Lexington (MA) High School Senate

LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT-FACULTY SENATE

2002-2003

Moderator Muhammad Dhanani, Assistant Moderator Lawrence J. David, Secretary J.T. Scarry

<http://lhs.lexingtonma.org/senate>

Agenda

For the September 26, 2002 meeting

1. Announcements

2. Committee Reports

3. Informal Discussion of Graduation Requirements

4. Informal Discussion of Override Issue

Minutes

From the September 19, 2002 meeting:

Quorum reached at 7:48 AM.

[Minutes Approved, 7:48]

Scarry: I would like to amend the agenda to add an Address from the Principal in between item one, Announcements, and item two, Informal Discussion of Graduation Requirements.

[Amended Agenda Approved, 7:49]

Announcements

Girondel: The necessary forms for the freshman elections are ready, and announcements to that effect will be made in homeroom. There will be a meeting of the Elections Committee on the 26th in room 520.

Vachani: The Social Action committee met at 7:15 in room 825.

Address by the Principal

Principal Seasholes: As we discussed last year, I think it is appropriate for the school community to look at credit requirements. It is unclear to me where the final decision will rest, but it is probably the School Committee's decision. I have stated that I have frequent questions about the credit requirements, and the whole school community should discuss these requirements. Parents tend to agree with me, although the superintendent had an email from someone who thought I was lowering academic standards at LHS. It is appropriate for everyone to be involved in this. I hope that the Senate will have a good discussion and reach out to other students. Last year I said that I felt the Senate did not reach out enough. The discussion I see is a clash of extremes. On the one hand, some people feel that kids should take so many courses that they are left without options. On the other side, in school slike Sudbury Valley, there are the people who say everything should be left up to the individual student. I do not think that there would be support for that latter extreme in Lexington, yet we must look at what requirements we have and what requirements other schools have. A sheet has been put together showing what other schools' requirements are, and they all have fewer requirements. That is a view I personally would have, but I am not here to impose my own view; with my own children, I do not compel them to do things, like shoveling the walk; instead, I leave them free to come and help me. There is a difference of philosophy here. [The point of requirements is that] a group of kids who would not otherwise choose a course will do so, and it is a good rationale. It was a mistake for Lexington to throw out hands-on courses, such as Home economics and Shop, cutting off kids who are not academically oriented who might go to Minuteman. There are students who would like to take such hands-courses. Academically-oriented students might also profit from doing something hands on. After renovations there will not be a woodshop here but that is a pity. You have a voice and you should be speaking with the whole school. It is very important to have a student voice in this. I would like to get something finished up by mid-November, as we would need to have any ideas written up by then if we are to make an effect on next year's requirements. This topic is a valuable thing to think about. What is an education? What does it mean? Are there areas with which we are not dealing? I'd like us to deal with this issues.

Phillips: If you reduce requirements, will the hour requirements remain the same?

Seasholes: That is the consensus.

Phillips: We should avoid having more students in study halls and free blocks.

Seasholes: I understand that argument, although I think that students don't have enough free time. I would like to have a homeroom every day, and I would like to have ten minutes of passing time, but due to 990 requirements that is not possible. There has been a misunderstanding on the new lateness policy; we want kids to get to class regularly, punctually, and prepared. There should be some leeway; some kids just have a hard time getting to their classes. Find out where kids are coming from; get a sense of that. Obviously if they are coming from next door it is not okay for them to be late, but some kids feel that they are rushing, and that is not the purpose of the policy.

Enders: By simply introducing this policy teachers have the excuse to be very harsh. They should be giving us leeway on such a big campus, and this policy has not helped. It would be extremely tough if all the teachers did that.

Seasholes: There will be some differentiation in the implementation of the policy; its goal is not to add pressure, but to prevent kids from coming in very late.

Informal Discussion of Graduation Requirements

Girondel: Changing the graduation requirements was a harsh way to force students to take courses in which they have no interest and keep students from taking courses they enjoy or disciplines outside the four emphasized subjects. These requirements came in only four years ago. The math and science requirements are problematical to me. If you have a program people want they will take it whether they are forced or not. science is particularly onerous because they only offer six-credit courses but force students to go one credit above the credits obtained from three six-credit classes [thus requiring the fourth year of science]. If the science department offered more choice, it would be better, but some kids are not ready for certain science classes. My children and I simply did not like the lack of choice and requirement of the science classes. My daughter went to everyone in the school, including the head of the science department, to try to get out of Physics so she could take different courses that interested her, but she was unable to do so. I suggest that we free up ten credits, allowing students to take ten credits of their interest per year, by taking out the fourth year of mathematics and science.

