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.