1. Assigning the students to houses could be a fiasco if not done correctly. Random assignment is the only way that makes sense to me.
2. Jackie told me about this one, and I agree. What if certain houses become more popular or successful than others? I've only read a couple of the Harry Potter books, but it seems like Gryffindor is the popular one, Slytherin is the evil one, and Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are somewhat meaningless. I'm not sure how we can prevent one house from being too powerful if the sorting process is random. Perhaps the houses can also do things on their own to build unity and spirit from within.
3. It will be important to set the proper tone for the organization. It could potentially be a struggle to prevent the houses from becoming exclusive, or from members to have a condescending attitude towards students that choose not to participate. Even though I started a Charter fraternity a few years ago, the worst thing imaginable is for the houses to end up like the Greek system.
4. It could potentially be divisive, with the students and faculty that choose not to participate ridiculing those that do.
I also wanted to address some of the things that Dick brought up on the inservice blog:
"What does it add to our school? Might it distract from other initiatives that should be pursued? Does linking it to the Harry Potter series cause a problem with some students and parents...especially with parents?"
Hopefully the first two questions are addressed by the fact that the idea would initially not be schoolwide and sponsored by the administration. We could see what happens when the system is implemented on a smaller scale before making any decisions to press forward.
I think the Harry Potter thing is definitely a problem for some parents and it might be better to try to refrain from mentioning the H-word when starting the system. The students will implicitly understand the connection and can describe it to each other, but maybe officially there should be no Harry Potter link.
14 comments:
It is true that there is a potential for one house to be "bad" or "inconsequential." I dare say, though, that Slytherin suffers from being under Snape and doesn't that idiot Sprout advise one of the inconsequential ones? The four who seem most interested are all pretty solid. I don't think there's any real danger there.
On another note, my daughter proposed some sort of personality test as a means of sorting--that's what that hat does. Sort of.
Well, not that the leadership would be at fault, but maybe there would be a house that always loses at everything, which would be no fun. Ideally all four houses would be neck and neck to win.
The problem with any kind of test is that the students could potentially find a way to get themselves assigned to the house of their choice.
The idea of a House System could be really beneficial in terms of mentoring by upperclassmen for the newbies and acculturation to Charter values (as we try to nail that jelly to the wall) for all students throughout the year.
The difficult, and most crucial, part of this program is deciding the reason for its existence in the first place. This references Dick's comments about benefits to the school. I think we have to ask ourselves at least two questions:
1. Will Charter be better with a House System, or not; and if so, why?
2. What is our motivation as teachers to establish such a system?
I realize that it's easier to be a critic than a creative force, aside from the rotten vegetables anyway, but we must be very careful in both our motives and purpose. Schools (just like the military) are closed cultures with captive populations, so to speak, and sometimes social engineering can go awry in the most unexpected ways. Cue "Jurassic Park" theme...
If our motives are pure and the vision of what we want is clear, simple and beneficial, all the details about House names, student assignments, themes, uniforms, brand marketing, etc. will fall into place.
One thing is certain: once we initiate this program, it will take on a life of its own. The students will contribute a powerful unknown quantity that will challenge our carefully wrought plans; in other words, this will turn out to be another discipline area at times. We must know what we really want from this endeavor because it could be difficult, and painful, to shut it off later if we have to.
All that gloom and doom aside, I think we have plenty of talent and creativity among the staff to craft the framework for a quality system. We cannot forsee all of the eventualities, but we owe it to ourselves, and especially to the students, to take enough time to establish the best foundation that we can.
I'm responding to Jonathan's original post.
1. I see problems with random assignments; most particularly, I think there will be less sense of commonality and identity with random assignments. Then again, perhaps really the Heads of House will set the tone for what the House is. While I'm not greatly in favor of random assignments, I don't, at the moment, have a much more palatable option.
2. To address the (non-)issue of the Houses in the books, only because it bothers me a little as a writer that so many people miss this point. (Not your fault, Jonathan, if you haven't read all the books.) The protagonists all come from one House; the antagonists all come from another House. Naturally, these two Houses get much more limelight; and are much more dramatically characterized. In the movie versions, the other two Houses are almost totally ignored. However, the unique and admirable qualities of Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff are definitely implied, and sometimes even directly portrayed--just not as much or as often as the other two. I am fairly sure I'd be a Ravenclaw; and happily so. Those Gryffindors can get a bit flashy and melodramatic about things. And as a teacher, I'd FAR rather have a class full of Hufflepuffs than Gryffindors!
