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. 
                     

Senate Minutes 1.12.10

The senate had a very productive meeting yesterday, where we sat down with the four class deans and talked through the issues surrounding the Deans List resolution. We began with a recapitulation of the history and rationale of the resolution, and then heard feedback from the deans who have some reservations with the resolution that have slowed its implementation. Dean Newman made a particulaly salient point that the role of the Dean is so much more than academic, that the nomenclature of a "Dean's List" applying to a strictly academic commendation creates discomfort. Deans also expressed anxiety about having to defend their choices for a list, their desire for a reduced role in the process, and the need for a more objective selection method (or at least one where the subjectivity is distributed). Much discussion ensued, with particularly broad participation of both faculty and student senators.

While we were still going strong at the end of our time, my sense of the meeting was that with a change in the name of the list (commended students? honors list?), and the development of a robust faculty nomination process, we could potentially implement the existing resolution at the next grading period or at the end of the year. Several options for the nomination process have already been proposed. Two that seem promising are as follows:

1) The Integrity Council Method: Faculty are allowed to nominate up to five students each grading period, with a couple of sentences of explanation. The students who receive the most nominations are screened by the Class Dean to ensure a diversity of commended students (some for high grades, some for improvement, some for intellectual curiousity, etc.) and to make sure that each list doesn't repeat too much of the most recent list.

2) The Maurer Method: Faculty are given a set of nomination "points" to award (say 10 for argument's sake)through a survey instrument like Survey Monkey or Zoomerang. Again, a couple of commending sentences would accompany each nomination. They may award them all to one student, or distribute them among multiple students. The students with the most total nomination points are then screened by the Deans as above.

On a personal note, I'd like to thank the senators for such a thoughtful, articulate, civil discussion. I was particularly proud of the student senators, who expressed their perspectives so well.

Minutes December 1, 2009

The Senate met to continue discussion on the Cum Laude Proposal. We were joined by Mr. Gillespie who very helpfully brought a set of data to the meeting to illustrate the complexities of the process. Sorting and resorting the data by different categories provided some fascinating results. While we had limited time to edit the proposal after Mr. Gillespie's presentation, but two changes seemed recommended.
1) The committee should be charged with performing the same kind of data analysis we were doing, identifying top students for each of the categories, not just sorting by GPA.
2) The current language on Honors classes needs to be emended to read "50% of Honors and/or AP classes" available to the student.

For me, personally, the discussion clarified my thinking about the final step in the process. Because of the complexities analysis of the data reveals, and Mr. Gillespie's own support for the committee making the final decision on those students at the margin, I see that final step as an important one. Look forward to seeing what others are thinking.

Minutes of 11.19

On Thursday, the Senate tackled a draft of a Cum Laude proposal, copied below. While there seemed to be fairly broad agreement about the prescreening of candidates, the last steps in the process remain more controversial, with some senators favoring a faculty vote on the screened list, and others favoring a faculty discussion with the comittee finalizing the list. At issue is what to do at "the margin" where in some years it is difficult to distinguish between the kids who are near the cut-off. Please share your thoughts on that remaining issue, either through comment, new posting or the poll in the sidebar.

The draft resolution reads: Cum Laude Selection Process Proposal
November 19 Draft

The Senate resolves that a Cum Laude committee be established. The committee will be responsible for prescreening the candidates for Cum Laude induction, presenting the slate of candidates for review and feedback, and making the final decision on those candidates at the margin where faculty feedback might make the difference.

In accordance with the Cum Laude Society Manual, the committee shall remain a “small minority of faculty” which we interpret as approximately 10% of the faculty. The Cum Laude society defines “Legitimate criteria for electing faculty members” as “election to Phi Beta Kappa as a student in college or university, membership in CLS as a student or faculty member in another school, distinctive contribution to the cause of scholarship in the school, or completion of distinguished scholarly work.” We recommend soliciting volunteers who meet those criteria, with the Upper School Director picking five or six from that list.

The process for selection begins with the top one-third of the senior class and one-fifth of the junior class, according to a ranking by un-weighted GPA. The committee will review the records of these candidates and remove those with documented, serious violations of school rules—especially those involving lapses of integrity—after the freshmen year. This pre-screened list shall be presented to the faculty with reminders of criteria for membership in the society.

Each student selected for induction (a) should have taken a rigorous course of study, incorporating at least 50% of the honors courses available to the student; (b) must have demonstrated academic integrity and good character throughout their Upper School years; and (c) should have attended school an average of at least 94% of all days in which school is in session each year. (Attending school functions such as field trips and special programs counts as attendance at school.)

