There are five of us involved here and only four slots for heads of houses. I'm sure each of us would volunteer to step aside from the "head of house" role but, seriously, only one of us can.
Let's assume our ideas get the approbation necessary. Now what? We need house heads. We need house names. We need house traits. But, first, we need house heads.
Noah mentioned this need earlier and we've all felt it. Let's flesh this out.
10 comments:
Mel presents a logical progression for establishing the creative aspects of the House system. Ideas and opinions have been offered and discussed, but they really cannot be assigned and assimilated until the Heads of Houses are in place.
However, I still have reservations about the timing. We need a good number of our colleagues to support the Houses, or the system will falter from the start. I do not believe it is wise to present this project as a fait accompli to the rest of the staff. It gives the impression of "Here's our club. Do you want to join?"
I do not know Shawn's plans for notifying the rest of the staff about this, but it's a fact of human nature that people are more willing to support a cause that they can contribute to in some way. Soliciting ideas and asking for volunteers (for ALL of the staff positions) is one way to invite everyone to participate in ways they feel comfortable to do so - very much like the teacher tribute video for Grad Nite (which was absolutely wonderful in its final form but also in the comaraderie it fostered in the process).
Yes, it's very likely that our fellow teachers will not have much to add in the way of procedures, but that's not really the point. We are trying to create a meaningful social program that will endure. If we have to delay a few weeks, or even three, in order to solicit staff responses and volunteers in the interests of fairness and respect for our colleagues, it will not matter in the long run, or even in the short run for that matter.
I propose that we present the information that was discussed and approved at the meeting (and by Coach), and then ask for volunteers to fill positions. If anyone is interested enough to wade through the small print to ask questions or offer suggestions on procedures, we should listen. Establish a timetable of a week or so for people to ruminate and respond, then close it out, review the results, and go from there. The Heads will work with their (hopefully) two staff assistants to refine the traits, titles, etc. for their respective Houses. Then we present the information to the students and invite them to join.
As for the Head of House position, I can be very happy as a Regent; in fact, I would prefer it. As of now, I'm up for adoption, or auction (dark chocolate preferred).
The idea to proceed from Heads of House was indeed mine; but Jackie raises some very valid points.
Perhaps there is a sort of compromise position....
Let's decide, if not who are the Heads of House, how and if we will split ourselves into the Houses. I think at least, given the time and effort we've put into it, that we have earned at least some right to have some say about things like the names of our Houses, etc., so long as we all agree on the basic principles of doing so.
That way, we can at least have a rudimentary start to each House, in terms of a name, theme, and some basic, "big idea" sorts of things.
While I completely agree with Jackie that we need to give people something to be involved with in order to be behind it, I do think there needs to be something to stand behind. A "vision," so to speak; and I do think each House should begin developing its vision.
So maybe, while we don't want to go so far as to say we are the de facto Heads of Houses, we can at least agree that we're stepping up as faculty members of our respective Houses to get the ball rolling.
Given Jonathan's very full schedule, I don't know whether he'll want to be a Head of a House either; but I won't speak for him either way.
I'm assuming, Mel, from your post, that you are willing to step up as a House faculty member to start developing your House.
I assume, from his posts and conversations I've had with him, that JP is willing to step up.
I am willing to do so, also.
Jackie, if we are agreed at least that we should start developing the Houses independently, whether or not we become the faculty officers, would you be willing to do so for your own House, if Jonathan or JP is not able?
I also don't know what Shawn's plan is for discussing this with the rest of the staff, but I do think, at least, that having a bit more solidification of each House is a good thing, so we can make a more concrete presentation to our colleagues.
What do we think?
I was pondering, Noah, a very similar reply to Jackie's well-pondered post. Her exuberant caution and her witty, wise contributions are invaluable to say the very least.
I wholeheartedly agree that to tell a group of well-nigh autonomous adults that this is what we're going to do and you can, as my mom used to say, and I never quite understood, "you can like it or lump it." (I don't really know how one would go about "lumping" anything.) So, we need to make sure we present this whole thing the way we see it--as a proposal which we have put some serious time and effort into, but, above all a proposal which has some room for input and is open and welcoming.
