Gunn Scholar - Mark Choi '18

History of Student Leadership at The Gunnery A Study of Student Government and the Changing Power Dynamics Between Students and Faculty from 1946 to Today

BY GUNN SCHOLAR

Jinuk (Mark) Choi ’18 Vol. XIII

2018

Choi 2

History of Student Leadership at The Gunnery: A Study of Student Government and Changing Power Dynamics Between Students and Faculty from 1946 to Today

Mark Choi

Gunn Scholar Mrs. Paula Krimsky Dr. Jennifer Wojcik Ms. Misa Giroux

2017-2018 Gunn Scholar

Choi 3

Choi 4

2017-2018 Gunn Scholar

Jinuk (Mark) Choi

Choi 5

The Gunn Scholar Program The Gunn Scholar is a senior who has been selected, based on aptitude, interest, and character, to pursue original research into some aspect of the life and legacy of Frederick Gunn (1816-1881) and his wife Abigail, who founded the school in 1850.

By selecting The Gunn Scholar, the school community recognizes that this student has demonstrated, over the course of his academic years, those qualities of scholarship and character that the Gunns inscribed into the mission of the school. This program represents the concerted thought and planning of the history department. The Gunn Scholar will receive one credit in history. He will do original research in our archives and elsewhere on some aspect of the Gunn legacy.

This year’s Gunn Scholar, Jinuk (Mark) Choi, is looking into student government from the school’s inception to today’s leadership initiatives on the part of the senior prefects with a focus on the impact of the adult/student relationships on the development and success of student leadership and the development of citizenship in the student body.

In the equivalent of one full-time academic course—that is, two short periods and two long periods per week—The Gunn Scholar will: ● Learn the techniques of original research and transcription, working closely with the archivist and a member of the history faculty. ● Prepare an account of his research ○ As a published, written document ○ As a public presentation to The Gunnery community ○ As a public presentation at the Gunn Museum History Bites Lecture series To provide a preliminary scholarly context, The Gunn Scholar will read among other things, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire, Democracy and Education by John Dewey and The Gunnery 18501975, A Documentary History of Private Education in America This year-long project is divided into three, roughly equal, parts: research—writing—public presentation, each intended to occupy a full term.

Jennifer W. Wojcik, Ph.D. History Faculty and Program Advisor

Choi 6

Table of Contents Proposal and Prologue Chapter 1 | Defining Student Leadership Chapter 2 | Broad Historical Context Chapter 3 | Mr. Gunn’s Vision of the School and Its Influence on Early School Culture Chapter 4 | Establishment of the Prefect System Chapter 5 | Student Leadership and Civic Engagement Chapter 6 | The Expansion of the Prefect System Chapter 7 | Changing Student Leadership Under Mr. Eanes Chapter 8 | Establishment of the Prefect Advisor and Its Influence Chapter 9 | Student Governments at Holy Cross High School and Taft Chapter 10 | Provisions for the Future Prefect system Bibliography Appendix A | Annotated Bibliography Appendix B | Illustrations Appendix C | List of Prefects from 1946 to 2017

Choi 7

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank the following people and organizations for their help and support with my research process: Mrs. Krimsky and Dr. Wojcik, Program Advisors Mr. Ari Baum ‘03 Mr. Michael Eanes Mr. James Balben Mrs. Beth Lovallo at Taft Archive Current Prefects at The Gunnery (Kenyon Kay (Head), Christian Kummer, Anthony Cochrane, Kate Hayward, Sydney Fydenkevez, Sabryna Coppola, Cole Varney, Gabby Lescadre) Mr. Dick Lehr ‘72 Todd SantaMaria at Holy Cross High School Student Leaders (Daniel Flaherty '18, Solomina Darko '18, Vincent Graziano '19, Julia Petrokaitis '20, Allysa Caybyab '19, Genarro Genua '21 and Michael Dane '21) at Holy Cross High School

Choi 8

Choi 9

Proposal During an interview I conducted for the newspaper, Mr. Balben, History Teacher and current Prefect Advisor, noted that the Prefect position is an “ever-changing” and “evolving” student government. His definition immediately fascinated me as the position indeed has required different qualities from and given diverse roles to student leaders over the course of years. From that realization, I wanted to figure out how the Prefect system was arranged in 1949 when it first started, and how the changing student-faculty relationship in the 1970s influenced the power dynamics of the student government. These lingering questions compel me to investigate how rapid political, social, and educational changes from 1949 to 2016 have reshaped and evolved the Prefect position. To do so, I will look closely at the composition of the Prefect members, evolving roles and qualities required of the student leaders, and the relationship between Prefects and the rest of the school. Ultimately, I will compare the Prefect system at The Gunnery and other boarding schools’ student governments in the context of civics education and student government in the United States.

I strongly believe that this project will allow students and faculty members to better understand the historic meaning and legacy of the Prefect position, the highest leadership position that students can obtain at the school. Prefects today channel faculty and students’ different ideas while shaping the school culture through their hard work, commitment, and dedication to serve others. Researching the history of the Prefect position will allow the school to understand where the Prefects’ willingness and excitement to serve others are rooted in. I also think that the changing roles and responsibilities of the Prefect position will reflect some of the major changes that have occurred at the Gunnery, allowing the school to better understand the reason why the Gunnery emphasizes Civics and political engagement to its students today.

Lastly, I believe that I am well-prepared to be a part of the rigorous Gunn Scholar Program as I have strived to achieve academic excellence with perseverance, intellectual curiosity, and dedication. As a correspondent writer and co-editor of the Highlander Newspaper, I have produced 17 articles over the past two years, ranging from international politics, campus events, to editorials on the school culture. Furthermore, I have conducted more than 15 face-to-face interviews with students and faculty members, along with two school-wide surveys, which collected more than

Choi 10 300 responses in total. After watching Jessica Xu and Colin Riley’s Gunn Scholar Presentations, I have dreamed about contributing to the community by shedding light on an integral part of The Gunnery’s history through my participation in the Gunn Scholar Program. It would be one of my greatest honors to become a part of the Gunn Scholar Program, researching a significant part of the school’s history and sharing it with the community that I truly love and care about.

Mark Choi April 27, 2017

Choi 11

Prologue From its inception in the late 1890s, student government’s changing roles and responsibilities have reflected the evolving power dynamics between students and faculty members. While objectives of the student government have largely remained to bring order to the student body and educate civically engaged citizens, the evolving student-faculty relationship has gradually reshaped the way student councils are run and organized in the United States (Soderberg 2009). Therefore, analyzing the causes and changes of power dynamics between student and faculty would provide insightful and efficient solutions in addressing the deficiencies of today’s student governments.

To begin with, limited roles granted to the elected student leaders and many independent school headmasters’ reluctance to institute student government represent the early 1900s rigid, hierarchical relationship between the students and faculty. Prior studies have identified that, beginning in the late 1800s, the federal government gradually enforced compulsory education laws that mandated education until age 14, which exponentially increased the high school studentship nationwide (Soderberg 1997). As disciplinary issues arose and communication gaps between students and faculty widened, educators tried to resolve the issues by establishing a stricter power hierarchy between student and faculty (Soderberg 1997). This hierarchical power structure is best reflected in the early student council constitutions that stipulate student council’s purposes and elected leaders’ roles. Nationwide, the student council's purpose was to “represent” the faculty’s voice, in which student leaders were merely to report their peers’ disciplinary violations and issues to the faculty (Soderberg 1997). By no means did student leaders have an equal say with faculty in the decision-making process or disciplinary committees. Meanwhile, many prestigious secondary schools, including Deerfield, even feared that the sheer presence of student government would disrupt their “paternalistic family structure,” and, thus, they refused to allow the election of student leaders (Soderberg 1997).

This rigid, hierarchical relationship between students and faculty took a pivotal turn beginning in the late 1950s to the 1980s for a variety of reasons. Recognizing that civic and political engagement among the age group 18-30 declined despite the widespread presence of student governments, educators and researchers alike attempted to analyze the reasons behind this

Choi 12 ironic trend (McFarland and Starmanns 2009). In the process, educational researchers discovered that in a school environment that lacked student involvement with the faculty and representation in the decision-making process, students increasingly felt alienated, defined by “powerlessness, normlessness, meaninglessness, and self-estrangement,” which discouraged further civic engagement of students when they graduated (Calabrese 1986).

The research further illustrated that the positive effect on levels of discipline problems occurred only when a significant adult was present and returned to normal levels when adult interaction was removed in the hierarchical relationship between students and faculty (Calabrese 1986). Along with the major educational reforms in reshaping the power dynamics between students and faculty, spurred by Pedagogy of the Oppressed written by Paulo Freire in 1968, relationships between the students and faculty underwent drastic changes. That is, the idea that students and faculty members should work as co-workers to attain the higher goals of education led to a greater interaction between students and faculty in a collaborative setting with headmasters assigning a faculty member to the student leader group. The change is also reflected in student councils’ constitutions amended during the 1970s and 80s which expanded the student leaders’ jobs to “mediate concerns between faculty/administration and students,” “give voice in school affairs and decisions,” and “foster virtues of mutual respect and cooperation between students, and between students and faculty/administration” (McFarland and Starmanns 2009).

While the power dynamics between students and faculty has radically changed, it has led to an unexpected problem: student leaders, especially in small private schools, have increasingly felt disenfranchised in their community. For instance, one student council president noted, “I talk with the Deans and the Upper School Head about issues kids raise-or they talk to me. There is no reason why any other kids couldn’t do it” (Soderberg 11). In other words, the intimate connection between students and faculty, which used to be a prerogative of student leaders, now has become something anyone at the school can have access to, posing a question of how student leaders can feel engaged and enfranchised in the entirely new student-faculty relationship.

In conclusion, the changing power dynamics between students and faculty has been largely reflected through the evolving roles and responsibilities of the student governments from its inception in the 1890s. Student councils, which merely started as a tool of faculty to deliver their

Choi 13 orders, have evolved into a platform in which student leaders actively participate in the school administration’s decision-making process. However, it is important to note that the current relationship between student and faculty in small private schools has rather caused the student leaders to feel disengaged from their community. Therefore, further researches and studies need to be conducted in order to add new responsibilities and roles granted to the student government, adjusting to the ever-changing power dynamics between students and faculty.

Choi 14

Chapter 1 | Defining Student Leadership Educational institutions, ranging from secondary schools, colleges, to graduate schools, today emphasize fostering student leadership as one of their pivotal missions and visions. Student councils, judiciary committees, and a variety of clubs and organizations are all intended to promote student leadership, a rather abstract concept, that can be defined differently based upon the educational context of the institution. In fact, the meaning and definition of student leadership has changed and evolved throughout the existence of student government and councils in the United States. While the emphasis on student leadership seems intrinsic to the American education, it was not until the 19th century that educators became mindful of student leadership.

When the student government and council first appeared in the late 19th century, both public and private schools began to grow in size at an unprecedented rate, during which disciplinary issues were on the rise, and students and faculty felt largely disconnected.1 To make sure that the school administration could keep a growing number of students under control, headmasters and faculty began to nominate aldermen, or the student leaders, who enforced law and order among the underclassmen.2 In this context, the student leadership, contrary to today’s active connotation, referred to a passive role of meekly implementing the faculty’s orders, while maintaining the order of the school. As such, student leaders were by no means allowed to propose, discuss, and implement school policies, along with the faculty who perceived the “alderman” as mere students who had not developed the consciousness and critical thinking of adults. Naturally, the student leadership position was not something highly regarded by the leaders’ classmates during the late 19th and early 20th century, leaving the student leaders feeling largely unengaged.

The power dynamics between the students and faculty, however, took a pivotal turn with the introduction of Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, a book that sparked nationwide conversations about how to cultivate the next generation of leaders, thinkers, and writers. In his writing, Freire proclaimed, “To resolve the teacher-student contradiction, to exchange the role of depositor, prescriber, domesticator, for the role of student among students would be to undermine

1

Soderberg Melissa, “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools,” Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997, 8.

2 Ibid., 9.

Choi 15 the power of oppression and serve the cause of liberation.”3 Freire then discussed, “Dialogue with the people is radically necessary to every authentic revolution. This is what makes it a revolution, as distinguished from a military coup.”4 Emphasizing that teachers and students are partners in the learning, equally the subjects of revolutionary actions, radically shifted the way educators perceive education, and subsequently, student leadership.

Throughout the 1970s, student leaders were encouraged to take an active role in proposing and implementing school policies, along with the school administration and the faculty. This was the time when student constitutions, which stipulate numerous goals and powers granted to the student leaders, particularly in the public schools, were documented in educational institutions in the United States. As respected members of the community, student leaders felt increasingly fulfilled, oftentimes gaining greater self-esteem from their participation.5 Thus, student leadership during this time frame can be broadly defined as creating tangible changes to the school policies and administration, working side to side with the faculty.

While the overarching theme and definition of task-oriented student leadership have remained the same, the roles and responsibilities of student leadership have evolved greatly in the past decade or so, especially in the independent school settings. That is, the power dynamics between the student leaders and students gradually evolved as well, the word “leader” focusing increasingly on “social/emotional,” and “democratic” aspects of the student leadership.

6

Especially in the past decade or so, the connotation of student leadership has shifted from somewhat elitist policy-making to playing an active daily role in perpetuating the culture that the school defines to be important.7 In this context, student leadership is no longer defined by the rigid power dynamics among the faculty, student leaders, and classmates, but rather egalitarian position in which the leaders focus on channeling the different ideas the faculty and students might have. Reflecting these cultural changes, Mr. Becker, the current headmaster of The Gunnery, defined student leadership

3

Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum, 2000), 75.

Ibid., 128.

5 Melissa, “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools,” 19.

6 Ibid., 32.

7 Ibid., 23.

4

Choi 16 as “student leadership is any time a student practices, whether knowingly or not, being an “embryo citizen, interested in the weal of the school community” and her/his “duty of conserving it. In other words, it does not depend on position or title or age -- any student can do it at any time if they have the wisdom, courage, and perspective to try it.”8 Dissecting Mr. Becker’s quotation, three unique aspects of student leadership at The Gunnery can be extrapolated. Firstly, “embryo citizen” reflects the emphasis on citizenship and civic engagement through various leadership positions. Secondly, the quotation reveals the fluid system of student leadership at The Gunnery, as Mr. Becker phrased, “does not depend on position or title or age.” Lastly, student’s initiative and active ownership of the school is illustrated by the phrase, “Any student can do it […] wisdom, courage, and perspective.”

What does student leadership mean to The Gunnery community and how has it been fostered among the students? Also, how does the history of student leadership reflect the characteristics of unique student leadership positions at The Gunnery? The following chapters will grapple with how the changes in the definition of student leadership have influenced the way student leadership has been fostered and organized at The Gunnery. In doing so, The Gunnery’s student leadership will be contextualized in the works of notable educational philosophers and those of Taft and Holy Cross High School.

