Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Admissions Presidential Seats topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
FSU Lab School debates presidential-seat language, seeks clarity on admissions process
Summary
The board reviewed proposed changes to the admissions policy’s "presidential seats," including adding staff to the priority group and clarifying the president’s discretion; no final vote was recorded and the item will return to the board.
The FSU Lab School board discussed revisions to the admissions policy that govern so-called presidential seats, debating how much authority the university president’s office should retain and how many seats to reserve each year.
School leaders presented draft language that would allow the vacancy priority to include children of university faculty and staff and would give the president’s office discretion to review “unique admissions applications” and place some students into a priority category. Board members discussed changing a strict “limit” to wording that reflects an approximate number of seats and adding flexibility for on-year capacity limits.
The discussion focused on three practical points: who may request a presidential seat, how the president’s office confirms available capacity in a specific grade, and how far in advance such requests should be accepted. Staff described the current procedure: a university department chair or equivalent asks the president’s office, the president’s office checks capacity for the targeted grade, and a president’s letter is drafted to place the student in the vacancy priority if space exists. Board members said the policy should preserve the president’s flexibility while limiting requests filed years in advance.
Board members and staff also raised operational concerns. Interim Director Georgia Small said the school must verify transcripts and course credits before placing a student admitted under a presidential seat, citing a recent case of a senior admitted who lacked sufficient credits. Members proposed softening absolute language that could unintentionally prevent midyear presidential appointments; suggested wording included adding qualifiers such as “approximately” or “typically” when describing the annual seat allotment.
No formal motion or vote was recorded during the meeting. Board members agreed to return the revised admissions language at the next meeting after staff incorporate the suggested clarifications and strike or reword the contested sentence.