Further, it is inaccurate to say that the books paint the two Houses on which they focus more in monochrome tones. There are some Gryffindors who come off badly (MacLaggen, Percy) and some Slytherins who ultimately come off as goodguys, if not always likable (Slughorn)...and one Slytherin in particular who is possibly the most intriguing character in the series. (In case anyone hasn't read the books and intends to, I won't spoil anything.)
Anyway, none of that really matters; I just couldn't restrain myself. (Considering the typical length of my posts, I probably ought to.)
The real point is that if selection is random, I think it far less likely that there will be a single House that dominates; which is a distinct advantage to a random selection.
But if we decide on a non-random selection method and it produces a dominant House; or if somehow a random selection produces a dominant House...the composition of those Houses will change every year. In fact, every year, 25% of each House will comprise new students.
The dominance of one House one year guarantees nothing about the next year.
3. 100% agreed. The tone has to be set at the top, with the Heads of Houses. Personally, were I a Head of House, I would be very, very quick to dock students from my own House for the exclusive or condescending behavior toward other Houses; and very, very quick to congratulate and reward students from other Houses. Far from showing favoritism to my own House, I would have even higher expectations of them. If all the Heads of House adopt similar attitudes, it will become quickly understood that while friendly competition is acceptable and welcome, there are lines that simply may not be crossed. The interaction of the Heads of House, too, would set that tone, I think.
4. OK...this issue is a little touchy for me, so I apologize in advance if I get a little edgy; because to me, the potential responses of students and teachers to this concept are similar to the responses to Saxon; and because I know that not everybody understands or agrees with Saxon Day, or my Saxon Film Club, etc.
I expect some students not to. That's par for the course. And it's always my goal that kids who think it's "stupid" in their freshman year because they're too "cool" for it--and for the whole of Charter, mind you--will come to appreciate it as the epitome of Charterian uniqueness by their senior year.
I know this isn't Saxon...but it's something in the same vein, in that it's sort of "out there," and some people will think they're too "cool" for it.
In this case, I will restrain myself, because as I said, this is a bit of a touchy issue for me. Not for my own personal sake, because quite honestly, I generally am not very much affected by what other people think of me. But when teachers ridicule Saxon--which I know some have--do they realize they are ridiculing me personally?
Again, my personal offense is not the issue, and for my part, is quickly forgotten; although I certainly would hope that those individuals did not intend to personally ridicule me, and would not be saying negative things about Saxon if they knew it was offensive to me. What I really care about, though, is that these statements ridicule the students who are now involved with Saxon; and all the students who have ever been involved--and have considered it a meaningful, important, and fun part of their high school experience to the point that they consider it essential to their experience. That is what upsets me; that people would ridicule something that important to many students...just because they don't "get" it.
So let me bluntly say: It is completely and utterly unprofessional for one teacher to ridicule another. Period.
Let me more bluntly say: A teacher has NO BUSINESS ridiculing students for their involvement in something they value; let alone something that is part of the school's tradition, history, and culture, whether they like it or not.
To put a specific and fine point on it: Even if a teacher doesn't agree or want to participate, if we go forward with this, that teacher simply needs to refrain from commenting as he or she refrains from participating; and go on teaching class as always.
Again, I don't mean to be rude... but these days, when we have all talked about the challenges of maintaining Charterianism in a bigger and more "normal" school...I am really perturbed by the idea of a teacher ridiculing something so blatantly Charterian. At the very least, if you don't "get" it, then just smile and nod. Or as our mothers used to tell us, if you can't say something nice....
As for students ridiculing it-- yeah, it will happen. But here's the thing. The best way to deal with student ridicule is...not to care. One of the greatest reasons not to care about what people who ridicule you think is because they lose their primary reason for ridiculing you--your reaction. Which is why, until this posting, I have largely remained silent on the issue of people ridiculing Saxon. But I won't go back to that issue.
Obviously, there are lines we can't allow it to cross. But the kids who would ridicule our House system are the same kids who ridicule Saxon; who think ASB events are lame; who are too "cool" to be Charterian...who think kids who try to get good grades are just "nerds." These kids only think they are cool (true cool); while they are really just "cool" (artificial cool). The cool (no quotes) kids are the ones who are comfortable being themselves, no matter who that may be. I could name some "cool" and some cool kids, but so could all of you, so I won't belabor it.