8

Peter Becker, email exchange with the author, February 1st, 2018.

Choi 17

Chapter 2 | Broad Historical Context For most of American history, the basic assumption was that kids are born to “earn a living for the family” as the American economy heavily relied on agriculture until the Industrial Revolution precipitated after the War of 1812.9 After all, farming constituted 90 percent of the workforce in 1790, and parents assumed that it was good for kids to learn to work, instead of studying, for higher education was deemed as an unnecessary luxury.10 Considering that England underwent rapid industrialization and the expansion of secondary education during the mid-18th century, America lagged behind in global economy and market.

This took a pivotal turn as America entered the 19th century, the time period when the new nation sprawled westward and began its transition toward a market-driven factory economy. That is, various inventions, such as the cotton gin and interchangeable parts along with the development of canals, railroads, and steamboats, collectively revolutionized economic and social systems of America. In fact, only 40 percent of Americans lived in rural areas between 1870 and 1940, compared to that of 85 percent on the eve of the Civil War, demonstrating the impact industrialization had on American society.11 Caused by these rapid social, economic, and political changes, alcohol abuses, prostitution, and crimes became major issues that debilitated the underpinnings of American society. To cope with the societal turbulences, the Reform movement of the 1840s aimed to address various issues, ranging from workers’ rights, corruption, and alcohol uses, led by historic figures such as Dorothea Dix, Jane Addams, Upton Sinclair, and Jacob Riis.

Meanwhile, as a part of the greater Reform movement, school reformers hoped to improve education so that children would become responsible citizens who understand the underpinnings of American democracy and economy. Furthermore, the gradual extension of suffrage among white males during the time period galvanized public education movement, for an illiterate, uneducated electorate could be easily swayed by demagogues. In this context, John Dewey, an evangelist educator, proclaimed that education’s goal and mission should be more defined, which

9

Ben Sasse, The Vanishing American Adult (New York: St. Martin’s Press, n.d.), 34.

Ibid.

11 Ibid., 64.

10

Choi 18 is to secure quality, universal schooling for everyone, not just for a selective group of affluent families.12 John Dewey also believed that only passionate teachers can instill moral and ethical values among teenagers through their daily interactions with the pupils, underscoring the educational institutions’ role to develop students’ characters and morals, not just to pour knowledge into young students’ brains.13 In his notable work, Democracy and Education, Dewey wrote, “Education, in its broadest sense, is the means of social continuity of life,” categorizing education as one of the necessities of life, beyond and above.14 As illustrated in his writing, Dewey strongly believed that to foster and maintain a healthy democracy, even the most common man should be able to read, write, and think for themselves, which can be achieved through a strong public education. Many educators and politicians shared the philosophy of Dewey which precipitated the expansion of secondary education in America.

In line with Dewey’s educational philosophy, the primary purpose of secondary education drastically shifted from the 19th to 20th century. That is, while the high schools in the United States, both independent and public, previously aimed at educating the “strongest” or “the most affluent” students for leadership, educators in the early 20th century’s public education system increasingly focused on “preparing masses of them for citizenship.” 15 The transition from cultivating future “leaders” to well-educated “citizens” as the purpose of secondary education system is an important distinction here, reflecting the changes in the public school system which became larger, more bureaucratic, along with the decline of prestige associated with studentship.16 Along with these changes, educators in independent schools started to focus more on fostering students’ leadership and civic engagement to distinguish themselves from the public education system. Similarly, religious high schools gradually emphasized on its students’ character

12

Ibid., 25.

Ibid., 35.

14 John Dewey, Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1922)., 3.

15 Soderberg Melissa, “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools,” Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997, 8.

16 Ibid.

13

Choi 19 development and service for others to differentiate their education from those of other private and public high schools.

Another fundamental educational change in the United States came along with Paul Freire’s influential writing, Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Sold over 750,000 copies worldwide after its publication in 1968, the book encompasses the relationship between “oppressor” and the “oppressed,” which applies not only to the education but also to the national development in Latin America. Dr. Richard Shaull, the Henry Winters Luce emeritus professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, evaluated in 1970, “In this country, we are gradually becoming aware of the work of Paulo Freire [...] We may discover that his methodology as well as his educational philosophy are as important for us as for the dispossessed in Latin America.”17 What made Freire’s writing so influential to American educators considering that his writing was intended to awaken Latin American cultural identity and the importance of education?

The answer lies in powerful and often radical word choices Freire uses to redefine education and power dynamics between students and teachers. That is, Freire develops an idea that education is not to subjugate students to the system of the society, but rather the “creators” of the culture who are able to question ideas and to change the structures of society.18 In his writing, Freire proclaims, “Oppression--overwhelming control--is necrophilic; it is nourished by love of death, not life. The banking concept of education, which serves the interests of oppression, is also necrophilic.” 19 Comparing the banking system of education, a prevalent pedagogy to American educators during the 20th century, to “necrophilia,” Freire crafts a scathing criticism of passive educational system imposed by strict power dynamics between students and the faculty.

As a solution to the conventional educational system, Freire writes, “Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious beings, and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the world. [...]

Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information.”20 Emphasizing that the end goal of education is not “transferal” of information, Freire emphasized the educator’s 17

Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, 29.

Ibid., 33.

19 Ibid., 77.

20 Ibid., 79.

18

Choi 20 role as a partner in learning with students who should pique his/her students’ curiosity, rather than suppress them.

Freire elaborated the ideal education on his mind through the “problem-posing method” of education that does not “dichotomize the activity of the teacher-student.”21 Freire elucidated, “The students—no longer docile listeners— are now critical co-investigators in dialogue with the teacher. The teacher presents the material to the students for their consideration, and re-considers her earlier considerations as the student express their own.”22 The transition from a “docile listener” to a “co-investigator” is an important distinction here, meaning that students are no longer passive subject in learning, but active participant in their educational experience who can ask critical questions. Freire’s revolutionary pedagogy had a tremendous impact on American educational system which encouraged educators to abandon hierarchical power dynamics and treat students as “co-investigators” in the classroom. Dr. Richard Shaull, professor at Princeton University, famously evaluated, “In this country, we are gradually becoming aware of the work of Paulo Freire […] We may discover that his educational philosophy are as important for us as for the dispossessed in Latin America.”23 Dr. Shaull’s evaluation reflects the nationwide conversations among teachers and educational administrators who discussed the meaning behind Freire’s words and ways to implement his educational philosophy.

In this context, students were increasingly encouraged to pose questions relating to themselves, the educational system, and, ultimately, the society they belonged to. As a means of achieving this new educational goal, student governments throughout secondary schools grew in size and its influence. Meanwhile, student leaders had increasing respect and recognition from members of the faculty and school administration, who could even participate in the meetings with headmasters and teachers to discuss various issues, ranging from the school curriculum, dress code, to disciplinary committees. Naturally, the connotation of “student leadership” transitioned from a

21

Ibid., 80.

Ibid., 81.

23 “Pedagogy of the Oppressed by Paulo Freire | Foreword by Richard Shaull,” accessed May 20, 2018, http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/pedagogy/pedagogyforeword.html.

22

Choi 21 passive role of student monitors to critical thinkers who challenge the status quo and bring changes to the community when necessary.

In the following chapters, the evolving student leadership position at The Gunnery will demonstrate how educators of the independent schools defined the broad term of student leadership, in the context of rapidly changing social, political, and economic systems from the 19th century to today. In doing so, influential literary works, various interviews, newspaper articles found in The Gunnery archive, and student government constitutions at Taft and Holy Cross will be closely examined to contextualize and synthesize the Prefect system at The Gunnery.

Choi 22

Chapter 3 | Mr. Gunn’s Vision of the School and Its Influence on Early School Culture The structure and mission of any institution is largely influenced and molded by its founder, and The Gunnery is no exception. When The Gunnery was established in 1850, Frederick Gunn challenged the norms of traditional boarding schools in that era with his progressive mindset and pedagogy.24 That is, unlike most of the college preparatory schools that focused on academics and college matriculation, Mr. Gunn believed that the mission of the school was to build students’ character, something that can be fostered by his students’ engagement in the classroom, athletic fields, and through the daily interaction with members of the faculty. As William Hamilton Gibson wrote, “For he [Mr. Gunn] was not merely a schoolmaster by profession, but a born leader of men by virtue of broad and commanding qualities.”25 Not merely a “schoolmaster,” but a “leader” is an important distinction here, which emphasizes that Mr. Gunn objected to the simplistic, hierarchical educational system that was prevalent throughout the 19th century. Surprisingly, Mr. Gunn’s progressive educational philosophy corresponds with Paulo Freire’s remark in that “to achieve this [humanization of the oppressed students], they must be partners of the students in their relations with them.”26 Impressed by such educational philosophy, Wilbur Deming, the author of The Church on the Green: The first Two Centuries of the First Congregational Church at Washington, CT, assessed: “As an educator Mr. Gunn had original ideas, many of which were in advance of his time.”27 He further evaluated, “In his [Gunn] mind character training took precedence over the development of the intellect.”28 The Master of The Gunnery further described Mr. Gunn’s vision of the school as “aiming at broad manhood and character rather than the mere enforcement of mental discipline and the inculcations of dry rules and formulas.” 29 As such, the progressive 24

Johnson, A Study of The Gunnery and Its Definition and Implementation of Feminism, 23.

William Gibson, The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn (New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887)., 47.

26 Paulo Freire, Pedagogy of the Oppressed (New York: Continuum, 2000)., 75.

27 Wilbur Deming, The Church on The Green: The First Two Centuries of the First Congregational Church at Washington, Connecticut (Hartford: Brentano’s, 1941)., 201.

28 Ibid.

29 William Gibson, The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn (New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887)., 30.

25

Choi 23 pedagogy Mr. Gunn articulated shares remarkable similarities with that of Paulo Freire, whose writing influenced educational system worldwide much later in the 1970s. Unlike Mr. Gunn who focused on developing wholesome character on top of the intellectual development, many other boarding schools’ headmasters prioritized preparing their students for competitive college admissions. The Taft Catalogue written in 1977, for instance, underscored that one of the “strongest aims and traditions” at Taft “have been sound preparation for college” through strong academic and extracurricular offerings. 30 In this context, Mr. Gunn’s ideas and educational philosophies were truly ahead of his time, capturing the philosophy of Paulo Freire.

With such progressive understanding of education, Mr. Gunn believed that the school administration should have “as little government as possible” 31 while emphasizing the “selfcontrol rooted in the personal conscience of the boy, and least felt because least existed.”32 As such, Mr. Gunn envisaged a school that resembles a republic, “the head of which ruled by a kind of delegated power, only to be exercised within the limits of the common good.” 33 It is truly remarkable considering that most educators adopted the concept of “republic,” a system in which as group with a certain equality between its members, in educational system, only after Paulo Freire’s influential writing, The Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1968.

Mr. Gunn’s progressive pedagogy and teacher-student power dynamics can be also found in his speech given at the State Teachers’ Association in 1877 where he proclaimed, “I am convinced that there is an immense amount of soul power lost because teachers hold themselves aloof. I am not ashamed to have been a boy among boys. We have secured in some degree the rights of the slave. We are laboring not without hope for the right of the woman to vote. But how few teachers ever make any ‘ado’ about the rights of boys. We provide schools for their intellectual training but what school has fitly provided for the amusement of its pupils?”34 Emphasizing the broad “rights” of “boys,” Mr. Gunn tried to break the notion that the educator needs to dominate

30

Taft Catalogue (Watertown, Connecticut: Taft School, 1977).

William Gibson, The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn (New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887), 61.

32 Ibid.

33 Deming, The Church on The Green: The First Two Centuries of the First Congregational Church at Washington, Connecticut., 201-202.

34 Ibid.

31

Choi 24 and punish students in order to teach different subjects and citizenship. Rather, ideal education in Mr. Gunn’s mind, was the faculty’s daily interactions with students, which can be seen through his phrases that he “have been a boy among boys” and “amusement of its pupils” that challenge the strict educational pedagogy of the 19th century.

As a progressive headmaster, Mr. Gunn also took an active interest in community “enterprises such as the library and the Dramatic Association” 35 which allowed students’ engagement in the school administration and discussions on a variety of social and political issues during the time period. Mr. Gunn also organized the Judea Lyceum which became a center for the discussion of current topics, a platform in which students participated in the discussion with the adults from the community.36 At the Judea Lyceum, students from The Gunnery, sitting side to side with the adults from the community, discussed and grappled with justice and morality revolving around the slavery issue in the 19th century.37 Most importantly, Mr. Gunn fostered student leadership by holding “family meetings” every Sunday afternoon where students helped determine punishments for offenses, decided on schedules, and discussed school issues.38 The Master of The Gunnery describes the platform in detail as: “Perhaps at no point was the genius of Mr. Gunn more fully revealed than in the unique family gathering, kept up to this day, and familiar to every Gunnery boy as the “Family meeting.”

After dinner each Sunday afternoon the whole family, except the servants, gathered together, in summer under the vine-clad porch on the south side of the Gunnery, in winter within the large sitting-room. This conclave was the grand tribunal of the household, with the master for chief judge. To its arbitration were submitted any irregularity of the week before, or, indeed, any subject relating to domestic order or plans.”39 Gibson further described, “The boys understood that this was the time to prefer complaints, to expose any lurking iniquity, or ask open advice. Many were the secret offenses disclosed, many the wrongs righted and just penalties imposed by this novel tribunal, which cemented a confidence between teacher and pupil very efficient in the 35

Ibid.

Ibid.

37 Ibid.

38 The Gunnery Bulletin (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 2014), 13.

39 William Gibson, The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn (New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887).

36

Choi 25 general discipline of the school. The chief judge after rendering his decision often asked a show of hands, and if any boy dissented, his objection was asked for and sometimes allowed. Special sessions of the family meeting called to pass upon grave offenses now and then resulted in the punishment of the whole family of boys, either by the curtailment of privilege or the infliction of positive penalty. At these original gatherings the genius of the master was on wings. Sitting in his chair before his boy constituency, his glancing eye swept up and down the long line of lads seeming fairly to screw out the inmost secrets of their hearts. Callous the guilty youngster who did not quail under the ordeal and sharp the punishment that followed the "You're lying, sir!" with which the teacher's crossexamination now and then ended.”40 The excerpts from the Master of The Gunnery are remarkable in various ways. First and foremost, the accessibility of the headmaster of the school to the greater student body and members of the faculty illustrate the egalitarian power dynamics between Mr. Gunn and the community. It is important to note that the headmaster back in the 19th century was referred to as “master” with a connotation of hierarchical distinction over the student body. Mr. Gunn’s effort to interact with the student body on a variety of administrative and academic issues through the family meetings illustrate the history of The Gunnery’s fluid student government. Furthermore, it is important to note that students took the initiative to propose, discuss, and implement changes to the school with a sense of ownership of the school. As the quotation reveals, “The boys understood that this was the time to prefer complaints, to expose any lurking iniquity, or ask open advice.” In other words, family meeting was not just a superficial form of meeting at The Gunnery; it was a platform that truly facilitated students’ critical thinking and discussion of the school policies with Mr. Gunn.