I think we need to do some sort of ratificaton here.
1. Do we all sign off on the mission statement? What revisions do we propose? I, for one, find it redundant, but that's because I wrote it and then incorporated Jackie's traits--and there was, oddly enough, some overlap--which I didn't feel like cutting at that point.
2. I think we have all signed off on the concept of four houses. Can we, once we've signed off on the mission statement, divide up traits into four categories?
3. With that in place, might we, in an ad hoc and completely non-binding manner, start drawing up a framework around this? Faculty that come in at that point would be in the happy position filling in and shading.
4. With that, given our nature as a faculty, after discussing tweaks to the senior project, plans for further tweaks, congratulating Sonya, and marvelling at a certain faculty member's as yet unannounced surgical transformation, we might be called upon to present this to our staff on, say, Wednesday of "pre-season" week. We need to be able to do so--and do so in a way that creates a universal "yeah, that's not a bad idea" sort of feel.
Just some thoughts.
This appears to be another situation where we all agree in spirit, perhaps approaching from different perspectives.
Noah, the "vision," from what I can tell, is in those 58 pages of blog discussions. That's the framework. We happy few who have crafted the Houses so far can certainly do a little more to make them presentable, understandable and appealing. Once the Heads take charge they can work with their staff members to hang the curtains and seed the yard.
Mel, I agree with 1 through 4 of your proposals, although we may need to approach the staff more than once about this. They will need time to think about it on their own, and perhaps read through this blog. (If you envision Wiley Coyote after the Acme Rocket-Rollerskate misfires, or Tom after Jerry is through with him, you'll have the answer to the "lumping it" question.)
I'm eager to participate during this next stage even though I'm a bit restricted by my physical location until the last week of July. If you plan meetings, can you delay at least one until then?
Mel, I think we do all sign off on the mission statement. Also, I would propose that the four Houses have the traits split as Jackie had them aligned, whether we use all those names or not; and that is what I think we should start building up our Houses around. Specifically (and I'm just borrowing from Jackie's post here; so let's not quibble about the names at the moment--it is the trait alignments I'm referring to):
EXCELSIOR Audacia, humanitas. (Courage, kindness)
CONOR Iudicium, humilitas.
(Rectitude, humility)
HALCYON Fidelitas, equitas.
(Loyalty, fairness)
SIDERIS Instancia, varietas.
(Perseverance, creativity)
Jackie, I was referring to the "vision" for each separate House, because I think we all have a general idea and general agreement on the whole shebang; but I think it's now time for the Houses to begin developing themselves, even if only in rudimentary ways.
Although for alphabetic reasons I feel drawn to the House that starts with E, by the trait alignments as proposed by Jackie, I feel most strongly drawn toward the S House, with its perseverance and creativity; two traits I feel are, in many ways, basic components of my personality.
That preference being stated, I'm willing to be a part of any of the Houses. But perhaps we should each rank our preferences, just to see where we align, so we can stake out our respective territories.
My ranking of personal preference, again based on the above alignments, is:
S
H
E
C
Wouldn't it be interesting if we all naturally chose different Houses?
But I suppose...let's see where we stand, and go from there.
Noah,
I like this.
Here are my rankings.
C
E
H
S
C E and H are all about equal, but if I'm making choices, this would be the order. As for S, I have slightly less natural inkling in that direction.
It must be the mellow mountain air affecting my brain, but I have no preference for any particular House. I will be quite content with any of them, but, Noah, I like your system to let us work it out.
Anyone been in contact with the new dad or the pilgrim?
JP returns Monday, and Jonathan may be at the book discussion group on Monday, in which case I'll see him there; so hopefully we'll know where they stand some time next week.
SHEC for me lol - Noah and I are both creative AND we lack humility haha.
PS - I LOVE Australia....
From talking to Jonathan, his preferential ranking is HCES.
So we have:
Mel--CEHS
Jonathan--HCES
JP--SHEC
Noah--SHEC
Jackie has stated that she has no real preference; but that she would also prefer to be a Regent and not to Head a House.
I guess we can talk about it all at the meeting tomorrow, though. Just thought I'd put this up, for the record.
Post a Comment