Lexington (MA) High School Senate

LEXINGTON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT-FACULTY SENATE

2000-2001

Moderator Marcus Catsouphes, Assistant Moderator Michael Fiveash, Secretary Tingting Peng

Agenda

For the March 29, 2001 meeting:

1. Announcements

2. Committee Reports

3. CRUD Discussion

4. Course Recommendation Bill

5. New Business

Minutes

From the March 22, 2001 meeting:

Minutes approved.

Agenda approved.

Announcements

Ris: Climate and I are working on CRUD. I'd like to change it to Friday during F block. Also, students will be given cones instead of cups of ice cream.

Committee Reports

Kieft: Policy met and discussed Senator Collins' proposal and the Honor Code.

Ris: Climate met and discussed CRUD.

Kessler: Oversight met and discussed possible alternate wordings for the Honor Code Agreement.

S. Girondel: Social Action met and talked about community service.

Course Recommendation Bill

Kieft: At the bottom of the backside, it describes what we've done in editing the bill. The major changes are italicized. We'd like to limit discussion to just these sections, and after we agree to set these changes, we can move on to a larger discussion.

David: Friendly Amendment: Section D &endash; "a one and only one…" to strike "a". [Accepted]

Kieft: Move to limit discussion to italicized sections.

Kafrissen: Does that mean we still have an opportunity to discuss the bill as a whole?

Kieft: Yes.

[Senator Kieft's motion passes]

Shavit: The word "interests" in Section A1 isn't in agreement with the test of Section A. I don't see how a teacher can accurately assess a student's interest without talking to him.

Dhanani: Teachers can usually gauge a student's performance.

Shavit: In the sciences, an interest in biology doesn't mean an interest in chemistry…

Catsouphes: I think we can amend the first part of A when we move into general discussion.

Kieft: We wanted to level the playing field by making each department set guidelines. In terms of teacher's assessing abilities, I agree that we can amend Section A later on.

Kafrissen: Question to Kieft &endash; When you met with Curriculum Cabinet, what kind of guidelines did you come up with?

Catsouphes: The meeting sort of generated concern that teachers don't have set criteria in recommending students.

Kafrissen: As a teacher, I would prefer if departments set criteria. I think if there were some criteria, a lot of teachers would feel more comfortable.

Saldana: I was thinking that students' capabilities, interests, and personal efforts should be put into the criteria.

K. Girondel: I think from that meeting, department heads would set the criteria.

Catsouphes: I agree with Senator Saldana's intent, but I feel we should give teachers some latitude and allow them to use their discretion.

Shavit: Our discussion is very broad. I suggest we move on to the next section.

Halperin: Are things in the bill allowing leeway?

Moon: Ultimately, yes.

Kafrissen: It seems to me that despite this bill, there are still ways by which students can move up levels.

Section G

Nagiel: I think if a teacher sees early on in the year that a student is struggling, he should be allowed to move back down.

Burson: Move to strike Section G. It doesn't allow for students to make mistakes.

Kafrissen: I agree. Section G is almost like a punishment to the students, a deterrent for overrides.

Yasaitis: It seems G is out of place.

K. Girondel: I think it should be kept. It helps students to think carefully about their decisions. At Curriculum Cabinet, I didn't feel it was a punitive measure at all. Also, I think it's really problematic to have students switching up and down.

S. Girondel: Has this been a problem in the past? Does it happen often?

K. Girondel: It has been a problem.

Catsouphes: I did speak with Mr. Dulong. In his experience, about 80% of overrides are successful.

Shavit: No amount of thinking can guarantee certainty. I strongly feel that we should allow students to make mistakes.

Collins: Call to Question. [Motion passes]

[Senator Burson's motion passes]

Section I

Finnegan: The last line, it should be "wish", not "wished". [Accepted as Friendly Amendment]

Kafrissen: I think the Rationale explains why I added this section. What ends up happening is there is no priority for students who are recommended by teachers.

Bogart: I agree with Section I. We have to do recommendations through the computer and we can only recommend students who are on our computers, in our current classes.

Kessler: I think we need to draw a distinction between overrides and fixing your schedule.

Shavit: Is that how the computer is currently set up? Or is a technological barrier?

Bogart: I think it's both.

Yasaitis: Talk to someone in Guidance. See if it's possible to change that.

Skocay: How many limited enrollment courses are there?

Catsouphes: I can't give you an exact number, some art electives, some arts, drama, and music courses. There is a good number.

Kafrissen: Limited enrollment classes are often limited by staffing and budget. My understanding is that Department Heads know who all the overrides are.