Barb et al, I recall that during our discussion Erin suggested having 5 or so as our target number. Would we need to have as many as 8-10? That seems like the groups will be "diluted" due to the much smaller size of each (16 to 20 per house this coming yr.) What are folks' thoughts about the size we want them to be for this year?
I think 8 would be a good number (10 too many)....5 might be too small....we might have trouble managing such a large group on a day to day basis....we could always merge groups if it is too many....easier than splitting them up.
The point of having Houses in the first place is to facilitate student socialization. This can only happen in small numbers, such as the class size at Seacrest. With a projected enrollment of 200 in the near future, that would argue for 10 houses with 20/house. 20 students is a good size working group. When each "parent" divides up we each have 10 advisees, also a good number. This is a fundamental choice which from the outset will either doom the system or energize it. There are reasons we don't have classes of 30 to 40 students at Seacrest. The House program should follow the same thinking. Starting with 10 houses this year will mean that each house is established now, at the beginning of the program. The following year, any increase in enrollment will be placed into the existing 10 houses, rather than starting a brand new house. It is important that a House be taken seriously, its memebership is fixed, its traditions established as traditions. If we change these things every year and move people around there will be no identity, no history, no lasting meaning. That will undermine the system.
John, I certainly understand the logic of your proposal for 10 this year. However, our enrollment won't be at that 200 mark for this year....and we don't know how long it will be before we reach that number. If we are at 160 this year, let's say, do you think the idea of 16 per house is workable? I had 11 in advisory this year and there just wasn't enough of a sense of community with so few. What if we went with Paula's suggestion of 8 this year and see where this leads. That would provide +/-20 students per house to begin the year.
I think 5 is too little and poses other issues such as meeting space. I think we should start smaller and increase size as we grow as we grow as a community. Just a thought.
The only issue with growth is that eventually some kids will inevitably have to be shuffled around, meaning they're removed from their initial house to start a new expansion house. I wonder if that would prove to be difficult for some kids to have to switch in terms of loyalties to their initial house, etc. That would be my main concern with expanding as we need to.
Nick makes a strong point about expansion. It may be better to start with a bit more houses on a more expanded platform with fewer kids and then expand by simply adding students to a house and save switches for extreme situations. Just a thought. Once we build loyalties, we'd like to keep them, I would think.
I like 8 which would mean 10-12 in an advisory, 20-24 in a house. I agree with John but with integrated advisories as a part of the houses socialization is going to happen within both groups, one small one a little larger. Also, I think we should revisit Erin's thoughts about only 5 houses since it was the one issue she had with the program.
John,did speak with Erin after our last meeting. She understood John's strong stand for 10 houses after he explained it to her. Should we have 10 houses it would mean 16 students per house, 8 students per advisory. A small amount to keep up with advisory responsibilities and 16 kids to keep it active and alive. 16 kids would provide 4 kids from each grade level. As "parents" we can manage 2 different grade levels each. Sense of community can be built with a sense of purpose. If each house has a agenda to keep them busy then they would have to communicate, plan and bond together thinking of ideas and events.
I think the original idea of 10 is the right one. The bonds formed in smaller groups tend to be more meaningful, and the advisory role we provide will be more effective.
Barb et al,
ReplyDeleteI recall that during our discussion Erin suggested having 5 or so as our target number. Would we need to have as many as 8-10? That seems like the groups will be "diluted" due to the much smaller size of each (16 to 20 per house this coming yr.) What are folks' thoughts about the size we want them to be for this year?
I think 8 would be a good number (10 too many)....5 might be too small....we might have trouble managing such a large group on a day to day basis....we could always merge groups if it is too many....easier than splitting them up.
ReplyDeleteThe point of having Houses in the first place is to facilitate student socialization. This can only happen in small numbers, such as the class size at Seacrest. With a projected enrollment of 200 in the near future, that would argue for 10 houses with 20/house. 20 students is a good size working group. When each "parent" divides up we each have 10 advisees, also a good number. This is a fundamental choice which from the outset will either doom the system or energize it. There are reasons we don't have classes of 30 to 40 students at Seacrest. The House program should follow the same thinking.
ReplyDeleteStarting with 10 houses this year will mean that each house is established now, at the beginning of the program. The following year, any increase in enrollment will be placed into the existing 10 houses, rather than starting a brand new house. It is important that a House be taken seriously, its memebership is fixed, its traditions established as traditions. If we change these things every year and move people around there will be no identity, no history, no lasting meaning. That will undermine the system.
John, I certainly understand the logic of your proposal for 10 this year. However, our enrollment won't be at that 200 mark for this year....and we don't know how long it will be before we reach that number. If we are at 160 this year, let's say, do you think the idea of 16 per house is workable? I had 11 in advisory this year and there just wasn't enough of a sense of community with so few. What if we went with Paula's suggestion of 8 this year and see where this leads. That would provide +/-20 students per house to begin the year.
ReplyDeleteI think 5 is too little and poses other issues such as meeting space. I think we should start smaller and increase size as we grow as we grow as a community. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteThe only issue with growth is that eventually some kids will inevitably have to be shuffled around, meaning they're removed from their initial house to start a new expansion house. I wonder if that would prove to be difficult for some kids to have to switch in terms of loyalties to their initial house, etc. That would be my main concern with expanding as we need to.
ReplyDeleteNick makes a strong point about expansion. It may be better to start with a bit more houses on a more expanded platform with fewer kids and then expand by simply adding students to a house and save switches for extreme situations. Just a thought. Once we build loyalties, we'd like to keep them, I would think.
ReplyDeleteI like 8 which would mean 10-12 in an advisory, 20-24 in a house. I agree with John but with integrated advisories as a part of the houses socialization is going to happen within both groups, one small one a little larger. Also, I think we should revisit Erin's thoughts about only 5 houses since it was the one issue she had with the program.
ReplyDeleteJohn,did speak with Erin after our last meeting. She understood John's strong stand for 10 houses after he explained it to her. Should we have 10 houses it would mean 16 students per house, 8 students per advisory. A small amount to keep up with advisory responsibilities and 16 kids to keep it active and alive. 16 kids would provide 4 kids from each grade level. As "parents" we can manage 2 different grade levels each. Sense of community can be built with a sense of purpose. If each house has a agenda to keep them busy then they would have to communicate, plan and bond together thinking of ideas and events.
ReplyDeleteI think the original idea of 10 is the right one. The bonds formed in smaller groups tend to be more meaningful, and the advisory role we provide will be more effective.
ReplyDeleteI think that 8 is good working number. If we need to add a house after the school grows we would have that option.
ReplyDelete