On top of the noteworthy family meeting, Mr. Gunn’s progressive educational philosophy can be understood through his approach toward the athletics. Mr. Gunn, as a Renaissance man, was influenced by the British educators and reformers of the mid-19th century who promulgated “Muscular Christianity,” concept sprouted and developed during the 18th century in response to the rapid industrialization and its repercussions (note: this educational philosophy has been studied and dissected in depth by the previous Gunn Scholar, Jessica Xu ’15).41 Believing that physical activities can uplift the teenage boys’ morals and ethics, American educators and Protestant church

40 41

Ibid.

Clifford Putney, “Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920,” Harvard University Press, 2003., 139.

Choi 26 similarly promulgated Muscular Christianity through the fraternal organizations including Young Men’s Christian Association, Boy Scouts, and Freemasons.42 On top of Mr. Gunn’s egalitarian power dynamics between his students, Mr. Gunn fostered student leadership by encouraging The Gunnery students’ involvement with athletic co-curricular activities. Heavily influenced by the principles of Muscular Christianity, Mr. Gunn understood the significance and value of physical education in a secondary school setting. To achieve such progressive mission of the school, Mr. Gunn required all of his students to participate in a baseball team, making athletics an integral part of Gunnery students’ educational experience.43 Mr. Gunn’s emphasis on physical fitness can be further illustrated through Mr. Clarence Deming who reflected that Mr. Gunn “enforced” the sports of the field as part of The Gunnery scheme of education.44 Noting that there was something “Spartan” in Mr. Gunn’s belief in physical discipline, Deming emphasized that Mr. Gunn integrated athletic co-curriculars as a process of “character-making” process.45 In this context, Mr. Gunn envisioned a school that would foster its students’ physical, intellectual, and sentimental growth simultaneously.

One of his early students, Deming reflected, “I presume we all know well enough that Mr. Gunn had plenty of the boy in him to relish the athletic games in which he rivalled the most ardent of us.”46 Just as Mr. Gunn emphasized that educators need to be “boys among boys,” athletics allowed students to interact with the faculty outside of the classroom as partners.

Corresponding to Mr. Gunn’s vision of the school, being a captain in the football or hockey team throughout the 20th century correlated with having a stronger presence in the student body.

While other boarding schools during this time focused on electing student leaders who primarily stood out in academics, The Gunnery recognized the importance of a wide range of interests and passions by giving out significant leadership to athletes.

42

Ibid., 140.

Jessica Xu, Setting the Pace: Mr. Gunn and School Athletics in the 19th Century, vol. XIII (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 2015)., 7.

44 Clarence Deming, Exercises at the Unveiling of a Monument to Frederick William Gunn (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1882)., 10.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid.

43

Choi 27 Taking all this into account, Deming evaluated, “He [Mr. Gunn] insisted upon the rights of boys among which he ranked high the right to fun and to participate in school government.” 47 Considering that students’ engagement with the faculty was largely restrained during the 19th century, Mr. Gunn’s analogy comparing the educational institution to a “republic” was truly revolutionary that enabled the student council to develop and flourish in the following decades. In Mr. Gunn’s ideal school, boys were meant to learn from their mistakes on their own, not scolded by the teachers, interact with the faculty not just in the classroom but also outside of the classroom, grappling with complex social issues while drilling hours in the soccer field. As such, the history of Mr. Gunn’s family meeting and his emphasis on athletics elucidate the current student government at The Gunnery that is fluid and active, with a remarkably egalitarian power dynamics

47

Ibid.

Choi 28

Chapter 4 | Establishment of the Prefect System Ogden Miller, who served as headmaster from 1946 to 1969, deeply believed in the value of meaningful teacher/coach/mentor relationship to students’ characters and leadership qualities.

Underscoring the founding mission and vision of Mr. Gunn, Miller focused on fostering his students’ civic engagement and student leadership. Reflecting this, The Gunnery News editorialized, “Many responsibilities and duties formerly in the hands of masters have been delegated to parts of the Student Body [sic.], who should take them seriously.” 48 Building upon the mutual trust between students and faculty from his predecessors, Mr. Miller initiated the Prefect System at The Gunnery, expanding from the preexisting council system, composed of student monitors from each grade.

While the student council existed from the late 19th century when Mr. Gunn was the headmaster, a development from the fluid family meeting, the way the student council was organized appears to have been largely inefficient. The Gunnery Newspaper article written in 1936 reported, “The Student Council occupies a unique position in the school in that very few people know exactly what it is allowed to do, and what it must not attempt to do. The other eight organizations do their publishing, acting, singing, dance-arranging, and athletic counselling without any question whatever as to their fitness for the job, and none of them ever try any other job.”49 The newspaper’s analysis illustrates the downsides of having a fluid, egalitarian student government model that were adopted from the family meeting.

The school council system continued to develop throughout the 1950s and 60s under Mr. Miller’s guidance. As the yearbook of 1963 reports, “This year’s School Council, under the leadership of Head Prefect David Sperry, marked the beginning of the institution of a new constitutional plan of government for The Gunnery. According to the new constitution, the school Council was comprised of four faculty, five prefects (with the honorary Prefect, Dave Littlewood, added in the Winter Team), three Juniors, three Sophomores, and one non-voting Freshman. The

48

Paula Krimsky, Gunnery Stories Illustrated (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, n.d.)., Chapter: Heads of School, Ogden D. Miller 1946-1969.

49 Cornelius Dutcher, “Council Activities,” The Gunnery News, October 10, 1936, No. 2 edition.

Choi 29 function of the faculty-student Council was to serve as a liaison between the faculty and students and to be the administrative power to a certain degree.”50 The yearbook further read: “The new, broadened Council worked hand in hand with the students and faculty in solving problems and suggesting revisions and new ideas in the administrative field of The Gunnery. By working with the Athletic Council, Discipline Committee, Gunn Association, and continuing class meetings, and publishing the minutes of its meetings, the School Council has begun to take more of a part in the students’ and School’s daily life. This year the Council inaugurated a new program of sports wherein individual development was stressed.

Also, the Council renovated the grouping system by making “A” Group an achievement possible through character development rather than by material accomplishment only.” 51 Through the inclusion of the Athletic Council, Discipline Committee, and Gunn Association, the Student Council represented a wide array of interests and identities within the school community.

On top of that, the School Council also worked on the “justification of the inauguration of a new liberal constitution in which the students, with the aid of the faculty, became more fully integrated and familiar with the policies of the school.”52 Just as the Constitution of the United States allows Congress to have flexible set of implied powers through the necessary and proper clause, the student council at large was allowed to communicate with the headmaster and faculty when deemed necessary. The student council members were carefully chosen by the headmaster and the council was intended to promote student leadership and discipline. However, The Gunnery News pointed out that the student council often turned into a “very passive body,” and was “never so noticed as when it is performing its duty.53 The Gunnery News further editorialized, “To be more specific, the practice of trailing a suspected smoker is often looked down upon as thoroughly reprehensible. In fact, the only approved way of catching a smoker seems to be to have him smoke openly in front of several Council members, who are not expected to report him.”54

50

The Red and Gray (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 1963)., 120.

Ibid.

52 Ibid.

53 Ibid.

54 Ibid.

51

Choi 30 In an attempt to address the following deficiencies, Mr. Miller and members of the faculty implemented the Prefect system. By establishing the prefect system, the school administration and faculty wanted to craft a platform with an organized set of rules and guidelines for the student leaders, along with a clear and democratic election process. The inception of the Prefect system is elucidated by the Gunnery’s 1950-51 Yearbook, The Red and Gray, which explains, “The Prefect System, in finishing its fourth year at The Gunnery, has been proved very successful and more effective than the old ‘council system’ previously in use. Toward the end of the school year, the Headmaster, with the aid of preferential balloting in which the entire student body and faculty participate, appoints five members of the Junior Class to the position of Prefect, one of whom is Head Prefect, and, as such, becomes President of the School.”55 Considering that the headmaster appointed the student council members in the past, participation of the “entire student body” and “faculty” in the election process marked a pivotal change in the way student leadership was organized at The Gunnery. Beginning with the new election process, student leaders were no longer the mere delegates of the headmaster, but those who were highly regarded by the greater student body and members of the faculty.

As such, by delegating a significant power to the prefects, Mr. Miller attempted to develop a spirit of partnership and cooperation among the student leaders, teachers, and the headmaster.

The primary duty of the Prefect was “to promote the sense of trustworthiness and community spirit upon which the School is built.”56 The Prefect’s duty included: “Specifically, each of the first five days of the week is covered by a Prefect who is on duty for the entire day, and who keeps in touch with the “Master of the Day” at all times.”57 The Prefect of the Day also “checked lateness and absences at meals, presided over announcements, and was on call for whatever else may be required of him.”58 While most of the following rules stem from the previous student council system, clearer guidelines and set of rules made the student government more conspicuous on campus. The biggest change, though, came along with the prefects’ greater involvement in school administration, 55

The Red and Gray (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 1951)., 84.

Ibid.

57 Ibid.

58 Ibid.

56

Choi 31 working as partners with the members of the faculty and the headmaster. As the yearbook explained, “Perhaps the most important function of the Prefect is the part played by them in the grouping of the rest of the student body. Under the grouping system, three masters meet every two weeks with three Prefects to classify each boy according to his merits.59 The excerpt from the yearbook is remarkable in many ways, but most notably by revealing how much Prefects were respected by the headmaster and members of the faculty. That is, the fact that members of the faculty and headmaster consulted with the Prefects to make final decisions of the students’ grouping, which resembles today’s Academic Merit system at The Gunnery, demonstrated the student leaders’ administrative prowess during the time.

The Prefect’s involvement in the grouping of students was particularly extraordinary, when compared to the student government at Taft during the time period. Taft student handbook during similar time period explained the roles of student leaders as “The specific duties of the monitors are to mark attendance at all assemblies, etc. There are other occasions on which the monitors are called upon as a body, but these are determined as the need arises. From a more governmental standpoint, the monitors are the executive body of the Senior class. While they must necessarily often act independently of the class, it is expected that there will be more cooperation between the two, the monitors executing the decisions of the class rather than their own, when such procedure is possible.”60 While The Gunnery’s student leaders gradually had greater voice in the school administration and the community, student monitors at Taft still remained largely the delegates of the headmaster whose primary concern was to maintain order of the school.

As such, under Mr. Miller’s Prefect system, the previous student council system not only improved in terms of its structure and organization but also in its role as a platform to facilitate communication among the student leaders, members of the faculty, and school administration.

Meanwhile, Mr. Miller and members of the faculty kept the student council system as a way of senior prefect members teaching the underclassmen leadership skills and qualities. The Red and Gray of 1958-1959 summarizes, “This year’s Student Council, composed of five prefects, four senior monitors, four junior monitors, two sophomores and one freshman representative,

59 60

Ibid.

Taft Student Handbook, 1927-28 (Watertown, Connecticut: Taft School, 1927), 26.

Choi 32 introduced four significant changes in the activity of the student body. Led by head prefect Jerry Sullivan, the representatives of the four classes, established the Red and Gray team intra-mural competition; revised the school constitution and re-opened the kitchen in the Infirmary for seniors.

The snack bar and recreation rooms were also opened under senior and Student Council supervision.” 61 As such, with the clearer leadership and instructions of Prefect members, underclassmen learned what it means to be a leader and developed necessary communication skills before they were elected as Prefects in their senior years.

While the student leadership was largely limited to the athletic fields and dorm life before the establishment of the Prefect system, student leadership now included the broad concept of promoting “community spirit” and the greater involvement in the school administration. Impressed by such autonomous student government compared to those of other independent boarding schools during the time, the New Haven newspaper editorialized that at The Gunnery, “an understanding of citizenship is of major importance” and “there appears to be a simplicity and singleness of purpose at Gunnery that may sometimes be lacking in the wealthier and more publicised preparatory schools.”62 As such, while Mr. Ogden Miller brought more structure and organization to Mr. Gunn’s fluid family meeting, he maintained the egalitarian power dynamics between the administration and student leaders with a heavy emphasis on student activism and initiative.

61 62

The Red and Gray (1958-1959). Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, n.d.

“Look More into Fraternity at The Gunnery in Which the Faculty Joined,” New Haven Newspaper, April 8, 1945.

Choi 33

Chapter 5 | Student Leadership and Civic Engagement Horace Mann, one of the most notable American politicians and education reformers, once wrote “Education is the great equalizer in a democratic society, and if people are not given access to a quality education, then what we are doing is creating an underclass of people who will challenge our very way of life.”63 He further illustrated that the “civil rights question of our nation today is that of access to a quality education.”64 Here, Horace Mann built up a logical connection between higher education and civic engagement, implying that public education must be promoted to maintain a healthy democracy where citizens understand the importance of participating in the government they belong to. As a relatively exclusive boarding school during the time, The Gunnery tried to teach students’ responsibilities in the world by fostering student’s leadership through various platforms, most notably through the mock political conventions, a quadrennial mock political event firstly organized under the leadership of Mr. Ogden Miller.65 Building upon the legacy of Miller, Mr. Burgess Ayres stimulated school-wide conversations, particularly regarding the Vietnam War, feminism, and the Freedom of Speech movements through the mock conventions.66 Notably, in 1972, The Gunnery held a mock political convention and invited Hotchkiss, New Milford, Litchfield, Taft, Nonnewaug, Wooster, Millbrook, Canterbury, and many other independent private schools. The five sub-committees of the Convention included, Civil Liberties, Environment, Foreign Policy, Economy, and political reform.67 Each sub-committee was given 25 minutes to present its report and have its resolutions to act upon.

Mock conventions held at The Gunnery were unique opportunities which allowed high school students, particularly student leaders who organized the events, to experience what real politics looks like and how democratic negotiations, dialogues, and resolutions are made. Outside speakers at the conventions, ranging from US Senators to the Connecticut secretary of state,

63

L. A., Cremin, “The Republic and the School: Horace Mann on the Education of Free Man.” New York: Columbia University. 1957.

64 Ibid.

65 The Gunnery News, 1972.

66 The Gunnery News, 1972.

67 Ibid.

Choi 34 encouraged students to be keep engaging in politics. The student leaders, ranging from Prefects and various political organization’s leaders gathered together to organize the event and facilitate conversations on campus. Most notably, student leaders at The Gunnery had an opportunity to interact with the politicians and debaters from outside of The Gunnery bubble.

