Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 4 December 2001
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard

Minutes

Announcements

At 3:49 Joe announced that he would like to go ahead and get started “on time” even though it was too late to do so.  By this he apparently meant that there were no announcements.

Agenda Item 1: Proposed Change to Student Code of Conduct

Martha presented an alternative process for dealing with a disciplinary Level 3.  First, there would be a review by a (non-senior) administrator.  A punishment would be given, which the student would choose to accept or to appeal.  If he chose to appeal, then he would go to a full hearing, which would essentially be the same as our present Level 3 hearing.  In the event that they appealed the decision of the hearing panel, they could then appeal to the Executive Director.  This proposal was the result of work that had been voluntarily done by Martha Regalis, Tom Trocano, and Joan Barber.

Joe stated that he would like for this to be an information-only item, since the agenda was pretty full.  “Are there questions or violent objections?”

Q: Can the result of the first hearing with the administrator be a finding that the student is not guilty?  A: Certainly.  A faculty member commented that that should be clearer in the way it is presented.

Q: The present system involves faculty because it was believed that there was good reason for that.  Do we still believe that?  If so, then we’re bypassing that involvement.

Q: We need to keep in mind that sometimes the experience of the hearing [under our present system] is worse than any sanction we give.

Tom estimated that this new procedure would drastically reduce the number of hearings held by the board.  Martha commented that the Board of Trustees would first hear of this proposal at their December meeting and may choose to vote on it in March.

Joe: The End.

A faculty member commented that while this is described as a streamlining, it seems like more that that.  It seems to be a fairly dramatic change of what happens if a student is charged with a Level 3.  For better or worse, it removes many people from the process.  Martha: It provides for an option of streamlining, but not a railroad type of streamlining, since students could always appeal the original decision and go to a hearing board.

Joe: The Very End.

Tom Trocano: I’d like to put on the agenda for January suggestions for alternatives.  Also, a shortening of the process for some will be a lengthening of the process for others.  But this strengthens our position in the end, I’m told.

Joe:  The Very, Very End.  Two student members of the Student Government Association (SGA) will now present a proposal and receive faculty response.

Agenda Item 2: Senior Exam Exemption

Students presented a proposal for senior exam exemption, laying out arguments for how it would improve class attendance and student behavior.  [Seniors meeting certain requirements, such as good grades, good attendance, and no Levels would be allowed to exempt their exams.]  They also stated that exams encourage last-minute cramming.  Knowledge that a student truly retains will truly stay with him, but exams don’t test for that kind of knowledge.

Joe commented that we would have two discussions: one with the students present, and one in their absence.  After the students gave the details of their request and made a case for it, discussion ensued.

Q: How has attendance improved this year compared with last?  Is it still a problem?  A (student): With the new attendance officer, record-keeping is much better than last year.  But second-semester seniors may end up taking advantage of the system still.  (Other student): I don’t think NCSSM will expel students with eight or nine unexcused absences.

Q: The students who receive unexcused absences aren’t “A” students, they’re “C” students.  So this wouldn’t cut down on unexcused absences from them, since they wouldn’t be allowed to exempt anyway.  A: Perhaps this would encourage the “C” students, knowing that they have something to motivate them more.

Student: This also addresses student anxiety about leaving and going away to college.  Other student: It also encourages continued academic excellence that may lag during the second semester for seniors.

Q: You said you discussed this among SGA officers.  What other ideas did you generate?  A: The senior class trip also requires good attendance.

Q: If you had to name the number one reason that this is a good proposal, what would it be?  A: It motivates students to maintain their high standards.

Q: I’m trying to picture the campus if the goal is that many students would strive for and achieve this.  I’m trying to picture exam week.  I think it would be crazy.  A: That’s why we’re encouraging students who exempt exams to participate in community service during their exam time.

Q: Is this only for students who have an overall average of A-?  A: No, it’s on a per-course basis.  That would allow students to focus more on the exams they do have to take.

Q: Aren’t we making it harder for juniors to do well, by comparison to seniors in courses they share?  A: For colleges and scholarships, juniors and seniors don’t “compete” against one another.

Q: One of the benefits of exams is to give students a chance to synthesize everything and pull it all together.  It has academic value.  I understand the reasons you’re arguing, but we’d also like to see students doing these things [attendance, etc.] because they’re the right things, without the carrot.  Additionally, I don’t see that second-semester seniors are all that stressed, anyway.

Q: Maybe I’m a nerd, but studying for exams, for me as a scholar, has been a positive experience.  The conversations I see students having has they study are excellent, and they’re having a good time.

At this point, Joe thanked the students and they left.  The discussion went on a short while longer.

Steve commented, in response to a question, that the total number of unexcused absences for seniors always increases over the four quarters.  Responding to another question, he said that there was a maximum of three excused absences [for college visits, etc.] allowed per semester, and five for the whole year. 

Q: It seems like we’re trying to rise to mediocrity.  The students want to strive for only so many unexcused absences, when any number greater than zero should be considered abnormal, hardly a great achievement.

Q: I think we’re trying to fix a problem we had last year that has already been fixed.  Let’s wait and see if the problem is fixed this year.

Q: I was very interested that the students felt confident that a senior wouldn’t be sent home for having eight unexcused absences.

A motion was made that “the Faculty Council recommend against an exam exemption policy”.  It was seconded and a vote was held.

In favor: 38.  Opposed: 2.  Abstentions: 3.

Agenda Item 3:  The “Big Picture” Document, revisited

Joe admitted that there was not much time left, but that he would like to get as far as possible discussing the “Big Picture” document.  A lengthy discussion ensued, focusing entirely on the proposal that seminars taught by students would not appear on the transcript and would not be graded.

Steve stated that in college seminars, students typically do all the teaching.  They present their own research to one another for discussion.  The professor is there to guide the learning, but does not necessarily “teach”.  A faculty member commented that such a seminar held at NCSSM, if truly guided by a faculty member, would fall under the category of a “teacher-led seminar”.

Several people commented that seminars were a strength of our school, that independent learning was what we were all about.  Others said that they agreed, but that not all learning needed to go on the transcript.  If students enjoyed learning, wouldn’t they enjoy it just as much if it were an extra-curricular activity?

Two teachers volunteered that in their experience, students were not always good at teaching seminars.  e.g., two months into a Chinese seminar, students spoke no Chinese and were learning calligraphy.

Joe: I propose removing “not included on the transcript” from the Big Picture proposal.  And I remind teachers that it’s up to us to make sure that seminars are worthy.  A lot of the things we want are on the rulebooks already.  e.g., Kathy has told us that there has been a teacher supposedly teaching three different seminars that all meet at the same time.  Teachers are actually supposed to be present at every meeting of every seminar they sponsor.

There was not time to discuss the Big Picture document in a way that people felt was satisfyingly conclusive.  Jerry Boarman volunteered to let the Faculty meet during a period of time on the upcoming Alt Day that had originally been scheduled for staff development.  Joe thanked him for his generosity, and the meeting adjourned.  We would have one more meeting, then, in December: at 9:00AM in the ETC Lecture hall on 11 December.