March 11 2013 Minutes

Commended Students list

•  Announce lists together – intensive and rotation
• Should we change way that teachers allocate points?

·         Should we continue to make it all about effort?

o   Notes of praise v. commended students list

o   Don’t want to take away academic recognition

§  History of program: replace honor roll, wanted to make a culture of success (public acknowledgement of student academic success)

§  Don’t want to make it an “A for effort” thing?

·         Can we make faculty take it more seriously

·         Make it mandatory for the faculty

·         Should it be private or public

o   Not enough academic recognition

o   Is having 40 names read aloud at once diminish value of list?

·         Do we need to normalize how we’re commending people: what makes someone “commendable?”

·         Should not be for the sake of spreading academic recognition (don’t recommend students who were commended last semester)

Cell Phones, Smart Phones and Acceptable Use

In an effort to complete as much as possible, I would like to initiate an informal discussion of technology use concerning cell phones outside of class. In the technological age of Hawken with the one to one program,  the ever-increasing utility of cell phones, and the ambiguity between tablets and cellphones I would propose that students should be allowed to use their cellphones outside of class in any way as long as they are not talking on the phone or disturbing anyone. Essentially, the only major difference between smart phones and tablets is the call and text functionality that runs over a cellular network. If calling people is prohibited, that just leaves the text functionality with which to be dealt. There really is no difference between abundant instant messaging programs (such as facebook messenger, AIM, google+ etc etc) and the text functionality found on phones. Allowing someone to use a messaging program but prohibiting text functionality in phones just seems pointless.
Now, the main point of discussion and potential objection would be somewhat analogous to the headphone argument, involving politeness and safety and social interaction. I would argue that the focus of this discussion should be the mobility with cellphones, and not the use in areas such as the AC lobby and pronto room. Again, there really is no difference between cell phones and tablets so if a student is allowed to use a tablet in one area, they should be allowed to use a cellphone there. If someone is sitting in the AC lobby being antisocial on their smartphone, they could just as easily, if not even more easily be antisocial on their tablet. Back to mobility, I do not have an opinion either way, but I am leaning towards the idea that kids should not be able to walk in the hallways whilst on their phones because it takes the visual attention away from the individual, and we don't want students to walk into people and walls etc etc.

So what does everyone else think?

Hawken Senate minutes – 10/17/2011

Students present: Larry Fulton, Zach Voigt, Hunter Moeller, Swetha Karethi, Miles Bloomenkranz (visitor), Isabella Todaro, Sophie Kerman, Will Moscara, Adil Menon, Aric Floyd.  Absent: Senkfor

Faculty present: Harris, Brennan, Heflin, Desmond, Agar, Weiskopf, Tate, Kim Samson, Yudovina.  Absent: Rabe, Hayes.

Minutes by Mr. Tate

Introduction of student senators

Kim Samson:

I’d like to figure out what different groups do.  Are Senators like class reps?  I’d like to find the group by which I can run things by.  Some schools have a school president (not my intention) but I would like to increase my student contact for student input.  I would love some help with that.  My talk from last Thursday morning (alcohol at school events) would normally have been presented to a smaller group of students prior to addressing the entire student body.

Question: If you were me, what group of questions would I go to?

Question: What issues have the senate been working on recently?  What issues are you planning on addressing in the near future

I have no items for you yet.

Zach – makes sense for us to be a representative body (because we are elected).  We would have a  good perspective on what needs to happen and what is happening.

Difference between Senate and house leaders?

Will – House leaders more tuned in to the house rather than individual grades – we represent more of the school as a whole.

Bella – our job is more to set school policy rather than social issues.   There are lots of people in the community that hold leadership positions – a comprehensive idea is polling from different leadership organizations.

Mr. Harris – last year we worked with the Hawken “Jurga” – to deal with the integrity code (house leaders, senators, HIC, other students, faculty) to represent diverse views.

Adil – House leaders may be best for informing students.  They are more in tune with the students (reaching students).  They seem to be more in tune with the day to day vibe of the school.

Sophie – House leaders are more elected so that your house can do well (school spirit) – organizing events, planning things, but not necessarily as a representative

Zach – house leaders have a more public face – information distribution.  We (the Senate) meet in a dark room and have discussions that people don’t really pay attention to.  We influence policy, house leaders distribute information to all

Larry – Not really 100% accurate to have groups of “senators” and “house leaders.”  Each representative knows their grade better than the other leaders.  House leaders are good for information.