Furthermore, through a variety of committees, students could familiarize themselves with how individuals in the states they represent are likely to respond to the various issues. For instance, Marty Caffaso ‘85 wrote, “Personally, I found my role in the convention to be both exciting and informative. I was given the opportunity not only to experience first-hand the process by which a party platform is put together, but I was also able to feel the pressure that is put on a chairperson to mediate debates, add his input, and help keep the proceedings organized in such a way as to not squelch enthusiasts.”68 Similarly, the Headmaster at Choate Rosemary School appreciated The Gunnery for hosting the event as he remarked, “Most of all, I’d like to thank you for holding the convention: our boys enjoyed it a lot and learned a great deal from it.”69 As such, mock conventions held at The Gunnery were unique opportunities which allowed high school students to experience what real politics looks like and how democratic negotiations, dialogues, and resolutions are made.

Speakers at the conventions, ranging from senators and state secretary of state encouraged students to be keep engaging in politics.

Mock Democratic Convention held in 1984 was held at the greatest scale on February 6th, 1984, inviting more than 20 independent boarding schools and public high schools.70 Beginning with senator Christopher Dodd of Connecticut’s keynote speech, the subcommittees met for over two hours following lunch, in an attempt to piece together a platform from key issues such as our national defense, minorities, the environment, as well as economics. These platforms were presented after dinner and were all met with more heated debate which further polished then.

National Security and Defense subcommittee spent a great deal of time discussing Middle Eastern foreign affairs issues, such as Lebanese terrorist bombing on U.S. Marines, Syrians

Marty Caffaso, “Two Views of the Subcommittees,” The Gunnery News, March 2, 1984.

A Letter from the Headmaster at Choate Rosemary to Mr. Burgess Ayres, 1984.

70 The Gunnery News, March 2, 1984 (special edition covering the quadrennial mock convention hosted on campus).

68 69

Choi 35 terrorizing American “peacekeepers” during the time period. 71 Meanwhile, in the Health Education, and Welfare Subcommittee, students discussed reduction of federal expenditures for programs in social welfare, merit pay, and tuition tax credits. Through the committee sessions, students came up with a list of policy changes and efforts that needed to be made, including the issues, ranging from federal funding of public education, new federalism, and federal funds for prenatal care for the poor.72 Reflecting the rapid changes caused by the Civil Rights Movement, a Minority Issues subcommittee was introduced, addressing the issues of desegregation, social programs for unemployment, affirmative action, and voting on Educational on political activity.73 The climax of the Mock Convention came with balloting. The first ballot saw all candidates receive votes from at least two states. Prior to the voting procedures, the Mock Convention even handed out each student a pamphlet that included each can candidate’s specific political agendas and voting procedures that educated students how government works in the real world.74 Through the various mock political conventions, The Gunnery students, whether elected student leaders or not, learned how to engage in political activism and lead conversations on complex political issues with students from other high schools. As Mr. Ogden Miller intended at the beginning, the student leaders at The Gunnery were able to interact with the real world outside of the Gunnery bubble through various platforms and organizations such as the Mock Political conventions hosted on campus.

On top of the politically engaging editorials, The Gunnery news staffs kept their keen eyes on both nationwide political issues and international news. The Student Newspaper asked questions such as: Do you support the use of nuclear weapons in general? Do you feel that the United States government is doing enough to prevent a nuclear war?75 The level of questions that grapple with convoluted, profound international political issues and the student body’s high participation in the surveys like the one above, demonstrate how politically active the Gunnery students were. For students who could not access to the hard copy of newspaper because of the

71

Ibid.

Ibid.

73 Ibid.

74 Ibid.

75 Bob Mentzinger, “Gunnery News Poll,” The Gunnery News, December 13, 1983.

72

Choi 36 school’s geographical isolation, The Gunnery newspaper staffs did their best job to continuously inform students about what was happening around outside of The Gunnery campus. While student leadership during the early to mid-20th century was disproportionately represented by athletes on campus, the Mock political conventions and student leaders’ influence illustrate the increasing influence of academic student leadership on campus.

As such, through the quadrennial mock political conventions hosted on campus, The Gunnery’s student leaders recognized the importance of world outside and learned to form, develop, and articulate their political ideas effectively. Most importantly, though, the Mock Political conventions seem to elucidate the history of The Gunnery’s focus on cultivating “embryo citizen,” as Mr. Becker emphasized during the e-mail interview.

Choi 37

Chapter 6 | Expansion of the Prefect System The Prefect system from its inception in 1945 remained as a relatively exclusive group on campus, usually comprised of four to six elected and appointed student leaders. Reflecting the power dynamics between the students and faculty, the headmaster had great voice in the appointment of student leaders. For instance, in the description of Edward W. Taylor, the yearbook editor wrote: “Ted’s most notable achievement was his appointment by the Headmaster to the position of Senior Prefect, the highest position which a student may attain.”76 Furthermore, the word choices used to elect Prefect were vastly different in the early 1950s, as the newspaper article similarly used “appointed by Mr. Miller to serve,” contrary to “elected by The Gunnery community.” 77 The responsibilities and duties Prefects assumed included: “For the first five days of the week, there is a Prefect whose job is to collect the attendance slips at meals, preside at morning announcements and generally assist the Master of the Day in carrying out the administrative functions of the school.”78 Limited roles granted to the elected student leaders suggest that the Prefect’s purpose was to “represent” the faculty’s voice, in which student leaders were primarily expected to report their peers’ disciplinary violations and bringing order to the community. Mr. Ogden Miller gradually redefined the position by recognizing the new student constitution that laid the foundation of the school Council, which was comprised of four faculty, five Prefects, three juniors, three sophomores, and one non-voting freshman in 1963.79 By allowing the students to sit with members of the faculty and discuss administrative issues, Mr. Ogden Miller intended that student leaders would take more initiative in decision-making process, rather than passively following the faculty’s instructions.

Meanwhile, contrary to Mr. Ogden Miller who tried to maintain the Prefect position relatively exclusive with four to five members, Mr. Burgess Ayers, who served as the headmaster from 1969 to 1977, intended to make the position more accessible to the student body, following

76

The Gunnery Red and Grey Yearbook 1948-1949 (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, n.d.).

“Officers Selected for the Coming Year,” The Gunnery News, May 23, 1953.

78 Ibid.

79 The Red and Gray (Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 1963)., 120.

77

Choi 38 the footsteps of Mr. Gunn’s family meeting. The Gunnery News reported, “The 1971-72 school year opens today with the new “dorm-oriented” system of school government in effect. In addition to the head prefect elected last spring, nine house Prefects will be elected in two weeks. Monitors are eliminated, and each house Prefect will have the double function of governing the dormitory and representing it in the Community Council. The faculty are now selecting ten members to serve with the Prefects on the Community Council.” 80 The transition from an exclusive student leadership to a “dorm-oriented” system made the student leadership position more accessible and democratic, highlighting the position’s social/emotional aspects and diluting its previous elitist connotation.

Chip Richardson ‘73 described the changes and their impact on campus in detail: “The Community Council, instituted this year to replace the defunct Student Council, has gotten off to a vigorous start with faculty approval of the new diversified activities proposal.”81 He explained, “Community Council Chairman Dick Lehr in comparing the two councils said he felt that the Community Council is a “more efficient body” and can get more done than last year’s Student Council because of the nature of its structure. It is dorm-oriented and the problems of the dormitories are now of prime importance.”82 Dick Lehr ‘72, the Head Prefect during this transition, was a varsity soccer, hockey, and golf player, associate editor of The Gunnery News, and was involved in the student government from his freshman year. When asked what impelled him to run for the Prefect position back in 1971, he responded, “I’d been involved in student government since freshman year, and running for prefect just seemed to be the final stop in that service. Plus, I knew it would look good on my college application.”83 He further explained, “I remember that during that year one key issue was whether athletics should be compulsory, and I argued no, that students should not have to play a sport (even though I did) and there should be other afternoon options in the arts, or at Wykeham

80

Fred Kardonski, “Year Opens Under 10-Prefect System,” The Gunnery News, September 16, 1971.

Chip Richardson, “With Two Conditions, Council Legalizes Diversified Projects,” The Gunnery News, October 30, 1971, Vol. XXXVI edition.

82 Ibid.

83 Dick Lehr, email exchange with the author, April 8, 2018.

81

Choi 39 Rise, the girls school. The two schools were coordinating all classes at that point. I also advocated for an overhaul of the student government to what became known as a Community Council.”84 In fact, Mr. Lehr’s interview was introduced in The Gunnery News which explained: “Dick’s non-controversial diversified activities proposal, which went before the Council two weeks ago, and later to the faculty, has been already a “de facto” part of the school program.

Basically, the proposal makes mandatory the inclusion in the student handbook of the methods by which one can be excused from athletics. These “methods” have already been in existence but no publication has been available. The proposal provides that students wishing to pursue activities other than athletics will present their requests to a committee made up of the director of athletics, the dean, the head prefect, and another prefect appointee. The headmaster will make final approval.”85 In the committee, faculty members -- Mr. Golembeske, Mrs. Slasbury, Mr. Eanes, Mr. Ayres, Mr. Will, Mrs. Mixsell, etc. -- sat with the Prefects and listened carefully to what the Prefects had to say.

When asked about the expansion of the membership in the position, Mr. Lehr reflected, “I wanted to spread the power beyond the Head Prefect, make things more community-based, and to also delegate some of the Head Prefect’s authority. For example, when it came to discipline, instead of the Head Prefect being the main student presence in those matters, I appointed a Student Head of Discipline. It was his responsibility to work with faculty on the discipline committee to deal with situations as they arose.” 86 With dorm-oriented student leadership, he felt as though “more people felt they had a voice and a stake in things.”87 From 1971 to 1976, the Prefect position became a part of the larger Community Council with about sixteen members, under the leadership of an elected Head Prefect.

While the Prefect position remained as a dorm-oriented leadership position until 1976, the position became a selective leadership group when Mr. David Kern became the headmaster. In 1977, as The Gunnery underwent some drastic changes -- the school returned to co-education after 56 years of single sex education -- the leadership position evolved, as well. Most importantly, the 84

Ibid.

Ibid.

86 Dick Lehr, email exchange with the author, April 8, 2018.

87 Ibid.

85

Choi 40 school needed a selective group of student leaders who could bridge the communication gap between the students and faculty more than ever, with various administrative confusions caused

by The Gunnery’s transition to a co-education.

Reflecting this, the election process became more rigorous than ever and the Prefect position once again became the “highest leadership” position on campus. This is illustrated in the Prefects’ letter in the Newspaper: “When the Prefects sat down last week to put together a list of petition questions, [Ed. note: to be used by this year’s candidates for Prefect], we had certain goals in mind. First of all, we wanted the questions to be challenging. We found last year’s to be sterile and vague. Second, we tried to come up with topics that would force petitioners to think out their responses more carefully. We didn’t make them more difficult just to see the candidates suffer; we simply wanted to encourage them to take a stand and expose their views on specific items. So far we have read some very good responses and we are truly encouraged.”88 Meanwhile, the election process began “with each candidate composing a written petition and then having it signed by fifty students, the Prefects, ten faculty members, the administrative heads, and the candidate’s advisor.”89 The article further described, “Next the speeches were given, followed by three question and answer sessions in which any member of the community may pose questions to the candidates to learn more about their potentials as Prefects. Next is the voting and tallying, and finally, approval from Mr. Eanes. The five new prefects will be announced in midMay.90 Especially with the increase in student journalism at The Gunnery, Prefect candidates had to submit their platforms and answers to various questions for the Gunnery News, which will be introduced further throughout the next chapter. Overall, the varying memberships of Prefect position reflect the school’s attempt to balance Mr. Gunn’s fluid model of student government and Mr. Ogden Miller’s structured and organized form of student leadership, largely to offset each model’s drawbacks.

88

Erik Steele, “From the Prefects,” The Gunnery News, May 1989.

Ibid.

90 Ibid.

89

Choi 41

Chapter 7 | Changing Definition of Student Leadership under Mr. Eanes Mr. Michael Eanes assumed the headmaster position in 1979, as a result of the unplanned departure of David Kern who “oversaw the return to full coeducation in 1977 after 56 years of single sex education.”91 Reflecting back on his appointment as headmaster, Eanes explained, “As a result of the unplanned departure of David Kern, I was asked to take the school on an acting headmaster basis. I was later appointed on a permanent basis. My school asked, and I answered yes, which was the best answer, I guess.92 The student government model Mr. Eanes designed was similar to that of Taft school’s monitorial system, while maintaining The Gunnery’s unique student leadership positions.

Serving as the headmaster from 1979 to 1991, Mr. Eanes met frequently with the Prefects.

“We were scheduled for once per week, but often that schedule was difficult to make as a result of the demands on all our time.” He emphasized that the Prefects were available to the headmaster and other administrators for their counsel on various school matters, served on the disciplinary committee, and community council. “Prefects were encouraged to bring well thought-out ideas to the Community Council, the headmaster, the dean and others. On occasion, they would make presentations to the faculty on various matters affecting the school.”93 Most importantly, it was during Mr. Eanes’ time period when members of the Prefect started to focus on fostering the fabric of a close-knit community and school culture through a variety of platforms. Mr. Eanes noted that, on top of their regular meetings with the headmaster and faculty, “Prefects led school meetings, community council, and served as dormitory monitors.

They were available to the headmaster and other administrators for their counsel on various school matters. They also served on the disciplinary committee. They led by example in all school matters.”94 Reflecting Mr. Eanes’ emphasis on student-run government, one of the Prefects from 1987-88 school year, Brooks, noted: “Mr. Eanes said to us at the beginning of the year “It’s your

91

“History | Top Boarding Schools | The Gunnery School in Washington CT | The Gunnery,” accessed January 30, 2018, https://www.gunnery.org/page/about-us/history--traditions.

92 Michael Eanes, email exchange with the author, January 24, 2018.

93 Ibid.

94 Ibid.

Choi 42 show!” The success of your job depends entirely on you and no one else.”95 Considering how much the headmaster and members of the faculty determined the roles and responsibilities of the Prefects, it is remarkable that Mr. Michael Eanes expressed the position as the Prefects’ “show.”