Anyway, with these "cool" kids, it will be as it always has been. We will win some of them over by holding our ground and not being afraid to be Charter--some of them sooner, and some of them later. Some may not come around.
But if the trial run is successful, and if we expand it eventually to the whole school, all those naysayers will be in Houses.
And remember, the original reason I put forth this proposal (though it was not originally my idea) was to encourage student buy-in early as possible, as a way of promoting creativity in our school, as an answer to the challenge of the flattening world. So getting those naysayers into Houses, to me, is ideal.
Till then, or till they come around, let them be the naysaying minority who think they are "cool" by refusing to join in the fun and not wanting anyone to be himself or herself.
Again, I apologize if I was too strident or came off as rude, which was not my intent. As most of you know, Charterian culture is of utmost importance to me; and I take very seriously any attempt to suppress it or rewrite it in the "cool and normal" image.
As for Dick's questions: first, what will it add?
Again, the ultimate intent of the proposal was as a suggestion to promote student buy-in to Charter and what we're about. If students have that much more reason to be at school and to try in their classes and to behave in right ways...I think what it could add speaks for itself. Are there potential problems? Of course; but I don't see that any of them would distract from other initiatives (such as what, by the way?). On the contrary, I think that with the potential of increased student buy-in and involvement, any other initiatives could very well benefit from this system.
As for the Harry Potter issue--to me, it's a non-issue. The Potter novels base their House system on non-fictional British schools. Prestigious American universities such as Yale and Harvard have similar systems. What we are proposing is not a new thing. It's far older than Harry Potter; it's just that Harry Potter contains the most widely known cultural reference to the kind of system we're talking about.
Harry Potter doesn't really have to have anything to do with it. Even though many kids and parents will automatically make that association, we're talking about a much older tradition here.
There is no need to make any reference to The Books That Must Not Be Named.
Well, I think I've finally made this post long enough, so I'll stop for now.
I'll respond more specifically to Mel and Jackie and Jonathan again in a later post.
My fingers hurt.
I agree with Noah's response to the question of what a House Sytem would add to the school. The very idea of it brings our school to a sort of university-level mindset. We have to keep in mind that our House System wouldn't be focused on riding brooms around and chasing snitches - it wouldn;t be some goofy, stupidly-run club of people... it's an actual system we'd utilize to promote academic competition and good behavior.
The same question applies to other aspects of the school: what do football and cheerleading add to the school? I know this is a touchy subject to get into, and I don't mean to put down students and volunteers involved with the athletics department. My point is that the football and cheerleading teams don't promote academics past a C average, but they exist because they have value that Coach believes fits in with the Charter spirit.
The athletic teams promote physical fitness and teamwork. Our House System would promote academics and proper behavior (which will probably get you further in life, which, in my opinion, is just plain honesty).
As for how we sort students... I think it's pretty much agreed that this whole thing will have to start with a control group of students - not the entire student body. For the time being, we could just have the students interested sign up for the endeavor, and sort them non-randomly based partly on where they want to be, and partly on where we need them to be. It's like when students sign up for senior exhibitions... only on a bigger scale.
After we get the system established, maybe several years from now, the interest will grow, and the sorting can be rearranged. Until then, we might not need to worry about it.
What are the positions of the other interested teachers? Are we going to go ahead with this and do it? And if so, how do we get the 'club rules and regulations" figured out before the start of the school year?
JP,
I don't think Coach is blind to the problems football and cheerleading can cause. He played football and coached it for many years; and the way he coached it directly addressed some of those problems. He also dealt with some of those problems this last school year. In fact, more than once, in the past, he said we would never have a football team, which I am certain is due to some of those very problems of which he is keenly aware; so I don't necessarily think it's Coach that's driving it. Everybody assumes so because of his background; and he is always very diplomatic about things, and people may sometimes take that as his approval of something when it's really just him holding his tongue and letting the buck stop with him.
But I think your question about applying these standards to other things is valid.
For example, there has been a lot of concern about the House system being divisive. (I think it will be the opposite, personally.) Why not ask if football and cheerleading are divisive?
