Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 20 May 2003
President: Joe Liles; Vice-president: John Woodmansee; Secretary: Floyd Bullard
Minutes
Announcements
At 3:54 Joe called the meeting to order.
Leslie Brinson announced that the election of next years' Faculty Council officers would continue until tomorrow (Wednesday, 21 May) at 5PM.
Agenda Item 1: Summer reading survey
Tom Clayton passed out a survey about our discussion of summer reading in our classes this year. The faculty completed them and submitted them.
Agenda Item 2: Discussion of Faculty Council committees
A motion was made to change some minor wording in the description of the composition and responsibilities of the Faculty Evaluation Committee. The present wording is
"All members of the NCSSM Staff considered to be full-time Faculty, excluding visiting faculty, department heads, and faculty who require observation or recommendation during the academic year shall be eligible for election to the FEC",
and the new wording would be
"All members of the NCSSM Staff considered to be full-time Faculty who are serving under a three-year or longer contract, excluding department heads and faculty who require observation or recommendation during the academic year shall be eligible for appointment to the FEC".
There was no quorum, but Steve Warshaw, who would make the change official, said he did not require a quorum, that a straw vote was sufficient. However, the vote was postponed until a quorum could be achieved.
John Woodmansee led a discussion on what committees were needed for next year, and how large they needed to be.
It was observed that the Faculty Welfare Committee did not meet this year, the Discovery Center Task Force did not meet this year, and the Academic Technology Committee did not meet this year. It was suggested that a Service Learning Committee be created to consider this possible future aspect of NCSSM's curriculum. It was also suggested that the Faculty Liaison to Residential Life be reduced to one person.
There was discussion about whether serving on the selection committee (reading applicants' folders) should count as committee work. Someone pointed out that those not serving on the committee often picked up some classes of those who did, though some teachers work hard to make it so that no one has to take their classes. Four faculty members said that serving on the selection committee should be mandatory for all faculty, with the responsibility rotating each year, possibly within departments. Several people also agreed that there was value in having a faculty member on each reading team. (There are presently 13 teams of 3 readers on the selection committee.)
A motion was made that (1) departments appoint faculty to serve on the selection committee, (2) the responsibilities rotate from year to year, and (3) this not count as committee credit. The motion was seconded and approved unanimously by a show of hands.
Agenda Item 3 [this occurred in the middle of agenda item 2]: Voting on two motions
A quorum was achieved, and the minutes from the past three Faculty Council meetings were approved unanimously.
The motion made earlier to change the wording of the Faculty Evaluation Committee composition and responsibilities was approved unanimously by a show of hands.
Agenda Item 4: Report from the Curriculum and Standards Task Force
Donita Robinson and Steve Warshaw, co-chairs of the task force, gave an update of what the task force has discussed and decided recently. They also gave some background of the task force's mandate. Donita reported that the task force largely discussed what they would like in an ideal school, not what they would change from the status quo.
Steve said there remained unanswered questions that they were considering, such as, "Do we have enough teachers to do what we see as ideal?" and "Can a core course be taught successfully in two trimesters with the same number of contact hours as we presently have?"
Donita and Steve said they had discussed many questions and issues related to the possible switch to a trimester schedule and they acknowledged the fact that not all faculty seemed to agree on these issues. For example, would junior grades during the first trimester (likely lower than their earlier and later grades) hurt them when they applied to college?
In response to a question, Donita said that after the task force makes a report (they will prepare one tomorrow), it will go to Jerry, then he will meet with the task force to tell them his decision, and will likely share it with the entire community during the in-service day on 4 June. The report will be available to the community.
A faculty member commented that most published research indicates that block scheduling benefits at-risk students, and that talented and gifted students suffer. Donita said that the task force has looked at some of these studies, but not in great detail. Also, she said she did not think the proposed trimester schedule was a "block schedule". It would not, for example, be typical for students to take only 4 courses at a time.
The meeting adjourned at 5:03PM.
Appendix: The components of the draft recommendation the task force will submit to Jerry.
The Curriculum Assessment and Standards task force is drawing together the various components for our submission to Jerry. The task force will meet again on Wednesday to agree on the final draft which will include components such as: