe concluded the discussion of ALT Day by saying that it would be discussed further at another Faculty Council meeting.

Minutes from Tuesday, 21 August 2001

The Faculty Council president embarrassed the secretary by calling the minutes of 21 August 2001 a “work of art”.  He also voiced a concern that some faculty had expressed earlier to the Faculty Council officers that the minutes of that meeting named individual speakers, which could inhibit people’s candid speech in the future.  Therefore, Joe proposed that the faculty accept the minutes of the first meeting, but understand that future minutes would not identify faculty members by name during discussion of agenda items.  A motion was made and seconded and voted on orally (in favor).  Hence, these minutes contain more anonymous content.  The secretary accepts the president’s assessment of the minutes as a “work of art”: but less akin to a Piet Mondrian, and more like a Jackson Pollack.