Society guidelines permit us to elect up to 20% of the senior class and 10% of the junior class. Students inducted as juniors may be removed as seniors if they no longer satisfy the criteria for induction as a senior. Students are not eligible for induction during their first year of attendance at Hawken. Inductees are recognized in a special program in April.

Where students at the margin (or near the cutoff for inclusion) have very similar records, the committee shall make the final selection, guided by the feedback faculty offer. The decision of the committee shall be final, and not subject to public review.

Deans List Proposal as of October 26

The Senate Meeting today centered around the following proposal, which after much debate seems ready for public review. We will address suggested changes and call for a vote at our next meeting, unless significant objections are raised.

In order to provide more frequent and timely positive feedback and recognition, the Senate resolves that a Deans List program shall be implemented beginning Fall of 2009. Class Deans will review grades, comments, notes of praise and nominations by faculty, and select up to 10% of each class to be recognized through a formal letter for noteworthy achievement, effort, improvement, and intellectual curiosity each grading period. While students may find themselves recognized multiple times throughout their academic careers, such recognition should not become an expectation. Deans list designation will not appear on transcripts, though will be shared with faculty, advisors, and the college office.

This proposal is a seperate proposal from suggested changes to our Cum Laude discussion, but may help give clarity to that process as well.

Provisional Minutes October 6, 2009

Fellow senators,

I wasn't officially appointed to take minutes, but at about 10:24 today I looked around and realized that no one else was taking notes, so I decided to take it upon myself to do so.

Just for the sake of trying something new, I tried to take as accurate a running transcript as I could. I don't know if everyone is comfortable with their names showing up along with the comments that they made, and I'll be eager to hear your thoughts. I was typing fast, so I may have completely misattributed certain remarks...if so, keep me honest!
Best,
J. Griffin
---
Cum Laude conversation continued (minutes pick up halfway through the conversation)

Attendance: Feldman Griffin Maurer Marabito Todaro Moeller Weiskopf Hermann Mintzer Kerman Murray Gacka Harris Thompson

Where the minutes pick up, we were considering the idea of creating a Dean's List proposal. Under this system, in any given "quarter," approximately 20% of students would be recognized for outstanding academic achievement, improvement, and citizenship.

Nate: Then why not just create a benchmark GPA? Everyone with a GPA above that number makes the Dean's List...we could set it at the beginning of the year and then each quarter, anyone above that GPA would be on the Dean's List.

Doc M: The Dean's list is designed to take into account more characteristics than academic achievement alone in terms of GPA.

Harris: And there's also the problem we ran into with the old Honor Roll system, which by the end included about 70 or 75% of all students. We set the bar too low. If you're going to set the GPA bar in order to include 20%, why not just specify the percentage?

Kerman: But then how would we determine what the expectations were other than academic achievement?

Harris: You could set it up such that it's not expected that the same students get the Dean's List all the time. Each student has 16 opportunities to get on the Dean's List in their time at Hawken.The characteristics would include high academic performance, for you, but also that you were involved in good things around school.

Maurer: I'd like to see a rule where if you'd been on the Dean's List say twice in a row, then you couldn't be on it the next quarter, so the Dean was encouraged to dig a little deeper on the list.

Gacka: But then would it look bad on a college transcript if you were Dean's List for two quarters but not the other two?

Harris: I'd like to get to the point where this was an honor and a nice thing to get in the mail, but not an expectation. Like, Cum Laude becomes that kind of an expectation for a student. So, "Why didn't I make cum Laude?" It's easier to answer it with the numbers than by saying "you didn't have enough intellectual curiosity." Maybe we should keep it off the transcript and you would just say it in your resume.

Murray: I like this idea of a recognition that's mostly academic but not entirely…but I think it brings us back to the same -- cum Laude…are we looking at - not just good character, but intellectual curiosity and motivation to learn, or just straight academic achievement. Because I like the dean's list proposal and I think it's a good idea and takes the pressure off of cum laude, but then what happens to cum laude? Harris: I'm repeating myself from last week, but the minimum that we need is to establish a clear process by which we can address integrity violations and issues. So if all we do is establish a pre-screening committee that sends a list out to the faculty, then we will have done what we were charged to do.

Senkfor: Is the Dean's List in addition to Cum Laude?

Harris: If we pass the Dean's List idea, then yes, it takes the pressure off the cum laude discussion by recognizing student work in another way.

Feldman: But if Dean's List isn't on transcript, then the only publicly recognized academic honor is still cum laude.

Gacka: Some students get a lot of recognition, but some students work hard very quietly. Maybe a role for advisors in communicating with the deans about student accomplishments.