Ms. Samson – I might have actually chosen the House leaders for the Thursday discussion first – they have the public face, and the forum to help make a cultural shift.  However, 6 months down the road, it’s evident that there is no cultural shift (still drinking, bringing alcohol).  In that case, I might come to this group to address that issue.  At some point, the rules associated with dances were made by the Senate.  I really believe in cultural shift.  Until the country deals with bringing drugs into the country, we will cope with this all the time like every other High School.  I believe that Hawken can shift their behavior better than most teenage populations in the country.  I am opposed to breathalizers.  I would get more chaperones, asking more faculty to come, closing the gates at games – any number of possible solutions to the problem (most of which compound the problem because it creates a game instead of changing the culture).  Would this, the Senate, be the best place for this place?

Senators agree that it would.

Ms. Samson – I would have liked to know for sure a good process prior to talking to student body.

Mr. Harris – House leaders have a more vocal presence (in house meetings and school meeting).  We only meet during activities and do not have a public voice at class meetings or house meetings.

In 2008, Mr. Peters asked for a list of recommendations (not policy) from the Senate.  Mr. Harris presented the document from 2008 that was produced by the Senate.

Ms. Samson – I’m very interested with these recommendations.  There is a lot of talk around breathalyzers in the country (I am not in favor).

Will – US is now using a breathalyzer for each student at after-school events.

Ms. Samson – I would like to change the culture.

Mr. Harris – Review of the proximity rule (not clearly understood by community).  This was a separate resolution in 2008.  Not fully implemented yet.  That’s the kind of thing we do?

Ms. Samson – Do you feel as if I have an understanding of what you do?  Sometimes I need student input.  I get lots of adult input.

Miles – I think we could re-brand the proximity rule in a better light, especially when dealing with this situation.  We are trying to change the culture rather than the policies.  A rebranded explanation of that (moral, honor responsibility as a Hawken student) could actually be accepted. 

Zach – If someone just explained the idea of the proximity rule (allowing people to excuse themselves) it would get better reception now from the community.

Miles – We understand (this is a restatement of principles we already hold to.)

Bella – At the US game, there were hundreds of students present.  Do all of the students actually leave?

Ms. Samson – if drinking was in the stands, does everyone leave the US game?  The assumption was that the drinking was happening in smaller groups of people, not in the midst of the entire student body.

Mr. Harris – We should discuss this with Mr. Harris and the HIC – this falls under there educative responsibility (Proximity rule).

Will – Because the cultural change has not yet happened, a re-hammering of the proximity rule may be premature.

Bella – the proximity rule is still considered somewhat of a joke – not really taken seriously still.

Ms. Samson – It probably doesn’t work because the HIC isn’t going to put everyone present at the US game on trial.  The cultural shift is that people make the decision not to drink before they even show up at the game.  Proximity rule would more apply to those students that are part of a group of 3-5 in the parking lot – those not involved need to leave.

Miles – Avoid the word proximity – reteach the culture.

Aric Floyd – If you are with someone that is doing something self-endangering, you’re not going to leave your friend in that situation alone (in danger).  My friends have mentioned their concerns around this concept.

Mr. Harris – that is articulated in the policy (if I can leave without endangering myself or my friend.)

Ms. Samson – this conversation emerged from me asking about what students do I seek out for input.

Hunter – The peer leader groups should be a group of students that you (Ms. Samson) also consult with.  They have a great influence over the freshmen and long-term cultural shift.

Ms. Samson – could the Senate offer up a list of things that they are currently working on.

Meeting on September 27

Present: Mrs. Heflin, Mr. Weiskopf, Kerman, Todaro, Senkfor, Floyd, Moeller, Menon, Voigt, Kareti, Fulton

-Introduction of new freshmen senators

-Explanation of how senate works for new senators

-There was general agreement that there was no need of a proposal surrounding community service and that if Mr. Harris passed on the message that the senate would suggest the house system encourages community service more actively, this would be sufficient.

-Mr. Harris brought up the issue of the commend student list

-Mr. Harris explained the creation of the commended student system and the issue of its publication

·      Mr. Harris noted the honor Role had become meaningless and the school needed a new system to recognize broader achievement in effort and improvement, etc.

·      Mr. Harris observed there was anxiety about whether or not or how the list should become public

·      Mr. Harris explained there was a fear that if the listed was posted students would analyze it and create a negative environment

·      The senate decided it would be read in school meeting one time and never written down anywhere

·      Mr. Harris said there have been two commended student lists since the last announcement in school meeting.  He sees a need for more timely public recognition.

·      Mr. Harris asked if we should just publish the list.

-A senator suggested we make the announcement at awards day however there was agreement that this was too soon.

-There was agreement that there is no way to solve the publication of the list in the spring intensive and it is best to just send it out on hawknet to the recipients.

-Some senators felt there is not much public anxiety among the students about the list and it would not be an issue to publish it.

-Mr. Harris said it is nice that the list is low-key but it should be public

-There was agreement that the list is should be read in school meeting if the option is available.

-A visitor did not see the meaning in the list and feared it could be seen as a pity prize.

