Point System--Proposal

Here we go again!

Just think of it with one of Jackie's metaphors....

Actually, this was originally going to be longer, because I was going to include the parts about the competition events and the House Cup...but I decided this path was sun-dappled enough.

(I'm sure that somebody's going to quibble with something in here!)

Each year, the Houses shall hold a year-long competition based on points earned and lost throughout the year by various means. The winning House shall be the keeper of the House Cup for the next year. This section shall enumerate a proposal for the point system. Upcoming will be a section on competition events and the awarding of the House Cup (which I have alluded to in the duties of the Scribe).

I. Annual House Competition—Point System

By their performance and behavior in class, on campus, in competition events, at school functions, or at House functions, students can either earn points or lose points for their House.

The general philosophy for the point system shall be to emphasize the awarding of points for excellent performance or meritorious conduct over the deduction of points for unacceptable behavior. However, all student House Members, upon accepting membership in the House, shall acknowledge acceptance of membership as acceptance of the rules of the House System, including the deduction of points for unacceptable behavior. Therefore, while using positive points as a reward is the emphasis, negative points shall be employed as a consequence at the discretion of staff Members of any House.

1. Who can award or deduct points

• Administrators. Note that administrators are not to be considered the members of any single House, but of all Houses. They shall have the full authority to award or deduct points according to the rules outlined below to students from any House.
• All faculty members of any House have the authority, and are encouraged, to award points to students of any House, or to deduct them when appropriate. Affiliated teachers are expected to show no partiality in so doing; and in particular, when awarding points to students from their own House, or taking points from students of other Houses, teachers are requested to do so judiciously, to avoid the appearance of favoritism and to ensure the integrity of the system.
• Unaffiliated teachers. Any teacher who wishes to remain unaffiliated with a House, but still wishes to participate, shall have the authority to award and deduct points for students from any House. Unaffiliated teachers are requested to demonstrate the same level of impartiality as affiliated teachers. NOTE: Unaffiliated teachers shall be encouraged to eventually affiliate themselves with a House; however, a teacher can remain indefinitely unaffiliated with the approval of all four Heads of House. (I’ll probably detail this in a “miscellaneous items” section in the document, eventually.)
• Non-faculty staff members of ECHS, comprising the support staff and custodial staff. These staff members may or may not be affiliated with a House, at their discretion. (I’ll probably put this in the miscellaneous section, too.) However, in that they hold, as adult members of the staff, a position of authority, they shall have, if they choose to exercise it, the same authority as teachers to award or deduct points for students. In order to exercise this authority, they must be cognizant of the rules of the point system, and shall be held to the same standard of impartiality as the teachers.
• Coaches of teams and advisors of clubs. As adult authorities associated with the school, coaches and club advisors who are not also teachers shall have the authority, if they choose to exercise it, to award or deduct points. In order to exercise this authority, they must be cognizant of the rules of the point system, and shall be held to the same standard of impartiality as the teachers.

2. Who cannot award or deduct points

• Students are never to be allowed to directly award points to other students. However, if a student witnesses behavior worthy of points or penalty and no one with authority to enact point changes has witnessed it, the student is encouraged to report the behavior through the appropriate channels. All student members below the rank of Adjutant, to include the General Members of all Classes, shall report to the Adjutant of the appropriate House. The Adjutant shall then, if appropriate, report to his or her House Captain, who shall then, if appropriate, report to his or her House Regent, who shall make the final determination if points are to be awarded. NOTE: It should be an unspoken rule that when a student from one House reports the positive behavior of a student from another House, that the Regent at the very least seriously consider also awarding points to the student who reported it, for his or her sense of honor and sportsmanship. Reports of negative behavior, as they have the potential of being self-serving, shall not generally be afforded the same consideration, except in cases that are both unusual and extreme, requiring genuine leadership or sacrifice on the part of the student making the report. In either case, the discretion of the Regent shall be the determining factor. The Regent may, of course, consult with the Head of House, or the original witness, as he or she deems necessary.
• Chaperones at school or House functions who are not also either a teacher, a staff member, or a coach or club advisor. However, chaperones shall be encouraged to report whatever they wish, positive or negative, regarding the behavior of a student, to any faculty or staff House Member, who shall have the authority to award points. If no faculty member of the student’s House is available, the report can be made to any faculty or staff member who has the authority to award points. Alternatively, the chaperone could also inform the student’s House Captain or Adjutant, who could then make the appropriate report to the Regent.
• Teachers who have voluntarily recused themselves from the House System may not temporarily decide to award or deduct points. If such teachers should change their mind and become either a House member or an unaffiliated participant, they may do so; however they shall not be authorized to award or deduct points for any event occurring prior to the date of their change in status. In addition, in such cases, teachers shall be requested and required to maintain the selected level of participation for a minimum of one school year in order to discourage casual “point-wrangling.”
• Teachers who have been censured and whose authority to award and deduct points has been temporarily suspended may not award or deduct points. The conditions for this unlikely situation shall be outlined in a later section.

3. Awarding points for academic performance

There shall be several acceptable situations in which teachers shall be officially authorized to award points for academic performance. The integrity of the system relies on each teacher using his or her discretion as to when awarding of points is appropriate, and the number of points that is appropriate. Note that it shall not be necessary for all teachers to award points in exactly the same way. It is perfectly acceptable for one teacher to be liberal in giving points and another to be stingy; as long as they are impartial and consistent in their liberality or stinginess.

This section outlines the general guidelines for suggested maximum point awards in given situations. The teacher is always free to award fewer points than the maximum. If the teacher feels it is warranted, he or she may exceed the maximum recommendation; however these instances should be exceptional, in both circumstance and frequency. Excessive awarding of points may result in an intra-House inquiry, or a request from another House for an inquiry, or ultimately an externally arbitrated inquiry. In the extreme case, an inquiry could result in censure and temporary suspension of point-awarding privileges.

• Performance on tests.
• As a general rule, points awarded for performance on a test should not exceed the difference between the student’s percentage and a pre-determined standard set by the teacher for the class. This pre-determined standard is, in no case, to be a percentage that equates to lower than a letter grade of “B,” as “average” grades should not be awarded as worthy of special merit.
• For example, if a teacher determines the point standard is 85%, then students who earn 90% would be eligible for 5 points; students who earn 100% would be eligible for 15 points.
• The pre-determined standard must be set by the teacher at the beginning of the year and announced to all the students in the class. The standard may not be altered from test-to-test, as this could be used to manipulate point totals.
• It should go without saying that if a teacher awards points to even one student on a test, that all students who are eligible for points must also be awarded. Further, the same standard must be applied. For example, if a teacher decides not to award the maximum recommendation for even one student, then the same standard should be applied across the board.
• The teacher will have the authority to award points for test performance lower than the standard in special circumstances of a student who has performed well above their average, or whose performance is worthy of recognition for some other unique reason.
• The teacher may award points for other special circumstances as well; for example, to the only student in the class to get full credit on a difficult bonus question.

• Truly exceptional work on a class assignment.
• This should not include bellwork or ordinary homework assignments. No special awards should be given for meeting minimum expectations.
• This may include long-term assignments, such as a research paper or semester project. To qualify as “exceptional,” the work should show significant achievement, innovation, or initiative, etc.
• This may include larger, albeit regular assignments, if the performance is exceptional. 100% on a lab report or an A+ on an English essay would be reasonable examples.
• The assignment of points should follow a scheme similar to that of test performance; or else have a set plan that the class knows: 10 points for an A+ on an essay, for example.
• What merits qualification as “exceptional” shall be at the discretion of each teacher; however, “exceptional” should never be defined in such a way as to make more than 20% of the class “exceptional,” and normally, no more than 10% of the class.

• Significant participation in class.
• This should not include ordinary participation in class, such as responding to a question directly asked, asking an ordinary question, or taking notes.
• This may include above-the-ordinary contributions, such as volunteering an answer to a particularly challenging question, posing a particularly insightful question, or helping another student (within reasonable and allowable boundaries).
• The teacher shall use his or her own discretion to determine what merits “significant” participation; but in general, should not be excessive with it.
• Further, the teacher should allow equal opportunity for all students to offer participation, and not always simply call on the one student whose hand shoots up before the teacher even finishes asking the question. If that one student consistently participates in a significant manner, the teacher should be judicious and moderate in the awarding of points to that student; i.e. make him or her “work for it” a little more.
• In general, the number of points awarded for these types of participation should be small—no more than 5 points for significant contributions; no more than 10 points for exceptional contributions.

4. Point awards for behavior.

• Simply following school rules is not sufficient for receiving point awards. The minimum expectations are not to be awarded, as though they are exceptional. Points should be awarded for behavior only in the case of exceptional behavior befitting of a student of ECHS, a Charterian, and a member of the House.

• Following are some examples of behaviors that may merit point awards:
  
• A student going out of his or her way to help someone else
• A student going out of his or her way to help address a problem he or she was not involved in creating
• A student going out of his or her way to display conduct befitting a student of ECHS
• A student going out of his or her way to embody Charterian ideals
• A student going out of his or her way to embody the ideals of his or her House
• A student demonstrating uncommon sportsmanship in a competition event
• A student demonstrating uncommon school spirit or unity (acts of uncommon House spirit should not be awarded)

• Other positive behaviors can also be rewarded. This list is not to be considered exhaustive; as there is no way to produce an exhaustive list of potentially awardable behaviors

• As a general rule, behavior earning positive points should go above and beyond the average expectations

• As a general rule, points should be awarded in a philosophy consistent with the following system:

• 1-5 points for incidental acts that require little extra effort
• 5-10 points for acts that require a bit of effort or inconvenience
• 10-15 points for acts that require significant effort or inconvenience
• 15-20 points for acts that require exceptional effort or inconvenience

• For acts of a truly special quality, more than 20 points may be awarded.

5. Point penalties for behavior

• Any infraction of school rules shall result in an automatic assessment of a penalty
  
• Minor violations of school rules shall be assessed not more than 5 points as a penalty. For the purposes of this system, a tardy and the resulting detention shall count as a minor violation.
  
• More significant violations of school rules that could not be classified as serious breaches, such as minor dress code violations, shall be assessed a maximum of 10 points as a penalty.
  
• Use of a cell phone during school hours shall be assessed a 10-point penalty.
  
• Significant dress code violations shall be assessed a 10-point penalty.
  
• Serious breach of school rules shall be assessed a 10-point penalty. Further penalties will be assessed if and only if, in the unanimous opinion of the Head of House, House Regent, and House Scribe, with input from the House Captains and the officer of the offending student’s class, additional point penalties are both merited and will provide a significant element to the disciplinary action the student faces.
  
• Behavior unbecoming of a student of ECHS, a Charterian, or a member of the House, even when such behavior does not technically violate school rules, shall be subject to the assessment of point penalties. The severity of the penalty shall depend upon the circumstance and the discretion of the person assessing the penalty; however, in these instances, as deemed appropriate, the penalties can be more severe than for typical discipline issues, since the point penalty is the prime deterrent, other than the teacher simply lecturing the student. This type of behavior includes, but is not limited to:
  
• Disregard for House rules or procedures
• Disrespect toward another student
• Denigration of another House
• Displays of negative attitude

• As an example of the above situation, let’s say that a Head of House deducts 20 points for a student from his own House making derogatory comments toward a student from another House. The student protests, “20 points! That’s not fair!” To which the Head of House replies, “You’re right. Let’s make it 30 points for your obvious disregard for our House and its rules. In our House, such behavior is not tolerated.” And the student says, “But you’re taking points from our House!” To which the Head of House replies, “And we’ll make it an even 50 points if you continue to argue with me. Yes, from my own House!” (Minerva McGonagall is my hero. This parenthetical statement will be edited out of the official document.)

• Unsportsmanlike behavior in a competition event shall also be subject to point penalties. Minor infractions, to be penalized by 5-10 points, shall include unpremeditated lapses, or comments or actions made in the heat of the moment. More serious infractions, to be penalized by more than 10 points, shall include obvious instances of intentional unsportsmanlike conduct, or premeditated attempts to cheat. On-the-spot attempts to cheat may be punished by mere disqualification from the event. In all cases, the severity of the penalty should fit the severity of the offense.
  

6. Points earned in competition events

• Points may be earned for the House by competing in sanctioned competition events. Event qualification is outlined in a later section.
  

• There are two general procedures by which points may be assigned to Houses for their performance in competition events.
• A fixed amount of points for placement in an event for which scoring may not be possible (or at least, normal). For example, 50 points for first place, 30 points for second place, 20 points for third place in a chess tournament.
• Points awarded based on actual scores; for example, every point scored in a basketball tournament or an academic league style tournament is a point for the House.

• For events in which points are awarded based on scores, additional points may be awarded for placing at different levels in the tournament.

• Points may also be awarded to individual students for their performance in a competition event; however, they may only be awarded by members of a House other than the student’s.

• Points may be awarded or deducted for student behavior in a competition event, as outlined in previous sections.

7. Special Circumstances

In the event that there are special or unusual circumstances not covered in these policies, points may be awarded or deducted in any reasonable amount by any person qualified to do so. Abuse of “special circumstances,” however, is to be considered reason for inquiry with the possibility of censure, and suspension of point authority.

8. Protesting of point awards and deductions

(NOTE: I don’t anticipate most of this would ever be necessary…but you know me. I had to try to cover all the possibilities!)