Harris: Right. Maybe advisors to deans, or all faculty to deans. We could do a nomination process -- maybe like HIC nominations, or maybe less formally though an email from the deans.

Kerman: I agree with Cecile that extracurricular success is good, but the dean's list should be mostly focused on academic performance/perf. In classroom.

And the conversation will continue next time...

More thoughts on Cum Laude

Hi everyone,

I appreciate the thoughtful comments that have been made in response to my blog about Cum Laude. They raise a number of points, some of which I agree with. As just one example, like Chip I am leery of too much reliance on character as a qualification, regardless of whether we are talking about Cum Laude or some successor honor system. I suspect we can agree that a recent verified plagiarism or cheating episode ought to disqualify someone from an award for academic excellence, but the further we get from such clear-cut standards, the more it begins to look like a popularity contest and the less I like it. I was not specifically advocating the use of character or "love of learning" criteria but just mentioned them since they have come up in our discussions.

On the other hand, I disagree with those who cited the flexibility of Cum Laude (other than the rigid 10%/20% rule) to argue against the need to consider alternatives. Here, I would point out that, while Cum Laude does allow us the freedom to include or reject any of our better students based on standards of our own choosing (currently, attendance and course rigor), we in fact have NO standard with respect to grade point average. According to Mr. Gillespie, he cannot recall that we have ever admitted fewer than the maximum allowed number, except for the rare occasion or two where the cutoff fell between two students whose records were indistinguishable. When that happened, we took neither rather than make an impossible choice.

So, other than those rare exceptions, our de facto admission standard is, "as many as will fit". Does this produce a fair result? For some data with which to address this question, I asked Mr. Gillespie to provide me with the junior and senior GPA cutoff each year for the last nine years (i.e., the lowest GPA of anyone admitted each year).

For seniors, the cutoff was different each year, but for the last six years it has fallen in a narrow range of 3.91 ± 0.07 (it was slightly lower, in a narrow range around 3.75, in the three years before that) These numbers refer to a quirky scale in which A+ = 4.7, A = 4.3, A- = 4.0, so this cutoff represents a high B+, I think.

For juniors, the cutoff in seven of the nine years was also in a narrow window of 4.05 ± .05. But in the other two years, the cutoff was markedly higher – 4.17 in one year, and 4.21 in the other. In those two years, according to Mr. Gillespie, there were 6 and 8 juniors, respectively, whose GPA was 4.05 or above but they were not admitted to Cum Laude as juniors even though their GPA was as good as those admitted in other years. They couldn't be considered because the quota was filled. These two years starkly illustrate a fairness problem that a quota system can never address no matter how we tweak our process (the problem can affect seniors as well, but we've been lucky so far and the number of seniors affected has been small, most likely). On the other hand, a system based on admitting qualified students, regardless of their number (or percent of a class), strikes me as much fairer. If a particular class happens to have an exceptional number of exceptional students, bestowing honor on all of them does not dilute the honor accorded each one individually. They all will have met a tough standard.

A system based on admitting qualified students does not have to mean admitting more students or admitting ones of marginal quality. Mr. Harris's point that the ranks of the qualified thins our pretty quickly below the 20% line I think is arguable at best. That has rarely been my impression when we look at the list of students ordered by GPA and see who is in and who is out. Whatever one thinks, a system based on a standard will force us (faculty, with Senate guidance) to decide what IS the standard for receiving this honor; then it would be up to the faculty (or a smaller screening committee, as we have been discussing) to uphold the standard.

From Doc. M

As one who was absent for this discussion, I want to say thank you, first, for the degree of detail in these minutes. This is a real service.

One aspect of the Cum Laude business that seems to be tying us in knots is the strict limit on the numbers that can be admitted, i.e., the 10%/20% rule. It is obvious from the minutes that we are struggling how to define that top group in a way that is simultaneously objective, subjective, fair, and precise. Did I mention transparent? Some of the apparent difficulty of the task might be eased if we had more flexibility in the numbers. That thought leads me to question the assumption that Hawken will continue with Cum Laude.

Are the feelings about the Cum Laude tradition that strong?

Does Cum Laude mean anything beyond graduation?

What are the alternatives in terms of other honor societies with which Hawken could affiliate? What are their rules?

Could Hawken perhaps go it alone, either with its own honor society or simply not have this sort of thing? I am not advocating the latter, but just put it out as an extreme option.

As an example of how different a home-grown model could look, we could say that eligibility for HHS (Hawken Honor Society) requires a minimum GPA of (pick a number) as well as evidence of good character (list possible criteria) and love of learning...or whatever...(list possible criteria). Everyone who qualifies is in.