-Mr. Harris addressed these concerns with the idea that the list allows each teacher to decide what is commendable scholarship (taking risks, being involved positively, excellent and consistent grades, improvement, etc.)

-One senator raised the issue of poor communication surrounding the list and that students to not understand the qualifications for it.

-One senator expressed concern that people don’t care about the list.

-Mr. Harris said the list matters for some people and the deans use it as a motivational tool (especially for students who did not expect to be recognized)

-One senator raised further concern about public awareness of the list.

-One senator explained the list was designed to be a big deal (only 10% of the class) but it also lets everyone have a shot at it.  There is a belief that over time people will understand it.

-One senator said the list matters to some people and so it should be kept and adds the awards day acts as a larger aspiration and a published list allows for semi-regular motivation for those who need it.

-One senators said not having the same student two times in a row causes the list to be less competitive and so it means less to recipients. The senator suggests a note of praise may be adequate to motivate students

-Mr. Harris said the list is also about public recognition as well and that some extraordinary students get selected often (making it meaningful).  Mr. Harris also said that the list remains selective due to the pattern of repeat recipients (recognition is not spread out evenly). 

-Senators said the list is important and encouraging to many people and doesn’t have a negative side to it.  A senator adds a published list will not change it.

-A visitor said the nature of the list which prevents students from being recognized twice in a row makes the list less selective and so it is not appreciated.

-Mr. Harris said the senate thoughtfully selected the number of up to 20% of the student body being recognized in a rotation plus intensive and afterwards there could be repeat winners.  Mr. Harris said this system is a balance between diluting the award and keeping it achievable.

-One senator said the nature of the list in that is awarded in the intensive and the rotation allows recipients to receive recognition for either the intensive or the rotation so the recognition is timely and accurate.

Meeting on Monday Sept. 19th

On Monday, the senate began a discussion on Community Service. There used to be a community service requirement, but the senate abolished this requirement several years ago in favor of house-based community service. The goal was to create more meaningful partnerships with organizations and maximize our impact as a school. Before the House systems, many students were doing hours of service, but did not forge a relationship or make a long-term difference. The hope was that this would change and under the House System service would become an integral part of our community; has there been a change? Senators Floyd and Mascaro raised the issue of community service because there was a concern that not many students are actively involved in service projects. This concern was echoed by several other senator who see community service now as something that only a few students are passionately involved in. It was brought up that this could be because schedules do not permit students to leave to go on service trips. Many senators were also concerned that service was not weighted heavily enough in the house point totals for the Dobay Cup. Another award for service was suggested, but there was opposition because service should not be seen as secondary. It was largely agreed upon that if the House System were to be more service based it would gain credibility. A service requirement within the House System was suggested--maybe a certain number of required trips. But, this was challenged because requirements don’t usually go over very well. In the end, we decided that there are flaws, but what might be most helpful is time. We are moving in the right direction and there are many good things to come in regards to Service within the context of the House System.

Below please find the complete minutes for the meeting:

added people to the senate blog

Harris:dress code tabled in order to check for opposition

Harris: brings up service

Will and Eric had proposed this awhile ago

Harris: brings up constitutional reform--two committees (that we don't really use)

Ratification requires 2/3 of students and faculty

Minutes, how things get passed (3/4 of votes cast=binding), committees

Floyd: can we get copies of the constitution?

Harrris: yes, going to email them

Floyd: before houses, there was a service requirement. point of houses=to be more involved and incorporated into school. don't really think it's working. not enough time spent to do meaningful work and create meaningful partnerships

Harris: to remove service requirement was one of most contentious things ever done (besides moving activities)

Goals of house-based service:

developing sustainable relationships

forming partnerships

preventing people from doing bare minimum--hassle for service office

incorporated in curriculum

maximizes impact (quality over quantity)

Shouldnt we be spending more time--not leaving after an hour or two

we want to develop projects with organizations

field days=most "diffuse moments"

support individual or group service for house points

written proposal, # of hours, follow up, committee that would handle this

does points for service send a bad message?

no, maybe we should be recognizing whats already going on

Hays: is the problem communication? we need kids to know about the trips/ projects

Rabe: could we create a requirement within houses?

Agar: goal for service is authenticity. deep partnerships. four opportunities a month . what is happening is that the house leaders are taking on too much, need to get other people involved

Senkfor: too few kids involved, some requirement would force the other kids to at least try service

Kerman: what about kids that don't have any long block free? then, to make it a requirement ...punishing kids that take more classes?

Todaro: are kids the ones that are forging these partnerships?

Harris: yes students are doing a good job of forging these partnerships

Agar: echoes harris

Harris: bad to have requirements come from above, not communicated well

Voigt: service relies too heavily on house spirit, biggest failing is that it relies on people buying completely into their house. to have service be a bigger part in the house point totals than activities (like field day)

Harris: houses need to be more focused on quality service and it may be a problem that we allocate more points to activities

Rabe: service is a sacrifice, if a requirement it may force people to fit it in and it may become more important to them. separate reward for most service done?