It was also during Mr. Eanes’ era when the student newspaper started to print out the Prefect Issues that allowed aspiring student leaders to communicate with the greater Gunnery community. Beginning with so-called the Prefect Issue in 1984, editors of The Gunnery News collectively wrote an article, Choosing the Right Prefect, that elaborated a variety of ways to measure and gauge the candidates’ leadership. The editors wrote, “There are not a few nor is there a single most important qualification to look for in a Prefect. In fact, the effectiveness of the Prefects seems to depend on how they can alter and adapt themselves and their characters to deal with the extremely varied situations that a Prefect is confronted with.”96 It is interesting to see how the editors during the time encouraged the student to consider leadership as a multifaceted quality, rather than something that can be narrowed down to one or two qualities. Editors of The Gunnery News further added that effective Prefects “are a collage of ideas, characteristics, and struggles”97 meaning that it is important that a wide array of students’ interests, concerns, and identities should be represented through the student government system. Considering that members of the Prefect group were largely restricted to football and ice hockey captains during the early period, it is remarkable that the Prefect system gradually evolved into a platform that represented the growing diversity at The Gunnery.

The Gunnery News further emphasized, “Do not vote for a Prefect because he or she is the best looking or the most popular. It is also unwise to vote for someone just because that person is your friend. A vote for a Prefect should depend on very careful analysis of that candidate’s character and reasons for running. A voter should consider all aspects of each candidate. One should ask questions of the candidate’s views and proposals on school policies during the questions and answer sessions, and should not be intimidated by approaching candidates on a personal level.”98 Just as citizens of a democratic society in presidential elections carefully examine each 95

“Prefect Issue,” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

Bradley Condon, “Choosing the Right Prefect,” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

97 Ibid.

98 Ibid.

96

Choi 43 candidate’s platforms and personal qualities, The Gunnery community urged the student body not to be swayed by popularity of a candidate, but a candidate’s fit for the job and focus on issues. The Prefect election, during this time period, was not only a means of electing the student leaders, but also practicing and learning what it meant to be an engaged citizen in a democratic society. Ending the article, the editors asked readers to vote for a candidate who is “able to forge a compromise between opposing viewpoints.”99 They explained, “In a community of varied opinions and ideals, it is a common occurrence that a Prefect is confronted with a situation where ends simply don’t meet. Therefore, the road to take is often the middle one. Prefects must consider the viewpoints of a varied community of opinions and form an adequate compromise that will be acceptable to the majority.”100 After the Gunnery News editors’ introduction to the Prefect election, the staff reported each candidates’ definition of student leadership, issues they would like to address, and why they would like to serve the community as one of the prefects. Some of the specific questions asked throughout the 1980s included: Why do you want to be a Prefect? In your opinion, what are the prefect’s primary responsibilities? What have you done during your career at The Gunnery that would show a voter that you are an an active, involved member of the community? What do you feel is the single, most important problem facing The Gunnery? What steps would you take to correct it?

Prefects are held to different standards than other students are. Do you fully understand this? Do you think it’s right?

Andrew Crawford ‘89, who was elected Head Prefect, wrote comprehensive motivations behind his election for the student Newspaper. When asked, Why do you want to be a Prefect?

Crawford wrote: “To be honest, it was not until last week that I decided that I did, in fact, want to be a Prefect. I have watched in my two years the Prefects suffer from a lack of credibility at times and the inevitable frustrations the position brings. But I ultimately realized that the things I want to do in this school, for the school, and for myself, can be done with perseverance and ambition. I have had to deal with, as have we all, with personal disappointments at school and at home. But if there is one thing I have learned, it’s to keep your head in the bad times, not get too up in the good

99

Ibid.

Ibid.

100

Choi 44 times, and always to keep your belief that the good can be achieved. I feel I can deal with adversity with the ups and downs, and keep an event temper while doing it. I am not looking for improved college placement. I am not doing it for the popularity it might bring. Wanting one big power trip does not justify wanting to become Prefect, and I do not expect instant respect. I would plan on becoming a successful leader and organizer, which is critical. Helping to implement changes that would benefit the school is a big part of what contributes to being a good Prefect. This includes making a difference in the decisions that would alter our experience here at The Gunnery. Why I feel I can be effective in making changes, is due to my determination, and willingness to figure things out, and see them through until they are completed.” Following up on the speeches delivered, Prefect candidates elucidated why they wanted to represent the school through the leadership position through the student newspaper.

Furthermore, when asked, If you were to meet with someone who had no affiliation with The Gunnery, how would you describe the role of the Prefects? Crafford explained, “My definition of a Prefect would state that Prefects primarily stand out as role models. They are expected to set an example for the rest of the school. Respecting other student and faculty is a necessary piece of the puzzle that fits into being a Prefect.”101 He added, “Constant communication with the students and administration is essential. Being a Prefect is a position of authority, and this must be used to the best of the Prefects’ potential, whether decisions be popular or unpopular.” 102 His answer demonstrates that the ideal student leadership at The Gunnery has shifted from a set of specific rules and guidelines to a wide array of flexible roles that the Prefects get to decide and determine.

Moreover, it was during the late 1980s when members of the Prefects from different years communicated with each other through letter exchanges, revisits, and most actively through the newspaper articles. For instance, one of five Prefects from 1987-88 school year, Zach, wrote: “A Prefect will be exactly what you make it. That might sound cliché, but guess what? It’s true. If you would like to be a “super monitor” and enforce rules, go ahead; no one will stop you. If you would rather take on a more legislative role, and introduce new ideas to the school, then fine, that’s an option too. I personally recommend the latter course. But whatever you do, make sure that the

101 102

Andrew Crawford, “Prefect Issue,” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

Ibid.

Choi 45 faculty and administration love you, because without that, you won’t accomplish anything at all.”103 After the election took place in May, Prefect-elects were introduced with their resumes in the follow-up issue of The Gunnery News, titled Next Year’s Prefects. Head Prefect Elect, Andrew Crawford ‘89, opened up the article by noting, “It is no secret that we have completely different personalities; luckily, they don’t conflict.”104 The members of Prefects, in fact, were composed of students from remarkably diverse backgrounds, interests, and passions. Despite the differences, members of the Prefects agreed that the general consensus for the upcoming school year would be to improve the communication between the Prefects and members of the faculty. The Gunnery News reported that the Prefects wished to attend more faculty meetings throughout the year and asked more of the faculty members to initiate conversations with the student leader.105 The issue also introduced the achievements of the Prefects from the previous school year, including “formation of Workday, Prefect Forums, Community Meetings, and the publication of the end-of-term reports” which turned out to be “constructive” while lessening the “gap between ‘we the students’ and our beloved faculty.”106 As a way of setting an example among the members of faculty and school administration, Mr. Michael Eanes contributed various articles to the student newspaper, as well, demonstrating his trust and confidence in the leadership of prefects. In his article, From the Headmaster, Mr. Eanes, wrote: “Prefects work in many ways that students and faculty are unaware of. They provide advice and counsel to students, to faculty, to the Dean, and to me, and I have learned over the years that when prefects talk we should listen.” 107 Mr. Eanes also acknowledged the prefects’ contribution to the community by noting, “I would also like to take particular note that this year’s prefects have played in the success of the school year,”108 while also introducing the changes in the disciplinary system led by the prefects in great details.

103

Zach, “From the Prefects,” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

Patrick Wright, “Next Year’s Prefects,” The Gunnery News, June 2, 1988.

105 Ibid.

106 Ibid.

107 Michael Eanes, “From the Headmaster,” The Gunnery News, June 2, 1988.

108 Ibid.

104

Choi 46 As such, under Mr. Eanes and the prefects’ leadership during the late 1980s, the Prefect system truly became the center of student leadership on campus, channeling a wide range of ideas of faculty, student, and administration through the Community Meetings, Prefect Forums, and weekly meetings with the headmaster. In this context, student leadership at The Gunnery could no longer be defined in a sentence or two, but a wide array of roles and responsibilities that members of Prefect collectively discussed and implemented. Considering that student leaders at public schools barely had an opportunity throughout the year to meet with the headmaster, The Gunnery’s Prefect system, entrusted by the school administration and members of the faculty, enhanced student leaders’ overall fulfillment and engagement.

Choi 47

Chapter 08 | Establishment and Influence of the Prefect Advisor Mr. Balben, history faculty and current Prefect advisor, meets eight Prefects every Tuesday evening to discuss a wide array of issues— dress code, dorm policies, new students’ seamless adjustment— often accompanied by Dr. Matthews, the Dean of Students, along with Dr. Konik and Mrs. Marich. This year, through various meetings, Prefects have passed various proposals, ranging from study hall policies, dorm visitation policies, and dress code reforms with Mr. Balben’s guidance. Intended to provide concrete guidelines and advice to the student leaders, Mr. Balben carefully listens to what Prefects have to say about various issues and guides their ideas to develop into concrete changes in policies. For most of the meetings throughout the year, Prefect members and Mr. Balben discuss how the school year is going and how to make sure that everyone feels safe and at home here at The Gunnery.109 The Prefect advisor system, which is now an integral part of our student government, was first introduced by Mr. Ari Baum ‘03 in 2010 when he was a member of the faculty. He is now the Dean of Students at the Hill School located in Pottstown, Pennsylvania. In order to grasp Mr. Baum’s experience at The Gunnery as a student, faculty member, and the Prefect advisor, I sat down with Mr. Baum for an hour-long interview during which he shared his motivation to establish a Prefect advisor system. Coming to The Gunnery as a sophomore from a large public school in Ithaca, New York, Mr. Baum immediately found his lifelong mentors, such as Mr. Tommy Adams, Mr. Baudo, and Mr. Sisk, whom he still interacts with whenever possible. He reflected, “I think I was a leader in large part because I got so close to many great members of the faculty at the school.

I was very close with members of the faculty here unlike many other kids back then. Tommy Adams was actually the reason why I came here all the way from Ithaca, New York.” 110 He explained, “Thanks to the great faculty that I met here, I felt very comfortable speaking for the school by the time I became a senior because I felt at home at The Gunnery with members of the faculty I trusted.”

By the time Mr. Baum was a junior, he also began to feel comfortable speaking for the school and representing the student body. He noted, “I had formed opinions and feelings about the

109 110

Baum, Ari. a face-to-face interview with the author, Washington, CT, October 25, 2017.

Ibid.

Choi 48 school, and that’s something special about going to the place like The Gunnery. The Gunnery is a special place where whether you are an A+ student or not, star athlete or not, you become an active participant of the community that you start to have opinions about the school. I think most people outside of The Gunnery who grow up in a high school setting don’t necessarily understand that part, nor are they given the opportunity to do so. Going to this school in particular, you feel like you are the owner of this school because the school is small and everybody is friendly, so I felt comfortable speaking up about my opinions and thoughts by the time I became a senior.”111 To illustrate his point, Mr. Baum introduced a tradition he brought to The Gunnery community back in 2002. “During the winter of 2002 and 2003, when the United States decided that they were going to Iraq to fight after the 9/11 attacks, I remember having such strong feelings about it that I just took it upon myself and wrote a fifteen-minute speech, which I presented to the whole school the day after President Bush’s address. I don’t know if I would have felt comfortable doing that if I were not at The Gunnery.

His presentation sparked conversations and discussions on campus which soon became a tradition during the school meeting at The Gunnery. They were known as “the one-minute speeches.” “After giving my thoughts and opinions about the United States’ decision to send troops to Iraq, which I supported back in the day, I ended the speech by inviting people to give speeches on issues people felt strongly about.”112 During every school meeting, students with a wide range of backgrounds, religious, political, and social beliefs voluntarily took the courage to proceed to the podium and share what they strongly believed in. “Students talked about major national topics and a couple of kids talked about the dress code, and I thought that’s what The Gunnery is all about. The Gunnery is all about being able to express yourself in a thoughtful way, and have others listen to you, whether they agree with you or not— they are at least exposed to others doing it.”113 Mr. Baum fondly looked back at this memory noting, “Maybe that’s what being a leader at its core means -- making sure others feel comfortable speaking up and you, yourself, feel

111

Ibid.

Ibid.

113 Ibid.

112

Choi 49 comfortable to speak about anything. It can be about the quality of this table or something serious like the Iraq war, as well.”114 Naturally, Mr. Baum’s active involvement within the school impelled him to run for the Prefect position. “I was very eager to run from the beginning, for I just knew that I wanted to become a Prefect beginning in my sophomore year. Back in 2002, the school meeting took place in EPAC where 250 or so students sat. I just saw the Prefects sitting up there and felt hooked and intrigued by what the position is about. Don’t get me wrong -- I am not very into, like, needing to be recognized as a leader; I don’t really care about the ceremonial aspect which didn’t resonate with me either way. It seemed like an interesting position to help the school be more than a school and a community.”115 When asked to describe the election process in detail, Mr. Baum remarked, “We delivered speeches at EPAC throughout two to three days, and there were always a lot of people who ran, usually from fifteen to twenty candidates. After delivering speeches, there was a vote. I remember I delivered a speech about my experience sharing my thoughts and opinions to the student body during the school meeting, and how I would help foster a community where everyone feels safe so share his/her thoughts.”116 He further described, “Back in the spring of 2002 when I was elected, each ballot was a little quarter sheet of paper with twenty names on it and voters had to rank the candidates from one to six, at least that was what students had to do.” However, a lot of students just checked off six students’ names without realizing how the school was electing the Head Prefect.117 So when the election result came out, there was huge controversy over the Head Prefect position, Mr. Baum reflected. “I remember a lot of people, including both the student body and faculty, got upset about the position, and that’s because many students did the wrong thing when they voted without clear directions. And from this experience, I learned a really important lesson about leadership which is that giving specific and clear directions, not just about a voting process, but about everything, is the most important aspect of being a leader.”118

114

Ibid.

Ibid.

116 Ibid.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

115

Choi 50 Mr. Baum then went on to share his experience as an elected Prefect. “So when I was elected, there were six Prefects, an increase from five the previous year. My experience working as a Prefect was absolutely amazing. I believed that since we are living in a free society where we are allowed to stand up and say whatever we want, I tried to help other students take advantage of that luxury more as a community. It was also an amazing opportunity to sit with members of the faculty and sit in the Disciplinary Committee. Listening to what they had to say about the issues, I learned a lot about tough decision-making process. Some of them, including Mr. Small, were masters of The Gunnery to me. When people like Mr. Small talked, I thought of him as a god, so I listened carefully, and I respected their opinions immensely. My interaction with seven to eight faculty while I served as a Prefect was so special, and I leveraged that for my position to better represent the student body.”119 He explained, “I learned from their calm decision-making process from members of the faculty. I trusted them and I think they trusted me too representing the student body to the faculty.”120 As a group of six Prefects, Mr. Baum evaluated, “We made solid progress -- students and the faculty trusted us and we met often to improve our community. For instance, we got in the room more often with people who were important decision-makers for the school. Our persistent requests and efforts eventually got us into the room with the board of trustees to present in front of them. Back then, we were trying to build an infrastructure which student leaders could work on.