Among other advantages:
1. Students are competing against a standard, rather than against one another.
2. The standard is known in a way that allows students to assess where they stand.
3. We could make a flexible standard that encourages students to risk taking more challenging courses.
4. We could make a standard that more heavily weights more recent courses so that a student's chances are not necessarily ruined by a bad grade early on.
5. We could set up something for which underclassmen are eligible (a junior honor society, perhaps) so that academic achievement can be recognized at all levels.

Your thoughts?

Doc M.

Provisional Minutes of September 29 meeting

Attendance:
Faculty: Mr. Dade, Ms. Griffin, Mr. Harris, Mrs. Gacka, Mrs. Thompson, Mr. Weiskopf, Ms. Agar
Student: Cecile Murray, Hannah, Hunter, Paui Sankfor, Sam Mintzer, Michael Marabito, Nate Baker, Chip Herman

Discussion:
Reminding the senate of the new blog and the ability to write as authors.
Motion to work out a concrete proposal reflecting our discussion.
*Mr. Peters bursts through the door with a concerned expression upon his face*
Mr. Walton not aware of PE potential revisions.
To be worked out later.

Ideas for revision of Cum Laude
Larger initial pool of candidates
Determined by the initial committee
Then goes to faculty meeting to vote on the final choices.
Faculty might look at top 25% of class
Would raise objections if necessary
Then go to the cum laude committee for final review.
Nominations
Begin with class list and nominate those who the faculty think are good candidates.
Then confirm that they are in the top percentage of the class.
Some reservations throughout the senate about nominations
Teachers choosing their favorite students.
May not necessarily reflect academic achievements.
Possibly email list of top percentage to faculty initially.
This way the faculty would have time to reflect upon the candidates and send any response indicating concern.
Discussion leaning towards a smaller committee that would make the final decision
Would have access to all information without fear of too much breach of confidentiality.

Current System
Junior Year
Committee  20% to faculty evaluation  10% are inducted
Senior Year
10% already inducted
Committee  next 20% to faculty evaluation  10% are inducted

Problems:
Distinctions between straight GPA get down to the thousandths. GPA becomes almost arbitrary.
Problems with ranking. Too subjective teacher by teacher.
Some teachers simply don’t know the top candidates well enough to feel comfortable ranking them.

Proposed systems:
25-30%  Committee which can rank those students
Must be able to make a final decision because of the confidentiality aspect.
Problems:
Comfortability issue being bumped from above the cutoff point because someone else, who didn’t make the initial cut, had to be moved up.

Committee  top next 20% of senior class  faculty nominations  committee for final review.

Minutes compiled by Senator Herman

Provisional Minutes, 9/22/09

In Attendance: B. Dade; S. Gacka; A. Thompson; R. Maurer; J. Griffin; I.Todaro; H. Moeller; J. Agar; B. Senkfor; S. Mintzer; M. Marabito; C. Hermann; N. Baker; H. Kerman; S. Feldman; C. Murray; C. Harris.

1.PE Requirement Updates

Senator Hermann reports that the Ohio State Requirements for Physical Education is only 3600 minutes of physical education.

After these 3600 minutes, the department’s philosophy of remaining physically active is the only factor.

Senators Marabito & Mintzer report that they checked with Coach Walton, who was under the impression that the state still required PE classes through 10th grade. Coach McClintock is reported to also support the idea of PE electives, provided that they are sufficiently demanding.

Since Hawken’s requirements are higher than the state requirements in other academic areas, it was noted that it makes sense that we would hold students to a higher standard than the state requirement in this area as well.

Proposal: Sen. Kerman & Sen. Baker will write a proposal to eliminate the PE requirement in the sophomore year, and to recommend the diversification of PE electives.


2. Cum Laude Selection Process

Senate Chair Harris opened by noting that in our student culture, there seems to be a resistance to recognizing student achievement even by the students who are recognized. This seems like a larger problem than the Cum Laude selection process.

Sen. Murray pointed out that this also taps into a broader cultural phenomenon where it’s not cool to be really smart – or, it is, as long as you don’t really care. Being singled out for Cum Laude proves that you’re smart and you care.

We discussed the shortcomings of the current selection process, which amounts to 'rubber-stamping' of the numerical list of students with the highest GPAs. We also began to consider other possible selection models, such as the one suggested by Mr. Peters, wherein a small committee pre-screens candidates and presents a short list to the full faculty.

A lively discussion ensued, but sadly, this conversation had to be tabled for our next session.

Faculty Senators for 09-10

Julie Agar
Russ Maurer
Sue Gacka
Steve Weiskopf
Julia Griffin
Anne Thompson
Tracy Stockard
Brendan Dade
Sue Berlin

Cris Harris, Chair