Harris: don’t want to micromanage house system

Moeller: requirement would create resentment. more service days--wouldn't conflict with classes.

Menon: problem with doing service only within the context of our houses. more service=more value=more buy in to to house system. now the house system kind of seems like a trivial thing (waste of time), but if it were associated more closely with service it would gain meaning

Senkfor: Agrees, don't think many people would do service just for points most people aren’t that invested in the success of their house. don't see people who do it for points

Voigt: don't want to make service secondary in any way. Dobay cup should be based more on service. second "cup" wouldn't be as meaningful

Kerman: in response to hunter: on service days some people are doing really doing valuable things and some aren't

September meetings

Over the first five weeks of school, the Senate has met a number of times to set agenda, facilate the election of ninth-grade representatives, and begin work on some old and new business.  Our first meetings were dominated by discussion of changes in schedule and student priveleges.  While no resolutions came out of those discussions, student perspective was heard and carried to the faculty through Mr. Peters.  Additionally, student concerns over the loss of breakfast service and senior lunch priveleges resulted in the House System breakfast sale (which today made it's first small profit) and an ongoing conversation with Dean Newman about modifications to the lunch policy. 

Over our last two meetings, Friday 9.17 and Tuesday 9.21, the Senate has made significant progress on the Integrity Code.  A minor change resulted in the current draft, no.7, below: 
       
          As a member of the Hawken community,
          I am a person of character.
          I believe in fair play.
          Therefore, my words and actions reflect my character.
          I will not lie, cheat, or steal.
          I respect the rights, work, dignity and ideas of all.

While the Senate is in broad agreement about this draft, we hope to engage the community extensively before officially ratifying this code as Hawken's statement of what integrity means.  Our next step is to invite student leaders (Student Senators, HIC members, House Leaders, Peer Leaders, and Team Captains) to a meeting Wednesday 9.29 at 8:00 in the White House, when we will broaden the conversation to include this wider group and secure additional student investment.  A significant portion of today's meeting was dedicated to discussing the best format for the community-wide presentation of this work.  Student senators were almost unanimously skeptical about the efficacy of advisory discussion of this code; we will explore other options, including a series of house meetings, or perhaps lunch or breaktime discussion groups. 

Minutes January 26, 2010

The Senate met to continue our discussion of the program formally known as the deans' list.  We began by confirming the growing consensus that new nomenclature and a structured nomination process would alleviate most of the Deans' major concerns.  At our next meeting we hope to finalize and vote on those ammendments to the original resolution. 

Name: "Commended Students" seemed to sit better with most than "Honors" or other alternatives.  Senator Murray pointed out the importance of a name that doesn't create laughable acronyms, so we will not, for instance adopt the name Commended Really Interesting Student Program, or worse, Commended for Radical Academics Program.  More seriously, Senator Weiskopf advised that our name not set up false expectations by appearing to similar to academic honor rolls at other schools.

Process: The Maurer method was favored by most Senators present.  While some details still need attention we were in broad agreement about the following: 1) The process needs to be easy for faculty to understand and complete 2) the process needs to be easy for deans to administer 3) the process needs a quantitative basis to alleviate concerns of subjectivity (though distributed subjectivity is still subjective, even with numbers attached) 4) Deans need to retain some latitude in crafting the final list. 

We also agreed that faculty may only nominate students they teach, and while Dean Botella pointed out that one's teaching load may increase or lessen one's ability to affect an individual class list, we saw no way around that effect. I did follow up with Mr. Gillespie, who assured me that Survey Monkey will allow us to pull together scores and comments, but also allow us to look at individual responses, so a Dean could look and see how a students score was generated. 

Roughly, the process might look as follows.  1) At the close of a grading period, the Dean of students sends out the survey by email.  The survey would include text reminding faculty of the criteria for commendation, and the most recent list of commended students to help faculty look beyond those names.  2) Faculty nominate 1-5 students, assigning each points, not to exceed 10 total points.  (i.e. the faculty member has ten points to distribute among the nominated students).  Faculty also write 1-3 sentences of commendation for each nominated student, and identify each student's graduating class. 3) Deans receive a survey report sorted by grade and score, and use that report to generate their lists and personalized comments for letters of commendations.  Deans also screen the list to reduce repeated commendations, and ensure some diversity of commendations (some for improvement, some for acheivement, etc.) 4) Letter would go home and into the file. 5) Deans announce the list of commended students in school meeting. 

Senators, please examine this closely and recommend changes through the blog comments so that we are well placed to make and pass a resolution at our next meeting.