Faculty Council Meeting
Minutes for Meeting on March 20, 2006
12:15 PM, Woolworth Room
President: Noreen Naiman Vice President: Julie Graves Secretary: Tamar Castelloe
1. Approval of Minutes from January meeting
The vote on approval of the minutes from the January meeting was postponed until the next meeting, as there were not
enough faculty members present to constitute a quorum when the vote was scheduled to be on the floor.
2. Reports from Board of Trustees (BOT) meeting on March 10, 2006
a. EPPC-Jim Litle
Jim Litle provided a written report on the EPPC meeting, which is attached here:
b. Personnel Committee-Mary Roberts
Mary Roberts reported that there will be only one chiller location by the end of the summer (August).
c. Development Committee-Scott Laird
Scott Laird was unable to attend the BOT meeting on March 10th, so he did not report on the Development
Committee meeting.
d. Noreen Naiman
Noreen Naiman stated that representatives from the NCSSM Governance Subcommittees gave their respective
reports. Bill Cary expressed that shared governance should happen, however some board members were
apprehensive due to the urgency of the decision on the proposal. However, the vote was unanimous among the board
members to become the 17th constituent of the UNC system.
3. a. Admissions Report-Letita Mason
Letita Mason reported that the overall applicant pool contained 1093 students (507 males and 586 females). 97
counties and 321 distinct schools were represented. 181 applicants were from Congressional District (CD) #4, which
is the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill area. CD #3 contained the next highest number of applicants.
b. Discussion of admissions criteria
The following is the scoring rubric for admissions that was included on the agenda for this meeting:
Grades: 10
Rigor of Program: 5
SAT Verbal and Math: 3 + 3 (or 4 + 4)
NCSSM Math Test: 3
Essay: 2
3 Teacher Recs: 2
Interest in Sci/Math: 2
Community Involvement: 3
Leadership: 2
_______________________________________
Total: 35 (or 37)
Up to 3 points may be awarded for “exceptional circumstances.” Three readers score each applicant
independently, and their scores are summed. The maximum score is therefore 105 (or 111).
Letita mentioned that in CD 4, some students who earned a 94 on the rubric did not get accepted, however some
students who earned scores in the 80’s from other CD’s did get accepted.
A faculty member asked whether Admissions breaks down SAT scores by district and if there were any incorrect scores reported by ETS. Richard Alston answered that it does and that there were some incorrect scores that were easy to identify, but others were not. At the time of this meeting, his team was still identifying them.
A faculty member asked how the scores on the admissions test in mathematics were going to be used, and Letita answered that out of 30 points, if an applicant earns 25-30 points, they receive the highest ranking. The rankings go down from there for every 5-point interval, and any score below 10 earns the lowest ranking. It was made clear that all applicants take the same admissions test, and Letita stated that the test is a relatively good predictor of success at NCSSM, sometimes better than the SAT. She commented that if a student received a test score of 10 or below, that is a “red flag.” If the SAT score is strong, and the student’s previous math teacher expresses that the student is strong, then that student’s file may continue to be looked at.
A faculty member asked how “Rigor of Program” is determined, and Letita answered that it is determined by what the students’ schools have available (e.g. AP courses, IB programs, etc.).
Another faculty member expressed his concern that “outstanding” students would be scored on an “even playing field” with those who are not very “outstanding,” and questioned the fairness of the scoring rubric.
It was determined that only a few faculty members participated in reading folders for admissions this year, and the faculty was then encouraged to volunteer in the future so that they can see better how it works and better determine whether it is fair or not. It was stated that the only change implemented by the Admissions Task Force in the past year was the weight that the SAT had on the rubric. Letita doesn’t believe that the task force is still in operation, and it would be Jerry Boarman’s decision as to whether it should be in operation again. A faculty member expressed concern that “11 points are given for ‘fuzzy’ characteristics.”
Letita stated that admissions can take no fewer than 14 students and no more than 34 from any one CD. She added that 26 is the average. She also stated that the Counseling office reviews files to “pull applicants out” of the pool, put them on the waitlist or to consider taking them from the waitlist to the finalist pool. She added that waitlisted students do not have a choice to appeal. Although non-finalists can appeal, they are placed behind the waitlisted students if they are added back into the pool. Jerry Boarman does have the option to move a student to be a finalist. Letita also mentioned that the waitlist is neither ranked nor published.
A faculty member asked how it was decided that the 3 teacher recommendations are worth 2 points on the scoring rubric, and Letita answered that the Admissions Task Force made that decision. She added that if anyone on the Faculty Council has concerns about the rubric, they should send her a message with suggestions, and she will forward them to Jerry Boarman and Michael Reidy for possible changes in the admissions process next year.
There was discussion about perhaps moving the admissions review process to Miniterm or another time during which more faculty is available to participate. Another suggestion was an inservice day or during Spring Break and perhaps paying teachers for their participation during that week.
There was then discussion about whether to compare SAT scores to the students’ respective schools or to their county. There was concern among some faculty that a strong student at a good school would be hurt by the current process. Letita expressed her concern that a change at this time in the school year would be too late in the process for this year. She would want to see the impact of the change before implementing it, and there is insufficient time to study the implications prior to this year’s admissions process. Any change would have to be made starting next year.
A faculty member suggested that we gather the rubric scores assigned this year to incoming students at the end of the first trimester next year to guage how well the score predicted success at NCSSM. Letita stated that that can be done.
4. Research Experience Implementation
There was insufficient time to discuss this issue. It will be postponed until the next Faculty Council meeting.
5. Announcements
It was announced that faculty evaluations of Jerry Boarman will be in faculty boxes in the beginning of April, and they will
be due in May.
It was also announced that the link of the evaluation of the trimester compiled by Sally Adkin is now online.
The meeting adjourned at 1:15 pm