Perhaps, more regular meeting between the student leaders and core-administrators, members of the faculty, and the board of trustees. That had to be built-in.”121 He explained, “When I was a Prefect, we only met with Nick Carter, the Dean of Students back then, maybe two or three times throughout the whole year. I felt strongly, and this is coming back to why I came up with the position of Prefect advisor when I came back to The Gunnery, was that Prefect needed to be meeting more regularly with a member of the faculty who can provide help, advice, and offer guidance whenever necessary.”122 On top of his proposal to meet more frequently with the faculty, Mr. Baum reflected, “While we were elected by both students and the 119

Ibid.

Ibid.

121 Ibid.

122 Ibid.

120

Choi 51 faculty, we needed to meet and get a sense of what we can be doing to help the students or to better represent the students to the faculty. So we started to meet weekly, and that was me. I started calling meetings and talking about things with other Prefects. Nobody told me to do it, but I thought the Prefects should meet at least once a week as the elected representatives.” 123 He explained the process as: “The Gunnery is a comfortable place where you don’t need permissions to do things, so I said we need to meet to other student leaders without any official changes in the position. I proposed other student leaders to meet more frequently, and we just did that.”

Meanwhile, as the Editor of the Highlander Newspaper, Mr. Baum encouraged students to express their viewpoints through the student paper. He tried to serve as the mouthpiece for the student body to express themselves just as he had done before.

Despite his active engagement with the community as a Prefect, Mr. Baum felt as though he could have done much more and contributed to the community in a more meaningful way. “The last few weeks of my senior year, I felt disengaged and frustrated, which many student leaders feel around the end of the year; that we were not very effective as a group of student leaders and that we were not listened to by the student body. Don’t get me wrong: we were a nice group of six diverse students, but I don’t know that we were active enough in gleaning student perspectives from the students we represented. Part of that was because we weren’t great at executing the ideas and policies we decided to undertake from the student body’s ideas. For the large part, I thought there needed to be more regular meetings between us and members of the faculty, and ones between us and core administrators, but we did not have that. There was no way for us to evaluate how our year went or to seek help and advice from the faculty.”124 After graduating from The Gunnery, Mr. Baum went on to Cornell University where he earned a bachelor’s degree in labor relations in 2007. Right after his graduation from Cornell and before going to Columbia Graduate school, Mr. Baum came right back to The Gunnery serving as a member of the faculty for four years. He reflected, “And that’s because, college, which I loved, is great in a lot of ways, but it is not very meaningful and fulfilling in the ways a place like The Gunnery is with a warm and close-knit community. I always felt a strong urge to come back to

123 124

Ibid.

Ibid.

Choi 52 The Gunnery where I can be surrounded again by all the adults who had profound impacts on me as a student, and to work with them and learn from them. Mr. Sisk, he is the greatest. He taught me how to teach, for instance.”125 Teaching various courses, ranging from English, U.S. history, to economics, and coaching the ice hockey team at The Gunnery, Mr. Baum thought he also wanted to help his students become better leaders. “Even when you cook a meal, there are so many steps involved. Same thing applies to leadership, only more complicated. However, when students are first doing it, they will be excited about being a leader until they actually have to do something. And they will hit a moment, “how do we do it?” This is the part where the student leaders often lack the most -- they know what they want, but they do not know how to come up with concrete ideas and implement them.

By establishing this position, I wanted to navigate the process through with Prefects. But the thought was that to get it more organized, meet more often, not just through DCs, to be more thoughtful about what’s going in the school. Mr. Baudo, our dean of students, was all for it. I had that role for one or two years, and Mr. Garrity took over the position. I am so glad that the position still continues today, I think the position started in 2010 maybe. It was basically giving Prefects more directions on a daily basis, instilling them what it means to be a student leader and how to execute things more effectively.”126 After Mr. Baum served as the prefect advisor for two years, Mr. Garrity ‘99 assumed the position until he became a faculty at Williston Northampton. Mr. Baum advised, “When I was a prefect advisor, I always said, I am not interested in your opinion, but I am more interested in the opinion of people you represent. I guess I don’t really care about how good I am or anybody is, whether your job is Dean of Students, headmaster, if you work with students, you have to work directly with students and make them more aware of themselves as leaders of others. What we do in society basically is to tell people to become better leaders. But we don’t always give them specific guidance on what that means. And I think that’s why we developed that position here, and, certainly, it’s my own philosophy that, if you spend a lot of time talking about how kids are doing,

125 126

Ibid.

Ibid.

Choi 53 what we can do differently, and what we do can do better.”127 Mr. Baum’s commitment to bring structure and guidance to the student leaders is alive at The Gunnery today which helps student leaders to become effective communicators and decision-makers. Overall, Mr. Baum’s interview captures what separates The Gunnery’s student government apart from those of other secondary schools and illustrates how Mr. Gunn’s founding philosophy has influenced the student leadership at The Gunnery. In order to further demonstrate what separates The Gunnery’s student leadership education from those of others, student governments at Holy Cross High School, a Catholic high school, located in Waterbury, CT, and Taft, a boarding school in Watertown, CT.

127

Ibid.

Choi 54

Chapter 09 | Student Governments at Holy Cross High School and Taft Holy Cross High School, a Catholic secondary school located in Waterbury, Connecticut, was founded in 1968 with its mission statement: “educate each person in body, mind, and soul [...] inspired by faith and informed by reason.”128 To fulfill its vision, Holy Cross established a working student government from its inception with members of the faculty, focusing on cultivating students’ leadership, empathy for others, and religious faith. Interestingly, the establishment of student government at Holy Cross coincides with the expansion of student government at The Gunnery with Mr. Ogden Miller’s emphasis on his students’ civic engagement and leaders.

To introduce the student government at Holy Cross in depth, seven student leaders sat down to share their definitions of student leadership and unique experiences at Holy Cross. Seven student participants represented a collage of diverse interests and identities on campus, ranging from a Varsity football player, National Honors Society members, a senior interested in community service, to a freshman taking initiative to host the class events.

When asked to describe the structure of student government at Holy Cross, Daniel Flaherty ’18, elected student body president, explained, “The student government at Holy Cross is comprised of three branches -- student council, President’s council, and Athletic council -- with disparate memberships and functions. Student Council, comprised of four class presidents and senior life board, is a legislative part of the government that addresses deficiencies in school policies, including the disciplinary rules and dress codes. Unique to Holy Cross, senior life board is for members of the senior class who did not get a chance to run for leadership positions or did not win when they ran, allowing them to improve the school based upon their constructive feedbacks.”129 Meanwhile, the President’s Council convenes all the club presidents on campus with the class presidents overseeing the progression of the meeting. Lastly, the Athletic Council with elected junior and senior Varsity athletes give a platform for athletes to make their voice heard in the school administration while facilitating communications among different sports teams.”130 Three branches of student government along with specific roles and responsibilities

128

Seven student leaders at Holy Cross High School, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Waterbury, CT, February 25, 2017.

129 Ibid.

130 Ibid.

Choi 55 delegated to each resembles the organization of a student government Mr. Ogden Miller envisioned.

Solomina Darko ’18, Senior class president, further explained the structure of student government at the school: “Every year, each class elects four officers, president, vice president, treasurer, and secretary in May, except for the freshman class who elects the leaders in September.

After the election, student leaders have their own committees they attend meetings on Thursdays, and then we all come together for student councils on Tuesdays, and each officer attends the council meeting. And for the senior class, they also have senior life board with additional people who either did not get a chance to run or didn’t win when they ran, and allow them to have more say in our student government.” Furthermore, whenever there are major initiatives taken by the student leaders, subcommittees are established for particular purposes, ranging from technology, communications, environment, community service, to dress code reform committee. Various platforms to facilitate students’ conversations on campus policies reflected the school’s effort to cultivate student leadership not just among the elected students but the entire community.

On top of the complex student government system, Daniel Flaherty ’18 further described the written student government constitution that guides elected students throughout the school year.

“We have a very comprehensive, written student government constitution that describes each leadership position, responsibilities, and delegated powers in detail, along with the disciplinary clauses. Every year, newly elected student leaders gather together and go through each clause to change some clauses when necessary. This allows us to reflect the changes in the school culture and administration very efficiently.”131 When asked to describe the school’s mission statement on the establishment of student government, Solomina Darko ’18, senior class president, responded, “Holy Cross’s ultimate mission is to educate students’ hearts and minds, meaning that the school focuses on cultivating students’ characters not just their academic development.”132 She elaborated, “Our school integral part of the mission is that of the Catholic Church. Our special role at Holy Cross High School is founded on the love that Jesus Christ has for us. We believe that this love will lead us to an

131 132

Ibid.

Ibid.

Choi 56 awareness of the uniqueness of each person in the Holy Cross community. Ultimately, the school’s purpose is to foster the development of conscience and a sense of responsibility in each member of the school community. We trust that the awareness of Christ’s love for us will lead us to a Christian commitment which manifests love and concern for all.” Just as The Gunnery’s educational philosophy and Mr. Gunn’s vision of the school have shaped today’s student leadership, the mission of Holy Cross High School has been alive and influenced how student leadership works at the school.

Another strength of the student government at Holy Cross was its integration of underclassmen to its regular meetings. Genarro Genua ’21, a president of the freshman class, explained, “When I was elected as president of my class, I initially thought that I couldn’t make a big difference as an underclassman. However, there have been plenty of opportunities and occasions in which we could channel the freshman class’s ideas and thoughts even to the administration with the help of seniors. By attending various meetings every week, upperclassmen have taught us how to devise, propose, and implement changes we would like to see in the school, even as freshmen.”133 He further described the power dynamics between elected student leaders and the administration by noting, “Being a freshman student leader has been a rewarding and worthwhile experience. Coming to Holy Cross as a freshman, I was skeptical whether all the juniors and seniors would even listen to our ideas. However, as it turns out, members of the faculty, student leaders, and the school community truly listen to us and reflect our opinions, which has been an extremely cool experience for us.”134 Michael Dane ’21, another freshman student leader, similarly noted, “We have two meetings a week, as others have described, and it is really fun to help people setting up events and learning from the seniors’ organization and leadership skills.”135 Meanwhile, similar to The Gunnery’s Prefect advisory system, Megan Dwyer ’05, Director of Student Activities, participates in Thursday’s meetings and guides student leaders to craft effective proposals to the administrations whenever necessary. Mrs. Dwyer ’05, reflected her experience by noting, “I am always amazed and inspired by our student leaders who take the initiative to improve our community with their ideas and thoughts. I usually sit in the meetings and 133

Ibid.

Ibid.

135 Ibid.

134

Choi 57 listen to what they have to say, and it has been truly inspiring to see them growing as leaders over the course of a year.”136 Furthermore, Megan Dwyer ’05 and other members of the faculty help students’ organization of the Holy Cross student leadership conference. Every fall in September, the conference takes place on campus, and students get a day-off, and leaders spend the day outside leading a variety of trust-building activities, plan for the year, and listen to the student body’s ideas and thoughts to improve the community. The biggest objective of the conference is to teach underclassmen how to become leaders and be active participants of the community, Daniel remarked. Moreover, student leaders and encouraged to attend the national Holy Cross school leadership conference in May to interact with student leaders outside of the Connecticut bubble.

Lastly, the emphasis on community service to student leaders at Holy Cross stood out as one of its strengths. Solomina Darko ’18 noted, “Community service is a huge aspect of Holy Cross education, and naturally, student leaders are expected and encouraged to help others in need throughout the year.”137 For example, Solomina and other student leaders host various fundraising events for a wide range of causes and regularly collect clothes, and visit nearby soup kitchen.

Solomina reflected, “This year, we collected clothes, jackets, and other winter clothing, celebrating the Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Student leaders organized and encouraged students to donate for the cause, and it turned out to be one of the most successful years. When we delivered the clothes and saw people’s faces brightening up, we were inspired to continue to reach out to the community and help the world outside of the Holy Cross. As such, various community service initiative and projects opened up my eyes that there are a lot of different people out there and they are all in different situations. From what I have learned here, I want to use my education to help others and improve the communities in need.”138 On top of learning about the student government at Holy Cross High School, various student leaderships at Taft were studied to contextualize and compare to the Prefect system at The Gunnery. What stood out the most throughout the research process was lack the way Taft’s studentrun newspaper, Papyrus, delivered its highest leadership position, monitor from 1898. While The 136

Ibid.

Ibid.

138 Ibid.

137

Choi 58 Gunnery News often dedicated its entire issue to the elected members of student leaders, the Papyrus scarcely covered their highest leadership position, the Monitors. Learning more about its history of student government shed light on the reason behind this. In fact, the longest article that covers its monitorial system was published in June 3, 1981, which briefly covered the elected student leaders’ profiles.139 While The Gunnery’s student government, as Mr. Balben noted in the prologue, has been an “ever-changing” and “ever-evolving” leadership position, largely influenced by the community’s demand for new leadership, student leadership position at Taft has not changed much.

In fact, Taft school describes its highest leadership position, the “monitorial system” on their website as: “In his earliest writings, Horace Dutton Taft talks about the “monitorial system,” noting that only three years into the school’s founding, the system “took shape and acquired strength.”

Now, more than 125 years later, monitors, or “mons” still lead the student body.”140 The fact that the highest leadership at Taft has not changed much for 125 years draws a stark contrast with the student leadership positions at The Gunnery, which moved from family meetings, school council system, to today’s Prefect system.

Taft website elaborates the “monitorial system” more in depth by noting: “Two “head mons”—one boy and one girl— and 10 school mons lead Taft’s student government; all are elected by school wide vote, and all are members of the senior class. Mons have demonstrated exceptional leadership ability and impeccable character throughout their Taft careers. The head mons work closely with the headmaster and the school mons to implement the Honor System, assist with supervision in the dormitories, and share in the responsibility of day-to-day events on campus.”141 Similar to student government at Holy Cross, one of the primary goal of student leaders at Taft includes upholding its student constitution, the Honor System, that includes various clauses that students at Taft need to follow. Furthermore, Taft’s student government is also comprised of complex working bodies, ranging from the Community Council, Global leadership conference, to Model Congress.142 139

Ibid.

Ibid.

141 “Clubs, Activities, and Student Leadership - Taft School,” accessed May 20, 2018, https://www.taftschool.org/campus-life/clubs-activities-and-student-leadership.

142 Ibid.

140

Choi 59 Learning about the working student governments at Holy Cross High School and Taft made it clear what separates the student government at The Gunnery from those of other high schools and what makes The Gunnery’s definition of student leadership unique. Furthermore, studying various student leadership positions at two schools shed light on areas in which our student leaders can learn from, along with various strengths of our student government which will be covered in the last chapter of this book.