David: I would like to second those comments and attack the variety of courses in the science department. Life science could be put back. However, it is not fair to put the science department on the spot.

Phillips: I would like to see the requirements; what is the arts requirement?

Dhanani: The art requirement is eight credits.

Kaffrissen: A couple of years ago, members of the social studies department decided to go to an all-elective senior year course selection. We just teach courses that we like. We were in a faculty workshop and many ideas came up, and the science people said that they would like to teach a variety of courses, but physics teachers see the ground being cut out from under them; changing the senior year course selection within the science department becomes an employment issue. The Social studies department thinks that all departments should go to a senior electives system. Rather than saying "take fewer courses", just allow each department to develop a plethora of electives for seniors: survival science the hands-on class that went out into nature - there are plenty of things that could be fun for kids.

Shield: I like Kaffrissen's idea a lot, but I have a comment to points brought up a few speakers ago. The logical flow of science goes from physics to chemistry to biology, and it should be a requirement to have a foundation for science. If people are not required to take science classes they will not realize that they like it.

Williams: The Senators cannot make a decision without our requirements. Ours are draconian. There is a three page summary of faculty opinion, so we should see the kind of thought that went into that. The math department requires four years of math, while the state requires only three; our standards are more stringent than the state's. Think about the kids who are struggling with these classes, as the intelligent ones will probably take them anyway.

Harper: I work daily with the population for whom most classes are viewed as an imposition. The graduation requirements are more of an imposition on people who would rather not deal with them. The skills taught because of these requirements are important skills to learn, but are not seen as a draconian imposition by others. Why did the requirements change?

Bogart: I think it had to do with the budget. There was an idea that by raising requirements, we were saving programs; it was a reaction to budget cuts. I agree with Senator Girondel, but we are opening up a can of worms and there are more things to discuss. The situation here is ludicrous. Dr. Fiveash's mythology class cannot be applied for credits in any subject but foreign language, but truly it serves as a social studies, English, and language course at once. It is a cross-curricular course just in the nature of the subject, and I do not understand its categorization. If a kid could get social studies credit for this type of class, it would free up credits to let them take other courses.

Richardson: The requirements at my own high school, which have not changed since 1982, totaled to 72 hours of courses, a maximum possible of 104 hours, and two years of Physical Education; no student was ever refused admission to the University of Maine. Not many kids there went to college, but those that did went to good schools.

Phillips: Senator Bogart discussed the motives for graduation requirements, such as a desire to save programs, and he is right. This increase in requirements is also a response to a widespread trend, which is that a school demands more of students, and therefore goes and says "We are demanding X, Y and Z." A school that is rigorous and demanding will be rigorous and demanding in the classroom, with rigorous and demanding teachers. It is more important to have three years of good learning than four years of shuffling along. As a school we are too inclined to, in some cases, give a student a gentleperson's C rather than make sure that the students learn. This is a phenomenon we need to fix. A very bad school that requires students to take twice as many courses is still a bad school. I would like to hear talk from student Senators addressing the Arts requirement.

Kaffrissen: There was a time not long ago when only 88 hours were required, only 22 hours a year. By senior year there were ten free blocks a year per student, and the school was overcome by roaming hordes. The consensus was that kids should be in the classroom more. When the requirements were upped to 104 hours, it became a feeding frenzy, with each department wanting a piece of the pie. As the question arose to which classes would take up those hours every department wanted an ever-larger piece of the pie. It came down to a series of political decisions about protecting personnel.

Girondel: It also used to be that with French Literature and Latin III/IV one could get credit for English, but that was taken away in the turf wars.

Ivria Fried: I agree that if we gave more choice to students they would take course in which they had an interest. Seniors should be allowed to take any course. Some might take math, and borderline students might want to do something else.

[Senate adjourns with the bell]

List of Senators Absent from the September 12, 2002 Meeting