Because to my mind...our campus has become far more polarized these last two years than it has ever been in the past. At least, in the student body. Among the teachers, at least all the ones I've talked to about it...we're fairly unified that football and cheerleading have caused trouble; but no one wants to say anything because they all think the whole thing is driven by Coach. Of course Coach loves football--how could he not? But as I said, he is very aware of the problems associated with it; he is simply going to remain diplomatic about it, and frankly...I think he wants to stay out of it for the very reason that everyone expects him to be involved.
But anyway, if we can make our Houses more visible than football and cheerleading, then maybe we can stem the tide.
As far as I'm concerned, the tide will exist and continue to encroach as long as its source exists...but that's a separate issue.
You guys should write posts instead of such long comments - it would be easier to keep it organized. :) Just send me your email address and I'll set it up.
Responding to Jackie, I would definitely agree that there will be some unpredictable elements. I'm not sure if you saw the post below this one, but this organization would not involve all students at the beginning, only those joining on a voluntary basis, which would help us to test the waters. I think that if this thing morphed into something uncontrollable it would either be quickly addressed or it would get shut down. Thus far all of the clubs that have started seem to have remained under control, due to the faculty sponsor. The house system could be a little different, due to a potentially higher participation rate, but hopefully this would be offset by a higher participation among staff.
I think Noah has done a good job explaining the reasoning behind starting the system, I'll add my quick thoughts. In my mind, it is a potentially more effective way of spreading, for lack of a better term, the Charterian spirit. It could potentially catch students earlier.
As for my motivation, it is probably for more selfish reasons than other teachers. I believe it could potentially have some trickle-down academic and discipline benefits, but mainly it just seems like fun. I think that our culture has changed over the years, both because of the students and because of us. This seems like an effective way of reversing my apathy and doing something positive that is more wide-reaching than the occasional culture-promoting events with the students in my classes.
Noah, I'm glad to see that your fingers have recovered. JT, I promise to keep this response somewhat short.
We all agree that high ideals are necessary for the House System, or else it will be misunderstood from the start. Standards for ethics, courtesy and academic achievement still allow for creativity and fun, which is a valuable life lesson to model for the students and to let them experience for themselves.
Mixed demographics within each house will foster mentoring, as we know, but if done right, could also ameliorate the jock vs. non-jock friction. We should not hesitate to create, at least initially, balanced houses based on certain criteria that we think is important. Given all the heated discussion about football players, cheerleaders, "nerds," etc., we should give it some serious thought. I'm referring to JT's comment about houses that compete fairly equally - it makes the process more interesting, regardless of the type of competition - academic, Spirit Week, **first period attendance**!
Eventually, the House System will succeed or fail on the issue of loyalty, which all of you have termed "buy-in." If the students give House rules and relationships primary consideration, Charter values will be preserved, and people can deal with each other's athletic/academic preferences in stride.
We must not be afraid to set very high standards for this House System. Students WANT this kind of challenge. They rarely talk about it, but I have read dozens of essays in which students reveal their search for and contemplation of serious issues in life. All of you have read similar papers, or talked with students about "life," so you know what I mean. High expectations, camaraderie and loyalty are time-honored characteristics of successful groups.
One last comment: JT, I agree with your point about reviving teacher motivation. I'm learning that sometimes it's tough being in HS for more than four years! People had such a good time preparing for Grad Nite this year because they had a chance to interact in new ways. I think the House System will give teachers a much needed outlet for creativity. And to spread the fun, I propose that we consider Asst. Heads, or even Emeritus positions for teachers who want to help as needed.
My point was not to put down football or athletics at the school. My point is to merely say that if the administration eliminates the possibility of having the house system due to potential negative effects, then in all fairness, other aspects of the school require the same scrutiny... Again, the football and cheerleading, and basketball teams etc do have value in the school or else they wouldn't exist.
Now - my final question still stands - are we going to do this, and what steps are we now going to take to get it off the ground? Do we need to get together?
I think an official "yes we're going to do this" needs to be agreed upon regardless of the fact that we haven't gotten the ground rules and sorting process down yet. We are kind of beating around the bush a bit (I think I must be in a negative mood today!) if we don't reach a consensus that we will definitely be trying to get it off the ground next year.
Jackie - I didn't mean to cut you short - feel free to write as much as you like!
I agree with everything you said. Do you have some specific suggestions for what the high standards that we set should be?