Choi 60

Chapter 10 | Provisions for the Future Prefect System Studying the history of student leadership at The Gunnery from family meetings to today’s Prefect system, it was remarkable to see the development and transition of student government at The Gunnery. As Mr. Balben described in the prologue, the Prefect system at The Gunnery has been truly “ever-changing” and “ever-evolving” that cannot be defined in a sentence or two.

Meanwhile, it was also clear that The Gunnery’s student government was truly progressive and ahead of its time from Mr. Gunn’s family meeting which emphasized its egalitarian power dynamics between the faculty and student body. Given that many headmasters during Mr. Gunn’s time deliberately limited their interactions with students – Deerfield’s headmaster refused to establish a working student government (introduced in chapter 1) – Mr. Gunn’s educational philosophy which resembles that of Paulo Freire has allowed our unique student government to sprout and flourish.

As such, Mr. Gunn’s progressive educational philosophy and subsequent development of a fluid student government system have allowed elected student leaders to redefine the position as they see fit, contrary to student governments at other high schools that have not changed over past decades to a century. Furthermore, The Gunnery’s emphasis on cultivating active citizenship through various leadership positions, as seen in the quadrennial mock political conventions, illustrates what makes our definition of student leadership so unique and meaningful.

Despite various strengths that our student government has, my research also discovered many areas in which our Prefect system lack and improve upon in the future. In the following pages, my suggestion and ideas for the provision for the future Prefect system will be introduced in detail, in the hopes of facilitating conversations on campus to further improve our unique student leadership positions. 

Provisions for the Future Prefect System

First and foremost, our student government needs a better platform that can bridge the communications gap among the student leaders, administration, and faculty. Learning about how student leaders communicated with the administration and faculty in the past, especially during which Mr. Eanes served as a headmaster, it was evident that the current Prefects do not have a consistent platform to communicate with all members of the faculty and administration.

Choi 61 When the Prefect position was first established, the elected members even had a voice in assigning the student body’s grouping along with the faculty. When Mr. Ayres and Mr. Eanes were headmasters of the school, they tried to meet with the Prefects almost every month and discussed various administrative issues with the elected student leaders. This allowed Mr. Dick Lehr ’72 to have a say in major change in the school co-curricular policy, which eliminated strict athletic cocurricular requirements and gave students a wider variety of extracurricular options. Mr. Ari Baum’s interview shed light on student leaders’ active interactions with the Board of Trustees and members of the faculty by participating in various meetings.

While the student leaders certainly have opportunities to interact with the greater community through weekly school meetings and a meeting with Mr. Balben, the communication gaps among the student leaders, administration, and faculty have been brought up on numerous occasions. Most notably, in the recent student walk out, many members of the faculty noted that they were not aware of the event, until the Prefects announced during Monday’s school meeting, without prior discussions or debates on the matter. If Prefects only had an opportunity to have conversations with members of the faculty, perhaps by participating in the faculty meeting, the division and controversy after the walk out could have been avoided. Student leaders in the future can perhaps take more initiative to build an infrastructure in which they can sit more often with the administration, members of faculty, and even the Board of Trustees, as Prefects in the past did.

Secondly, Prefects should interact more actively with underclassmen student leaders in the future. Few years ago, The Gunnery introduced class representatives as one of major leadership positions on campus. The Student Handbook describes the position as: “Class Representatives are elected by their peers for the Freshman, Sophomore, and Junior grades. They work closely with their respective Class Deans and the Dean of Students to actively seek out and undertake initiatives to help strengthen the sense of community and class identity amongst their peers. In addition, Class Representatives work with the Dean of Students Office and the Dining Hall Managers to assign campus jobs for the members of their class. Class Representatives have the opportunity to lead their classes on trips or organize other events for their peers. It is their responsibility to serve the school at Community Council and as role models in the community.

Their role is an opportunity to serve and improve their school and it is this opportunity that is their

Choi 62 main privilege.”143 While the position itself describes an ideal scenario in which students build up leadership skills from freshman year to senior year, possibly until they are elected Prefects, the interactions with class representatives and Prefects have been nominal.

Anthony Cochrane ’18, one of the Prefects this year noted, “Working as a Prefect this year made me realize the complexity of bureaucratic procedures to get our proposals passed through the administration. I wish if I knew, or got used to the process earlier in my high school career to be more efficient with communications and policy-making process.”144 The problem that Anthony brought up can be addressed efficiently by inviting underclassmen class representatives to weekly Prefect meetings or hosting leadership sessions throughout the year. Throughout the early 20th century, few elected sophomore and junior students were invited to attend the School Council and work with Prefects on a wide range of issues. The DOS office and Prefects should discuss various means to include elected class representatives in their meetings. Perhaps, various platforms that Holy Cross student leaders have crafted can be good examples, in which even the sophomore class president has a say in organizing major campus events and revising the school constitution. This exposure to student leadership from early on will not only train the underclassmen to become effective Prefects when they become seniors, but also to help them become natural leaders when they graduate from The Gunnery.

Thirdly, the community should grapple with how much structure and organization to our student government is necessary. Hearing about the student governments at Holy Cross and Taft, Sabryna Coppola ’18, current Prefect, noted, “Frederick Gunn was not a bureaucratic figure, meaning that he focused a lot on having things come naturally to the community, not so rigidly through the rules. I think that he would be very proud of us that we do not focus so much on the titles or positions of leadership. We do not have the Treasures, Secretaries, or a 40-page of Constitution that we have to amend every year, but it is more of a fluid system. That part of it puts even more responsibilities on our shoulders.”145

“The Gunnery Student Handbook 2017-2018” (The Gunnery, September 2017), https://gunnery.myschoolapp.com/ftpimages/726/download/download_2404326.pdf?_=1526923691174 144 Prefects at The Gunnery, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Washington, CT, 25, 2017.

145 Ibid.

143

Choi 63 As the history of Prefect position’s development illustrates, The Gunnery community has shifted back and forward between a fluid student government and more structured system, most notably reflected by the different approaches by Mr. Gunn and Mr. Ogden Miller. Moving forward, the community should consider whether having a more structure government and constitution would benefit the community. Furthermore, the school needs to better document each class of student leaders’ proposals, achievements, and interactions with the community. Aside from the newspaper and yearbooks, I had a difficult time, even trying to figure out who were the members of Prefect position in many years. While The Gunnery News should continue documenting various leadership initiatives and Prefect elections in depth, the administration and archive need to organize a working document of student leadership that future generations can reference to.

Fourthly, the school should provide more opportunities for our student leaders to interact with students from outside of The Gunnery. Last fall, The Gunnery hosted CT Gubernatorial Forum with Mr. McMann, the History Department Chair, various political organization leaders, and Prefects’ assistance. The CT Gubernatorial Forum was a wonderful opportunity which allowed students to interact with politicians outside of The Gunnery bubble and learn about how real politics works. Through the event, student leaders learned how to form and articulate their ideas in thoughtful manners, which are essential aspects of student leadership.

Learning about various opportunities at Holy Cross and Taft which allows their student leaders to interact with those from other high schools through Holy Cross national leadership conference and global institute, I realized that The Gunnery can do more to allow our student leaders to interact with the world outside of the school. Perhaps, adopting the CT Gubernatorial Forum as an example, The Gunnery can invite student leaders from other high schools and discuss about student leadership and learn from each other’s strength and weakness.

Fifthly, various organizations such as family meetings and quadrennial mock political conventions can be brought back to further improve our student government. The family meeting, which is described in chapter three, was truly unique to our community and ahead of its time with its egalitarian power dynamics between the student and faculty. Through family meeting, students freely discussed about academic schedule, disciplinary issues, and various policies with Mr. Gunn in a relaxed setting. As the Master of The Gunnery described, “After dinner each Sunday afternoon

Choi 64 the whole family, except the servants, gathered together, in summer under the vine-clad porch on the south side of the Gunnery, in winter within the large sitting-room. This conclave was the grand tribunal of the household, with the master for chief judge. To its arbitration were submitted any irregularity of the week before, or, indeed, any subject relating to domestic order or plans.�146 Combining judiciary and legislative aspects of government at once, the family meeting was a great platform that connected the entire school community.

While hosting the family meeting can come with a challenge, given the significant increase in enrollment from 1850, adopting this model and facilitating conversations on campus would be an interesting way to appreciate Mr. Gunn’s educational mission and vision. Furthermore, the quadrennial mock political conventions with a wide range of subcommittees can be hosted in lieu of our few DOS programming day. That is, by crafting smaller and more specialized committees, ranging from technology, programming day, weekend activities, to dress code reform, and allowing students to choose a meeting they would like to attend, the students can engage with various school policies more actively and have a voice within the community. Some of the platforms and organizations that made The Gunnery truly unique can be readopted to make our student government even stronger in the future.

146

William Gibson, The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn (New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887).

Choi 65 Bibliography Calabrese Raymond. “The Effects of Service Activities on Adolescent Alienation.” U.S. Department of Education, n.d.

“Clubs, Activities, and Student Leadership - Taft School.” Accessed May 20, 2018. https://www.taftschool.org/campus-life/clubs-activities-and-student-leadership.

Condon, Bradley. “Choosing the Right Prefect.” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

Deming, Wilbur. The Church on The Green: The First Two Centuries of the First Congregational Church at Washington, Connecticut. Hartford: Brentano’s, 1941.

Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1922.

Dutcher, Cornelius. “Council Activities.” The Gunnery News. October 10, 1936, No. 2 edition.

Eanes, Michael. “From the Headmaster.” The Gunnery News. June 2, 1988.

Eight Prefects at The Gunnery, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Washington, CT, 25, 2017.

Exercises at the Unveiling of a Monument to Frederick William Gunn. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1882.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000.

Gibson, William, Ed.. The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn. New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887.

“History | Top Boarding Schools | The Gunnery School in Washington CT | The Gunnery.”

Accessed January 30, 2018. https://www.gunnery.org/page/about-us/history--traditions.

“Holy Cross at a Glance.” Holy Cross High School. Accessed March 20, 2018. https://www.holycrosshs-ct.com/about/at-a-glance.

Johnson, Evan. A Study of The Gunnery and Its Definition and Implementation of Feminism. Vol. XV. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 2016.

Choi 66 Kane, Pearl. “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools.” Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997.

Kardonski, Fred. “Year Opens Under 10-Prefect System.” The Gunnery News. September 16, 1971.

Krimsky, Paula. Gunnery Stories Illustrated. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, n.d.

“Look More into Fraternity at The Gunnery in Which the Faculty Joined.” New Haven Newspaper. April 8, 1945.

Mark Grabe. “School Size and the Importance of School Activities.” ProQuest Information and Learning Company & the Graduate School of Iowa State University, n.d.

Melissa, Soderberg. “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools.” Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997, 3–39.

Michael, Eanes, email exchange with the author, January 24, 2018.

McFarland, Daniel and Carol E. Starmanns. “Inside Student Government: The Variable Quality of High School Student Councils.” Teachers College Record, 111, no. 1 (2009), 27-54.

Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=1517 Putney, Clifford. “Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920.” Harvard University Press, 2003.http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1525/nr.2006.10.1.139.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3 A49e0bda72118b972ee649a94d9e5685e “Prefect Issue.” The Gunnery News. May 12, 1988.

Richardson, Chip. “With Two Conditions, Council Legalizes Diversified Projects.” The Gunnery News. October 30, 1971, Vol. XXXVI edition.

Sasse, Ben. The Vanishing American Adult. New York: St. Martin’s Press, n.d.

Seven student leaders at Holy Cross High School, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Waterbury, CT, February 25, 2017.

Steele, Erik. “From the Prefects.” The Gunnery News. May 1989.

Student councils: a voice for students. Dublin: Department of Education and Science, 2002.

Choi 67

Taft Catalogue. Watertown, Connecticut: Taft School, 1977.

Taft Student Handbook, 1927-28. Watertown, Connecticut: Taft School, 1927.

The Gunnery Bulletin. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 2014.

The Red and Gray. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 1946-2017.

Wright, Patrick. “Next Year’s Prefects.” The Gunnery News. June 2, 1988.

Xu, Jessica. Setting the Pace: Mr. Gunn and School Athletics in the 19th Century. Vol. XIII. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 2015.

Zach. “From the Prefects.” The Gunnery News. May 12, 1988.

Choi 68

Appendix A | Annotated Bibliography Baum, Ari, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Washington, CT, October 25, 2017 Mr. Ari Baum ’03, who now serves as the Dean of Students at The Hill School, initiated the Prefect advisory system in 2010. As the Prefect advisory system is one of the most integral parts of student government at The Gunnery, I wanted to listen to Mr. Ari Baum’s background, his leadership initiatives, and experience at The Gunnery as a student, teacher, and Prefect advisor.

The interview was an invaluable opportunity which allowed me to understand his life at The Gunnery in the early 2000s. His remark that the student leaders only met with the Dean of Students then only once a year illustrated the lack of interaction between adults and student leaders on campus. Discussing in-depth about his one-minute speech tradition, similar to today’s junior speeches delivered in the school meeting, Mr. Baum explained and defined leadership and how it should be taught and fostered in a secondary high school setting. A natural leader and thinker, Mr. Ari Baum’s interview allowed to understand how he and other Prefects worked on building the infrastructure to work with the administration and members of the faculty.

Calabrese Raymond. “The Effects of Service Activities on Adolescent Alienation.” U.S. Department of Education, n.d.

Raymond Calabrese’s journal elucidates the obscure concept of “alienation” among the secondary school students through his citation of statistical data and psychological definition. He then explores the correlation between alienation and adolescent delinquency, which explains why it is urgent and necessary to reduce the alienation students feel by a variety of measures. By introducing a quasi-experiment, Calabrese notes that the student body’s active involvement with adults in the community service and integration with adult society are the most ideal, effective solutions. His paper gives better insight of why the educational reformers instituted student government system at first place, which allowed the elected students’ active interaction with the school administration and faculty members. However, the research he relies on is limited in that the data sample is too small -- conducted to 100 students -- and leaves many correlation between student government and reduction of adolescent alienation unclear. Calabrese’s journal can be introduced in the beginning part of the paper to explain the significance of students’ interaction with the faculty members, which parallels with Mr. Gunn’s interaction with his students through the “family meetings” and Ogden Miller’s discussions with the Prefect members.

“Clubs, Activities, and Student Leadership - Taft School.” Accessed May 20, 2018. https://www.taftschool.org/campus-life/clubs-activities-and-student-leadership.

The website provided the information about various leadership positions at Taft school which accompanied my primary resource at their archive. By reading the descriptions of each leadership position, I was able to extrapolate the differences in student government at Taft from our Prefect system.

Choi 69 Condon, Bradley. “Choosing the Right Prefect.” The Gunnery News, May 12, 1988.

