Faculty Council Meeting of Tuesday, 22 October 2002

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

Minutes

Announcements

The meeting began at 3:54PM.  Diane Futrelle reminded everyone that if we shop at Kroger, we can scan a "credit sheet" and have a portion of our purchases go to NCSSM.  Dot said that Harris Teeter does the same thing, and the code number to tell them is 4010.

A faculty member requested information about non-NCSSM-community members having universal access ID's.  Joe explained that adults working with Young Life had had access cards (this information was on the Parent Forum), but the access was reduced to exterior doors only, and still later was rescinded altogether.  Young Life is a Christian student group.

A related question was posed by a faculty member: I was told that my access card opened the dorm, but it doesn't.  Someone responded: they changed that yesterday.  Joe said that he would ask Richard to let us know where it works and keep us informed if that changes.

A motion was made to approve the minutes, with four amendments.   The motion was seconded and voted upon favorably.

Agenda Item 1: Faculty Salary Schedule

Ed McBride spoke to the faculty about the proposed salary schedule for this year (of which copies were given to all present at the Faculty Council meeting), which is at present only a draft.  He explained that we look at the highest NC teacher salary for each experience level, and that becomes the base salary for NCSSM faculty.  Adjustments are made for degrees, National Certification, etc.  He stated that he would be more than happy to address specific questions people may have later.  Ed said he expected the Executive Committee to approve the schedule as routine on 7 November.  The salary increase will first show up in our November paychecks (retroactive to the beginning of the school year).

Agenda Item 2: Faculty Contribution to Discovery Day

Joe summarized the responses to the surveys collected on Discovery Day.  The applicants almost all responded that they enjoyed the group interview process.  The faculty and staff were more critical, with only about one-third responding that the process was useful and two-thirds responding that it was not useful.

The discussion of the day should be on how best to use faculty on Discovery Day.  It does not have to be about the group interview, but may be about anything. 

Steve first asked to share three things that Letita had asked him to pass on.  First, a faculty member may act as a facilitator/discussion group leader on a Discovery Day.  Second, while the students are doing testing and discussions/interviews, the parents are often unoccupied.  If we want to do something with them then, that would be great.  (But Steve said that could not substitute for interviewing, since everyone was needed for that.)  And third, the questions in the interview are very open to be changed.

A faculty member asked whether the group interview was necessarily going to happen.  Steve asked whether anyone on the Admissions Task Force could answer that.  Someone said that Letita said No, that was not set in stone.  Another faculty member responded that individual interviews would require much training between now and then, but that we might not have time for this.

Another faculty member said we should be thinking about how we want it to happen eventually, and not worry about this year in particular.  If we believe that individual interviews are better, then we should say so.

Steve said he wanted to make it clear whose decision it was what happened on Discovery Day: Dr. Boarman's and the Admissions Office's.  The Admissions Task Force and the Faculty Council gave recommendations that would be considered when the decision was made.

It was pointed out that neither the individual interview nor the group interview was a useful predictor of academic success at NCSSM (measured by junior year grades, as determined last year by Measurement, Inc.).  Therefore, the purpose of  the interview may be to interest students in the school.  Someone else pointed out that the applicants' very positive response to the interviews must be considered cautiously, since they will have said they liked it just to please us.

Comment: What do we see as the primary goal of the interviews?  Since everyone who applies visits, it's really a visitation day.  I am happy to dedicate a day to making nice, sharing enthusiasm.  I have filled out forms for 18 years, though and I've never heard any confirmation that it makes any difference.  The only time I wrote about a student "Do not admit this student", that student was admitted and then left during the first quarter.  I think our best information about the students comes from what the students' teachers say.  I just want to express a desire to do something different.

Comment: I would like the Faculty Council to make a recommendation about those two options.  Do we use the interview as a tool for getting information, or as a recruitment tool?  Right now we're trying to do both of those things, and if we figure out what we want to do, we can do it better.

Comment: I don't think the group interview gives students a good idea of what classes are like here, though that was part of the purpose.  But the one-on-one interview does one thing: it gives the students a chance to talk "up close" with one faculty or staff member.  I thought that was good, even though as an evaluation tool it was useless. 

Comment: The interview as an evaluation tool plays a fairly small role.  Other tools, like transcripts and teacher recommendations, are worth much more.  But the interview does give you a tool to figure out things that no other tool does: e.g., what if the parents want the student to come but the student doesn't want to come?  What if the student has no interest in math or science?  etc.

Comment: We should  highlight the academics of the school and be sure that we are recruiting the students we want.  The faculty are uniquely suited to share with students on Discovery Day the academic nature of the school.  e.g.: Faculty could lead academic discussions with groups of students, or teach mini-classes, a la Family Day.

Comment: The Admissions Task Force needs to ask: are we really getting the best in the state?  Are we really getting the students we want?  I hope we're not only spending energy recruiting students, but also figuring out what kind of students we want, and how to recruit them.  We want to entice not just students, but particular students--students for whom NCSSM was made: students who love learning, are excited about math and science, etc.

Comment: We should be considering how we can be most effective as a faculty.  I like the idea of something like a Parent's Day, where we do a model class, a typical (short) lesson.  I would be really excited about something like that.  They would get some sense of what NCSSM is like.

Comment:  The application form should be examined in light of the sort of student we want to attract to NCSSM.  The two groups considering the mission of the school (and the student whom the school wants to attract) and the admissions process should be working together.

Steve responded to a question about the purpose for inviting all applicants.  He said that when we don't do that, we miss out on attracting a lot of students whom we might attract if only they would visit the school.  But it is less costly than regional testing, too.

Comment: Some contact between adults at NCSSM and applicants is crucial, whether it's at NCSSM or at regional testing.  But it is essential to recruiting and impressing parents.  Second comment: students from really good schools (and they are often among those whom we most want to attract) need to be convinced of why they should come here.  The individual interview makes that more possible than the group interview.  Third comment: historically, one reason we did the individual interview was just so that the students would at least get some new information when they visited the campus.

Comment: I agree that one-on-one contact is very important.  We get to answer their questions and tell them something about the school, etc.  We need to get that one-on-one contact back.  Could the admissions committee be given time to follow up on red flags that pop up during the interview?

Comment (in response): The counseling office this year went over every single application looking for red flags.  Red flags that pop up during an interview would be something counseling would want to follow up on.

Comment:  If we do group interviews, I would like to see the questions more about academics and about NCSSM.  But the format was comfortable.  I would be in favor of us as a faculty coming up with a new topic for group discussions, then leading those discussions.

Comment:  The discussions varied tremendously by their make-up.  It is unfair to judge students on their behavior in a group interview when so much of their behavior comes from the composition of the group.

A motion was made that if group interviews occur, that they be a recruitment tool and not an evaluation tool, and that applicants be fully aware of that and no notes be taken.  It was seconded.

Someone said that the motion was premature, beginning with "if".  We should first decide on whether we would have group interviews all.  The motion was voted on.  The vote was

Someone else said that we need to first decide whether the purpose of whatever we do is evaluative or for recruitment. 

Comment: I would like this to be on our agenda next time.  This is a good discussion, but I do not think we're done.

Joe said this could be done.

Steve very briefly said that he would like to have a discussion about how, when students are suspended, it can be made as easy as possible for the faculty to allow the student to keep up with his or her assignments.

The meeting adjourned at 5:05PM.