Also, regarding your final comment - we definitely need as many faculty members to participate as possible. I hope no one gets the impression that the heads of houses have already been determined or that it's only a few people invited to participate. All are welcome and I hope that we can have multiple teachers assigned to each house. I would actually prefer to not be in charge of one if possible.
Responding to JP's last post-
I don't think there's anyone in the administration that is necessarily opposed to the idea. I simply posted some of my thoughts in the hope that we could anticipate and eliminate potential problems.
As far as I'm concerned, we will be starting this next year, but on an unofficial basis - as a club that is open to everyone. This removes responsibility from the administration and should hopefully give us the freedom to work out the kinks and prove the idea's merit.
We may need to meet at some point but I think right now an online discussion should suffice. I would like people to comment on my ideas (the post below this one) and add their own. I think that we will have enough teachers on board to start, but we need to come to an agreement on the structure and goals.
My hope is that everyone can share their opinions for how they envision the house system, and we will move forward, with a few compromises, I'm sure. It doesn't have to be perfect when it starts, but it should be well thought out and we should be prepared.
Okay - so then we are for sure going to go ahead with the club-version, or house system 1.0 next year =)
Maybe a new main post needs to be started for the potential rules and bylaws discussion. We can use this thread as a reference when the inevitable "what ifs" are being thrown around =P
I'm excited that it looks like the house system will start next year, at least as a club. Since reading Dick's questions, I've been thinking about the house system for a while and I see a lot of benefits. Some that you have all already mentioned.
First of all I do think that it will rekindle some of the Chartarian spirit. As a newbie, I can't compare the spirit levels this year to ones in the past. However, a lot of my juniors this year expressed their concern about the younger classes and their lack of spirit for all things Charter. I do feel there is a divide between the upperclassmen and lowerclassmen. I don't know if this is a new thing, or the nature of high schools, but I do think that it would be nice to foster more inter-class mingling.
Lori had mentioned at a meeting that she thought it would be nice to have senior-freshman mentors. That the seniors could explain the Charter customs and instill some spirit into the freshman, and that the freshman could have someone to turn to for advice and someone to look up to. The houses would allow for some of that mentoring to happen naturally.
I also think that the houses could really help the youngerclassmen take part in Charter events like the Olympics and Saxon day. I don't know how many freshman participated in Saxon day, but it looked like it was hard to convince them to take part in the Olympics and represent their class.
Talking about the relationship between the houses and Harry. I do want to reiterate that the houses are very collegiate. UCSD, right in our own backyard uses a house system. As a proud Muiron (I was part of John Muir College) I did feel a special attachment to my college and by extension the school. Whenever I run into an alumni, one of my first questions is "Which college were you in?" Its a nice jumping off point. It's something that we all can relate to. And it allowed me to not feel so lost in such a large school. It was nice to know that you belonged somewhere where as Mel said "everybody knows your name."
Some other cool things about the house could be that students could bounce ideas off of each other. Perhaps the seniors in the houses could practice their Senior Exhibitions with their house members. To get practice, to show the underclassmen what is expected of them, to tie other Charter experiences with the house system.
Or maybe have inter-house Academic League competitions. Or Mathlete contests. The ties between our subjects and the houses has a lot of potential. And if we have many different contests, then students with different abilities can feel like they are contributing to their house. We could give an award for the most community service hours or the student that performs in a play or concert. I think that the houses can reward students for their unique talents and skills that they bring to the school.
Hi Erin,
Thanks for posting your thoughts. You made some great points, and we definitely are going to need input from as many people as possible for this to turn out the way we hope it will. I'm glad to know you're on board, and you're all for the Charterian way, despite being, as you say, a newbie. :)
I will definitely incorporate some of your ideas about possible House functions and events into the proposal I'm drafting (I love the Mathlete idea), and summarizing in segments on the blog here.
To address your question--it has always been the case that the upperclassmen have more Charterian spirit than the lowerclassmen, however it is also true that the last few years have seen more of a divide; partly because of increased numbers of students who don't get it and don't want to; and partly because, in response, Charterianism has almost become a movement in itself, whereas in the past it was just the way things were.
And thanks for reiterating that the House system is not just, nor was it first, a Potter thing.
I think it's silly that we have to worry about that; but at least we'll have multiple examples (as well as teachers on staff) who can attest that they were part of college House-type systems before Harry ever waved a wand.
-Noah
(Revelle!)
Post a Comment