JP, Mel and I met with Shawn on Thursday to discuss the House System. (With the arrival of the brand new Takagi last week, Jonathan was unable to attend.)
We discussed the basic idea in general terms; and then Shawn had some specific questions and concerns. His concerns were some of the same concerns we have had in discussing all of this; and as an administrator, he just wanted to make sure those issues were addressed. We discussed them and addressed the issues that arose; the discussion was positive and productive.
Among the items discussed were: the overall purpose of the House System; the potential benefits, academic and social, of the House System; the general structure of the Houses; the kinds of programs and activities the Houses would run; and the perpetual issue of the House names.
There was a general consensus about using E, C, H, S names, with the mild protest of Mel who dislikes acronyms, but likes the rationale for using such names; and some discussion about which E, C, H, S names to use. The names and themes Jackie proposed were discussed as possibilities. Everyone liked the idea of the themes she had developed, but different people had different feelings about some of the names. (I think we'll be engaging in friendly debate over the issue of the names until the week we have to have them.)
SIDE NOTE: As a suggestion...perhaps we should determine who the four Heads of House are going to be, assign the core values to each of them, and let the Heads pick a name following certain guidelines, with the stipulation that the other Heads of House have to approve the names? I don't know if it matters that everybody like ALL the names so much as it matters that the teachers in the House like their own House name.
Mel volunteered to write a one-page executive summary for Shawn which he can present to Coach by means of explaining and getting final approval. (It would take me longer to write a one-page summary than to write a 20-page explanation, so I'm grateful to Mel for taking on this task.)
We also discussed a general plan for getting it started at the beginning of the year; that general plan being:
1. Advertise in the Charter Notes and around campus during the first week of school
2. Hold a meeting/assembly in the first two weeks for anyone interested to come for
information and to be given the basic rules.
3. Establish a deadline for signing up.
4. Sort students into Houses. (Jackie's method of random assignment from categories looks
like the front-runner.)
5. Hold a meeting/ceremony in which the results of the sorting are revealed.
6. Start up all the House activities!
If anyone who was at the meeting cares to add anything I missed, please feel free; or if anyone who wasn't at the meeting has any questions, go ahead and post them, and I'll answer them to the best of my ability.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Noah, Thanks for posting a summary that can be accessed from the American hinterlands. The results sound so rational after reams of suggestions and ideas over the past several weeks! Congrats to all of you for condensing the House project into a logical timetable.
Since I was not at the meeting, I have some questions:
1. How will we distribute the "basic rules" to the students? And, given the aforementioned reams of material we generated, how will we keep those rules "basic"?
2. Did you discuss what types of House activities we may want to attempt for the first semester?
3. How will the Heads be determined? One post suggested that Heads must volunteer. I know that only a few of us have engaged in the blog discussion this summer, but in the interest of complete fairness, perhaps Shawn should send an email or letter to all of the teachers and invite their attention to Mel's summary report (which will be posted on this blog spot, right?) and solicit volunteers for the various faculty positions ASAP. We should give the faculty an early warning about all of this anyway before they report for the inservice. It will give them time to read the information, think about it, and (hopefully) want to participate. We will save time explaining many of the details during the inservice and can start assigning all of those faculty volunteers.
In regard to the House names, I think that the most important isssue we must decide first is whether we want the four names to have a theme, such as all Latin words, or all Greek, or Star Trek ships. We have been moving more or less along these lines with our suggestions so far. If we decide that this type of uniformity does not matter, then it certainly broadens the field of possibilities, even though we are retaining the E,C,H,S acronym.
Yes, we can give the Heads "naming power," so to speak, but remember that those Heads rotate out after a year. I agree that we do not have to necessarily love all of the House titles, but no one should have to restrain their gag reflex, either. We have to be willing to offer honest, tactful responses on this very important point until it's resolved. Maybe we should shoot for an "I can live with that" type of compromise and move on.
We are reaching the point where time will force us to jump from discussion to action. I don't know about anyone else, but this is a little scary (social engineering should be scary, I think), but it's also exciting. GERONIMO!!!
Hi Jackie,
I'll do my best to answer your questions.
1. We would explain the general ideas and rules at the informational meeting/assembly; and that was all that was specifically addressed in the meeting. I would assume that the specific, detailed rules (taken, edited, and modified from the reams) would be left for the Houses to clarify for their members, or for reference when a situation arose in which the rules would need to be consulted. I think it's important to have all the rules in place; but most of the time, I don't think we'll need to use most of them.
2. We discussed House activities in a limited extent, and in a general way. Basically, we talked about starting the House competition, and about ideas for each House having activities on its own in ways that would be as affordable as possible, with as little stress as possible. I mentioned the idea I posted on the blog of a House movie night; and a few other things were mentioned. Nothing of massive consequence.
3. We did not discuss how the Heads will be determined. I do think, however, that Shawn would like to have a bigger discussion, elicit support from the staff, and determine the Heads after that. We haven't specifically discussed a process, though, for selecting the first Heads of House. (If I remember correctly, I suggested a process for doing so after it is up and running; but obviously that won't work as of yet.) I agree that it's probably a good idea to let more people choose to become involved before any decisions regarding Heads of House are made.
Regarding the names--yes, I agree that they all have to be named similarly. What I meant was that we establish the guidelines for what kinds of names each House should have; but let each House sort of settle on its own name, with the sort of "I can live with that" approval of the others. The reason for my suggestion is that, after all the discussion we've had about names, I doubt we're going to come up with four E, C, H, S names which generate universal enthusiasm on all four counts. Even if we bloggers found four names we all loved, other people might not be all that enthusiastic about them.
Personally, I'm still behind the Latin names.
Post a Comment