Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 23 October 2001

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

Minutes

At 3:53 Joe called the meeting to order and hinted that people should arrive earlier.

Announcements

Peggy Craft pointed out for our edification that there are only 22 class days left this quarter, of which 7 are Monday schedules.  [She meant that each class period met 22 more days this quarter, I believe, but even so, the secretary now counts 25.]  She also beseeched her colleagues to begin class on time and let students out on time, pretty please with sugar on top.

Joe announced that he has a new puppy named Millie, and that we are invited to come by sometime and see her.

Agenda Item 1: The “Junior Experience”

Steve shared information about the group originally called the “Junior Experience” group, designated in this meeting and in these minutes (but not officially) as the “watch list” group: students with an SAT less than 1100, students who entered NCSSM with a grade below B- on their transcripts, and those enrolled in algebra during their junior year at NCSSM.

Following these minutes are the data Steve shared with us via overhead transparencies.  Steve pointed out some particular facts: only 12% of last year’s junior class were minority students, but 1/3 of the students on the watchlist are minority students.  Statistics this year are similar (17% and 36%, respectively).  A fact not on the overhead that he shared: 51% of all juniors this year had at least one C or D at the end of the first quarter.

The second overhead Steve shared showed a breakdown by how the students got on the watchlist.  Some fall into more than one category.  Even so, one predictor seemed clear: students who enter NCSSM with a C or D on their earlier transcript are prone to making C’s and D’s here as well.  Someone asked how many students were on probation at the end of the first quarter this year.  Steve: 20 juniors and 3 seniors.

Agenda Item 2: Supervised Study Enhancement Program (“SSEP”)

Joan Barber reminded everyone of the meeting we had in the lecture hall towards the end of last year, in which the SSEP was first shared with the faculty.  During that meeting, faculty members made several suggestions that Joan implemented.

Joan described the basics of how the SSEP worked.  All juniors and the 11 seniors on probation were required to go during the first quarter.  It was held Monday through Thursday from 8:30 to 10:00 in various rooms around the campus.  All academic advisors supervised at least one evening and a few supervised twice.  In some rooms, such as the lecture hall, students quickly developed the habit of settling quickly into quiet study mode.  In other rooms, such as Watts 315, students quickly developed the habit of chattering loudly whenever an adult was not bodily in the room with them.

None of the 11 seniors who were on probation before are still on probation, though some have a single D grade.  There are 3 new seniors on probation (and 20 juniors).  If we were to change the conditions of academic probation to being anyone with a single D grade, that would add 11 juniors and 8 seniors.

Joan thanked Carol O’Dell, Marlene Blakney, and Gloria Barrett for critiquing the goals of the SSEP and giving her feedback about how to measure its success.

Joan then shared some concrete data via overheads, which are included at the end of these minutes, following the information about the watchlist students.  There were many measures of student success this year compared with past years.

Some particulars:

• The proportion of juniors who valued the SSEP program went up from 32% before it began to 59% when it was over.
• 15 students emailed Joan and asked if they could continue to participate in SSEP.  So did some parents.
• There is no decrease in number of students on probation after the first quarter compared with years past.

Discussion ensues.  Individual comments:

• There are confounding variables.  This year we didn’t give students the benefit of the doubt this year.  [Secretary is unsure of the meaning of the comment.  Will seek clarification.]
• Other confounding variables: computers are now available 24 hours a day.  We changed our admission process.
• With juniors in SSEP and seniors not allowed to watch TV, the seniors generally did school work during these hours.  The setting resembled Quiet Hours of years past, as they were intended to be implemented.
• We’ve had few withdrawals this year.
• I think the students have been out sick less often.
• I think the students are turning in more homework.
• Behavior problems in the dorms were less than usual during first quarter (but Joan jokes that the students are now making up for that).
• How much sleep students are getting should be one measure of the success of the program.
• Students are more reluctant to come to tutorial.  And doing group work becomes harder.
• I don’t think students should have passes to go elsewhere.  They have plenty of time to do group work and computer work at other times.
• I disagree.
• So do I, but perhaps, over time, students would learn to plan better if they knew they couldn’t use this time to do group work.
• I appreciate the attempt to get data, but I’m not a person who needs data.  The kids are here at NCSSM to study.  North Carolina pays a lot for that.  1.5 hours, 4 days a week isn’t much to ask fo them.  That’s nothing.  And by the way, I disagree with letting students have passes.
• I think it was successful.  I’ve never seen the campus so quiet when the students are here.
• I think we should just have quiet hours all year long, with the students on hall.
• I’ve been wondering about what’s going to happen this quarter.  Two advantages before: juniors were gathered to study, and seniors were in quieter spaces with fewer students.  Where will the juniors now go to study?  Their SSEP rooms are now locked.  The whole environment has changed.  We used to have classrooms open all night, but now we lock them [because they leave pizza boxes and messes behind at night].
• Joan: The e-lab and the Hunt classroom will both be open and supervised from 6-10 this quarter.
• The secretary comments that, like the earlier speaker who doesn’t need data, he thinks that we should trust ourselves and our professional opinions.  Due to later confusion, he clarifies here: There are confounding variables that make it literally impossible to state with statistical significance that any improvements at all this year are caused by SSEP.  The data are valuable, but they cannot be statistically convincing by themselves, since so many things changed from last year to this.  Also, the sample size is one; that is, one new class on which the new conditions have been tested.  So the data are valuable, but so are our professional judgements.  And incidentally, his professional opinion is that the SSEP is a great idea and should either be continued all year or, better still, have quiet hours enforced in the dorms for the rest of the year during 8:30-10:00PM.
• Other schools like us have even higher expectations.  Phones, computers, all are shut off during study hours.
• At the South Carolina Governor’s School, 7-9PM study hours are enforced for everyone.  The school is much smaller, but it worked very well.
• An adult presence isn’t enough.  Supervisors need to supervise.
• Steve: For the rest of the year, only students on probation are required to attend, though anyone can go if they want.  But for some students, supervised study  isn’t enough.  I think we have an opportunity: to focus our attention on these students [on probation].  I don’t think you’ll lose anything [by having SSEP for them during tutorial?  Secretary is not clear about this statement.]
• I disagree.  Those kids need structure for 4 hours.  If we put study hall during tutorial, then we’ll only be supporting them for 2.
• Question addressed to Marlene: What needs to be done to maintain study hours on the halls from 8-10PM?  Marlene: No TV, no phones.  Students must stay on hall unless they sign out to go to a study place.  But at present, only 3 SLIs are on duey per night.  Two are in offices, the third is making rounds.  It’s too hard to supervise everyone.
• I’m for the study plan.  I really am.  But I want to speak to why students hated it.  They didn’t enjoy it.  They’re nesting during the first quarter, they haven’t made a home or friends yet.  Some still haven’t made friends and are thinking about going home.  They are kids, and they need time to become happy students.  Marlene: 1.5 hours in the evening shouldn’t affect their ability to make friends.
• Agreement from two faculty members.