A. Intra-House issues

1. Generally speaking, students and staff of a given House may not protest point changes made by members of the same House.

a. If a student believes that a General Member of the faculty from his or her own House is abusing the point system, he or she must bring it to the attention of the Adjutant; who must decide whether the issues have merit. If the Adjutant decides the issues have merit, then the reporting student and the Adjutant should bring it to the attention of the Captain.

i. If the Adjutant does not feel the issues have merit but the reporting student is still not satisfied, he or she should bring it to the Captain with or without the Adjutant.

b. If the Captain feels the issues have merit, he or she, and the Adjutant and the reporting student, should bring the matter to the House Regent.

i. If the Captain does not feel the issues have merit, the Adjutant and/or the reporting student may bring the matter directly to the House Regent if they are not satisfied with the Captain’s decision.

c. The Regent shall determine whether the issues have merit. If the issues have merit, in the Regent’s view, he or she should proceed as a staff Member suspecting abuse by a General Member, as outlined below in #2.

i. If the Captain, Adjutant, and/or reporting student are not satisfied with the Regent’s decision if such decision is that there is no merit, they may bring it directly to the Head of House, who will have the sole and final say over whether the issues have any merit, and whether or not to proceed.

2. In the case of staff Members suspecting abuse by a General Member of their own House, the first step shall be to approach the individual directly.

a. If satisfaction is not obtained via this one-on-one discussion, the matter should be brought to the attention of the Head of House, who shall discuss the matter with both the person bringing it to his or her attention, as well as the individual in question.

b. If satisfaction is not obtained via this discussion, the matter shall be brought to all the faculty Members of the House, and discussed, with all interested parties allowed to speak.

c. A vote of censure shall then take place. A vote of censure must be either unanimous among the three Leaders; or else two of the Leaders and the majority of the General Members must vote for censure.

d. Upon being censured, the individual in question may be suspended at the discretion of the Head of House from point-awarding privileges, for a period of time determined by the Head of House, but not to exceed four weeks.

e. In making a decision about whether to suspend privileges and for how long, the Head of House must consider the statement of the individual in question, as well as the full input of all the House faculty members.

3. If the individual in question is one of the three House Leaders, the matter must be treated as an issue with that Leader; and the procedures for dealing with problems with that office must be followed.

B. Inter-House Issues

1. Generally, protesting point changes made by teachers from other Houses is not allowed, as it undermines the authority of the teachers in question, and dilutes the meaning of the whole point system.

2. If, however, an issue of abuse of the system is suspected by a student, he or she must report the issue through the appropriate chain of command of his or her own House, as enumerated in the procedure for Intra-House issues above.

3. If it gets to the Head of House of the reporting student with a decision of lack of merit, the issue cannot proceed further.

4. If the Head of House of the reporting student believes there to be an issue, he or she is to request that the Head of House of the suspected offender initiate an Intra-House inquiry.

a. As this is now also an inter-House issue, the Head of House of the reporting student should be made privy to the process of the other House’s inquiry. This is to be accomplished by whatever method the two Heads of House agree on, from mere access to the results of the discussion, to active participation in the inquiry.

5. If the intra-House inquiry ends up censuring the suspected offender, the reporting House may have no more input to the process or knowledge of its results than the other House desires to share, as it has now once again become strictly an intra-House issue.

6. If the intra-House inquiry absolves the suspected offender, and the Head of the reporting House is satisfied with that absolution, no member of the reporting House may pursue the issue further.

7. If the intra-House inquiry absolves the suspected offender, and the Head of the reporting House is not satisfied that the result was correct, a full hearing of the House leadership must be convened. The format of this hearing is to be an informal version of a jury trial.

a. The suspected offender shall be the defendant
b. The Head of the suspected offender’s House, or another officer if the Head of House is unavailable, shall be the defending attorney.
c. The Head of House for the reporting House shall be the prosecuting attorney.
d. The Head of one of the uninvolved Houses shall act as the judge.
e. The Head of the other uninvolved House shall be the foreperson of the jury.
f. The remainder of the jury shall consist of the remaining officers of the uninvolved Houses, as well as any General Members of the uninvolved Houses needed to fill the jury.
i. Alternatively, the Heads of the involved Houses may agree to a smaller jury.
g. The jury can demand censure with a 2/3 vote.
i. Suspension of point-awarding privileges will be left to the Head of the defendant’s House
h. The jury can demand censure with suspension of privileges with a unanimous vote.
i. The jury may not demand a specific term of suspension; but it must be at least one week
i. Whatever the verdict, when it is rendered, the matter is closed.