The discussion halted and John Woodmansee spoke briefly about governance (an intended agenda item for which there was not sufficient time).  It will come up again at a future Faculty Council meeting or in a survey or some other form.

Joe thanks everyone for coming and states that there will be much on the agenda on 6 November.

Addenda: Information shared by Steve Warshaw (junior statistics) and Joan Barber (Supervised Study Enhancement Program):

"Watch List" Students Classes '02 and '03

10/16/01

Class  % w/ Q1             % w/ Q1            % with Sem1            % w/ Sem1            % w/ Sem2             No.

C/D Grades            D Grades            C/D Grades            D Grades          C Grades            W/D                                                                                        

2002    70.3%              18.8%              69.2%              16.9%              67.2%              8         

(66*)

2003   

(65**)   72.3%              20.0%                                                                                      ?

* 33.3% of the Watch List were minority students.  Minority students were 12% of the Class '02.

** 35.8% of the Watch List were minority students.  Minority students were 17% of the Class '03.

"Watch List" Students Classes '02 and '03

10/16/01

Class '02            % w/ Q1       % w/ Q1       % w/ Sem 1 % w/ Sem 1 % w/ Sem 2

(Initial No.)            C/D Grades            D Grades            C/D Grades            D Grades            or Yr C        

Grades

Total               70.3%              18.8%              69.2%              16.9%              67.2% 

(66)     

In Algebra            57.7%              3.8%                61.5%              3.8%                68.2% 

(27)                 

SAT 1100            92.3%              19.2%              71.4%              11.4%              77.4% 

Or Below

(36)

C/D in             95.2%              83.3%              81.8%              50.0%              88.2%

Grades 9/10                                                                          

(22)

Class '03            % wQ1            % w/ Q2       % w/ Sem 1 % w/ Sem 1 % w/ Sem 2

C/D Grades            D Grades            C/D Grades            D Grades            or Yr C        

Grades

Total               72.3%              20.0% 

(65)

In Algebra             68.0%              16.0%

(25)                 

SAT 1100             72.9%              25.0%

or Below       

(48)

C/D in                         83.8%              27.8%

Grades 9/10    

(18)

Supervised Study Enhancement Program

→          Valued Student Enhancement     

                                                Start                    Ended

                    Very High             4                             9

                    High                       8                           20

                    Moderate             20                          30

                                                32%                      59%

Number of Students on Probation

                    1^st quarter           2^nd quarter           3^rd quarter

01-02                   23

                    J/20     S/3

                  7%      1%

00/01                   32                        32                         28

J/30     S/5                        J/23   S/9           J/15    S/13

10.3%   1.9%             7.6%  3.5%         5%       5%

99-00                   26                        24                         31                      

                    J/22    S/4               J/17   S/7           J/13    S/18           

                    7.3%   1/6%              5.7%  2.8%         4.3%    7.3%

98-99                   20                         21                         36                       

                    J/15   S/5            J/11   S/10         J/23    S/13            

                    5.6%   1.8%           4.1%   3.6%        8.6%    4.7%

97-98                   31                         35                         30                       

                    J/30   S/1            J/30   S/5            J/22    S/8             

                     9.5%    .4%            9.5%   2.2%          7.0%   3.5%

96-97                   26                         24                         32                       

                    J/25    S/1           J/17   S/7            J/20    S/12           

                    9.5%    .3%            6.5%  2.5%          7.6%    4.3%

Data for Success

→     Survey - Pre & Post

→ Number of students on probation

→  Compare grades for 1^st quarter

→ Student Environment on campus between 8:30-10:00 p.m.

→  Number of Supplementals given

→  Number of Seniors still on probation

→  Number of crisis 1^st quarter

→ Number of seniors on probation, still on probation

→  Number of Seniors with one D

→  Number of withdrawals

→  Homework turned in

→  Structure/less stress

→  Study hours for Seniors