Bradely’s article was a perfect example in which The Gunnery Newspaper that served the community. As an editor of The Gunnery News during the time, Bradley defined the broad concept of leadership and advised the underclassmen how to vote for “the Right Prefects.” By writing this article, Bradley wanted to ensure that the Prefect election would not turn into a so-called, “popularity contest.” It was also interesting to see how the Newspaper staff wrote articles that facilitated the community’s discussions of student leadership. It was one of the examples that I cited to illustrate the active role in The Gunnery Newspaper.

Deming, Wilbur. The Church on The Green: The First Two Centuries of the First Congregational Church at Washington, Connecticut. Hartford: Brentano’s, 1941.

Deming’s book on local history of Washington, CT, describes Mr. Gunn’s achievements and personal qualities in depth. His meticulous reports on Mr. Gunn’s various speeches, particularly the one at CT Teachers’ Association, provided me sufficient information to grasp the significance of Mr. Gunn’s progressive pedagogy during the time. While I was reading few chapters, I also stumbled upon Mr. Gunn’s speech in which he compared The Gunnery to “republic,” an integral quotation that substantiated my hypothesis. Furthermore, various quotations, such as, “As an educator Mr. Gunn had original ideas, many of which were in advance of his time” also allowed to me contextualize and compare The Gunnery’s student government to those of others during the time. Deming’s local history book will be a great source for future scholars to grasp Mr. Gunn’s reputation outside of The Gunnery and his progressive educational approach.

Overall, this book will allow the readers to grasp the history of the town Washington, CT, outside of The Gunnery bubble.

Dewey, John. Democracy and Education: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916.

John Dewey, an influential American philosopher and educational reformer, was a part of the greater Reform Movement, promulgating the necessity of expanding secondary education to the middle class. John Dewey’s most notable book, Democracy and Education, outlines his educational belief that the goal of public school should be focused on preparing masses of people for citizenship, not necessarily educating the strongest or the most affluent students. His educational philosophy explains the exponential increase in studentship during the early to mid 20th century and subsequent expansion of student government. As such, John Dewey’s Democracy and Education is a valuable source in understanding the crux of school reform movement during the 1920s and expansion of studentship during the time period. While his words are quite difficult to comprehend at few chapters, it is worth reading to investigate and understand the crux of educational reform movement’s arguments and reasoning behind them.

Eanes, Michael. “From the Headmaster.” The Gunnery News. June 2, 1988.

Choi 70 Mr. Michael Eanes, the 9th headmaster of The Gunnery from 1979 to 1991, attempted to maintain and improve the school’s student government by interacting with the student leaders more frequently and reaching out to the student body. After conducting an email interview with Mr. Michael Eanes, the article he contributed to The Gunnery News in 1988 served as a great proof of his interview responses. In this article, Mr. Michael Eanes reports various initiatives the previous year’s Prefects took and commends their achievements as a group. Meanwhile, Mr. Michael Eanes also gives invaluable advice to the next generation of Prefects through his life experience and own definition of student leadership. Describing the year the elected student leaders will spend as “party” time, Mr. Michael Eanes illustrates a unique power dynamics between the headmaster and student leaders from Mr. Gunn’s family meetings.

Eight Prefects at The Gunnery, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Washington, CT, 25, 2017.

In order to better understand the student leaders’ firsthand experience at The Gunnery, I sat down with eight Prefects this school year and asked eleven open-ended questions. From the election process to their adjustment period to becoming a “role model” on campus, the interview served as a platform to facilitate conversations between the student leaders and me for my independent research. The interview lasted for about two hours, and I was able to grasp what sets The Gunnery’s student government apart from those of others that I studied over the course of year. Sabryna’s astute quotation on The Gunnery’s fluid student leadership position was used in my Gunn scholar presentation to substantiate my hypothesis.

Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, 2000.

On top of John Dewey’s Democracy and Education, Paulo Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed provided the backbone of my research paper, for it elaborates the significance of egalitarian power dynamics between teachers and students. Initially published in 1968, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed immediately became the bestseller – sold over 750,000 copies -- in Latin America, as the book grapples with the impact of colonization and subsequent dehumanization. As a part of dehumanization, Freire also criticizes the banking system of education and hierarchical power dynamics between students and teachers. As quoted in my book, Freire proclaimed, “oppression – overwhelming control – is necrophilic; it is nourished by love of death, not life. The banking concept of education, which serves the interests of oppression, is ncrophilic.” He then notes, “Those truly committed to liberation must reject the banking concept in its entirety, adopting instead a concept of women and men as conscious beings, and consciousness as consciousness intent upon the world […] Liberating education consists in acts of cognition, not transferals of information.” The boo Gibson, William, Ed.. The Master of The Gunnery: A Memorial of Frederick William Gunn. New York: The Gunn Memorial Association, 1887.

The book is a must-read for anyone who is interested in studying the founding mission and vision of The Gunnery. Written by William Hamilton Gibson, the book is a memoir of Mr. Gunn

Choi 71 that describes his interactions with students, educational philosophies, and vision of the school.

Chapters such as Mr. Gunn as the Citizen depict Mr. Gunn’s civic responsibility and how he instilled four cornerstones – responsibility, respect, scholarship, and integrity – among his students.

The Master of The Gunnery also dedicates a lot of its chapters describing his abolitionist efforts and his religious faith, his personal dedication for the higher goals outside of The Gunnery bubble.

These commitments and dedication to his moral causes and ethics shed light on the history of The Gunnery student government’s emphasis on civic engagement and responsibility. The book helped me the most with its detailed descriptions of family meetings from pages 30 to 60. The chapters not only describe the family meetings in depth but also introduces a variety of topics discussed during the meetings. The Master of The Gunnery is a superb primary source to truly understand progressive educational philosophies of Mr. Gunn and its significance. Reading the book, it feels as though Mr. Gunn is alive and interacting with the readers. Future Gunn scholars should always reference the book in order to understand and deliver Mr. Gunn’s crucial mission and vision of the school.

Kane, Pearl. “Student Leadership and Participation in Independent School Activities: Culture Created in Schools.” Teachers College, Columbia University, 1997.

Kane Pearl’s scholarly journal explains the history of student government in private schools in the United States, correlation between involvement in extracurricular activities and leadership, and the pressing challenges student leaders face today. Ultimately, Pearl urges the school administrators and faculty members to redefine the qualities of student council constitutions and composition of the elected members. His conclusion that student councils are differently organized by school charters and by income levels of the student population is a wake-up call to people who believe that simply having the student councils would automatically promote leadership among the teenagers. McFarland’s work is largely reliable as he approached most of the data from the federal government and actual student council constitutions from a variety of high schools. Most importantly, McFarland’s buttresses his credibility by integrating statistical data from the schools nationwide. This journal offers particularly excellent context for the later chapters of my research paper which will explain the challenges student governments, including that of the Gunnery, face today. Furthermore, the journal’s elaboration of the fundamental differences of student governments in small and large schools can help me articulate the chapters in which I will compare and contrast The Gunnery’s student government to local high school’s student council systems.

Kardonski, Fred. “Year Opens Under 10-Prefect System.” The Gunnery News. September 16, 1971.

Fred Kardonski, The Gunnery News staff, reported the changes in the Prefect system under Mr. Burgess Ayres in details. The article introduces Mr. Ayres’ initiative to expand the membership of Prefect position at The Gunnery by adding student monitors to the position. It sheds

Choi 72 light on the pros and cons of expanding the number of Prefects on campus by interviewing students and members of the faculty who have varying opinions and responses to the idea. Mr. Dick Lehr ’72, then Head Prefect elect, also responded to the growing skepticisms and concerns by providing his well-thought-out response to the changes.

Krimsky, Paula. Gunnery Stories Illustrated. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, n.d.

Mrs. Krimsky, the school’s archivist, organized and wrote various parts of the school history in her succinct and clear language. Mrs. Krimsky documented a broad range of letter exchanges, school catalogues, Newspaper articles, and yearbooks in a book that outlines the history of the school and her evaluation of each headmaster. The book helped me understanding the context in which headmasters redefined and reshaped the leadership positions. Personally, the chapter about Mr. Ogden Miller was particularly helpful understanding his emphasis on civic engagement and responsibility to his students.

Lehr, Dick, email exchange with the author, March 24, 2018 Dick Lehr ’72 who is now a professor at Boston University School of Journalism worked with the administration and members of the faculty to revise athletic requirements during his time at The Gunnery. He explained the expansion of the Prefect position in-depth by reflecting upon his time at The Gunnery which proved the articles that I stumbled upon the archive. His interview was crucial in strengthening my credibility in chapter six of the book in which I address the expansion of the student government. Furthermore, his leadership initiatives and interactions with the faculty demonstrate to what extent members of the Prefect had a voice in the administration’s decision-making process.

Putney, Clifford. “Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920.” Harvard University Press, 2003.http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1525/nr.2006.10.1.139.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3 A49e0bda72118b972ee649a94d9e5685e Putney’s scholarly journal on Muscular Christianity was an integral source in understanding the context of American educator’s increasing emphasis on physical fitness during the late 19th and early 20th century. In order to deliver Mr. Gunn’s integration of athletics as one of the educational experiences at The Gunnery, I had to research the educational pedagogy of Muscular Christianity that promulgated strong body and strong mind. While the scholarly journal is limited in depth, it provided me sufficient information to portray the greater educational shift during the time that increasingly underscored physical fitness as one of students’ ideals.

“Prefect Issue.” The Gunnery News. May 12, 1988.

The Gunnery Newspaper printed out various issues that exclusively covered the Prefect candidates’ platforms and interviews. The Prefect issue printed out in 1988 vividly captures each candidate’s narrative and leadership initiatives. The length and mastery of responses demonstrate

Choi 73 the student leaders’ ownership of the school, and how much thought they put into the fabric of The Gunnery community. Moreover, reading each candidate’s platforms will allow the readers to grasp the pressing issues The Gunnery faced during the late 1980s and how student leaders wanted to address the issues, which can be invaluable asset to the student leaders at The Gunnery today.

Richardson, Chip. “With Two Conditions, Council Legalizes Diversified Projects.” The Gunnery News. October 30, 1971, Vol. XXXVI edition.

Richardson’s article describes the Community Council and how it was organized during the 1970s. The article also describes the school’s initiative to craft the Community Council Constitution, an ideal of organized student government firstly implemented by Mr. Ogden Miller, and various leadership proposals that the Council came up with. While certainly limited, the article adds a piece to the ongoing argument at The Gunnery regarding how much structure should be built upon the student government at The Gunnery.

Seven student leaders at Holy Cross High School, a face-to-face interview with the authors, Waterbury, CT, February 25, 2017.

In order to understand how the student governments outside of The Gunnery works, Mrs. Krimsky, Dr. Wojcik, and I visited Holy Cross with Mr. Todd’s help. Seven student leaders represented a collage of diverse interests and identities with a common goal of improving their community. The interview lasted for about an hour and half, and I was able to grasp the mission statement’s influence on the structure and organization of student government. As a Catholic High School, Holy Cross High School puts a heavy emphasis on community service and fostering faith among its students. Meanwhile, it was very interesting to learn about its comprehensive student government constitution and three branches of government. This served as an excellent example of different type of student government in my research paper, and many elements of Holy Cross’ student government are introduced through my last chapter of the book.

Steele, Erik. “From the Prefects.” The Gunnery News. May 1989.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Prefects wrote a letter to the next year’s Prefects outlining the proposals they worked on, reporting successes and failures of their school year. Erik Steele, as a Prefect of 1988-89 school year, gave various advice to newly elected Prefects and urged them to continue various projects they worked on. Various letters contributed by the Prefects illustrate how Prefects interact with the community even after their graduation and explains today’s network of Prefects from various years.

Taft Catalogue, Newspaper, and Yearbook. Watertown, Connecticut: Taft School, 1928-1977.

With Mrs. Lovallo’s help, Mrs. Krimsky and I were able to go through old documents at Taft school archive to learn about their unique student government. Taft School Catalogue described their student government positions in depth and their honor code, the school’s constitution. While very formal in its writing, the school catalogue made the difference of The

Choi 74 Gunnery’s school culture and that of Taft. Going through the student handbooks from 1928 to today was also very interesting, for it stood out that Taft’s student government position has not changed much from its inception, contrary to various fundamental changes to The Gunnery’s Prefect system since its inception.

The Red and Gray. Washington, Connecticut: The Gunnery, 1938-2017.

The Red and Gray, The Gunnery’s Yearbook, is an invaluable source to see the development and evolution of student leadership positions at the school. Going through the student yearbooks from 1938, I was able to extrapolate various leadership positions and how they have developed over the course of year. Not to mention, I could document Prefect list from 1945 by going through the yearbook stored in the archive. It is important to note that the Yearbook dedicated its significant portion describing each student leadership position and its significance to the community. By carefully reading these descriptions, I could to see the reasoning behind changes in the student government over the course of years.

Choi 75

Appendix B | Illustrations in Chronological Order Part A: Yearbook Photos Image 1: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1933-34): Athletic Council and Dance and Decorating Committees

Image 2: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1933-34) describing Student Council:

Choi 76 Image 3: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1933-34) that lists Roger Henry Clark ‘34’s leadership positions:

Image 4: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1945-46): First Year with the Prefects

Choi 77 Image 5: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1945-46):

Image 06: The Red and Grey Yearbook (1947-48)

Choi 78 Image 07: The Red and Gray Yearbook (1950-1951)

Image 08: The Red and Grey Yearbook (1963) – Descriptions of the Student Council and the Gunn Association

Choi 79 Image 09: The Red and Grey Yearbook (1963) – Description of the Senior Monitors and the Matriculation Committee

Choi 80 Image 10: The Athletic Council (1963)

Choi 81 Image 11: The Gunnery Prefects captured during the meeting (1970)

Choi 82 Part B: Various Newspaper Articles Image 01: The Gunnery News (November 9, 1946) describes the election of the Student Council members

Choi 83 Image 02: The Gunnery News (1971) describes the expansion of the Prefect system introduced in Chapter 6

Choi 84 Image 03: The Gunnery News (1983) describes the newly elected Prefects’ initiative to increase communication between the student body and faculty

Choi 85 Image 04: The Gunnery News (1983): Various editorials and reports written by Prefects; An article titled “Head prefects Assess the Job� stand out

Choi 86 mage 05: Descriptions of the Foreign Policy Committee for the 1984 Mock Political Convention on The Gunnery campus

Choi 87 Image 06: Photos of Student Leaders and Participants Captured During the 1984’s Democratic National Convention Hosted on The Gunnery Campus (The Gunnery News (Published March 2, 1984)

Choi 88 Image 07: Various Editorials written by students with a wide range of political spectrums (Published March 2, 1984)

Choi 89 Image 07: Prefect Issue Published in 1986; Prefect Candidates wrote down well-thought-out, comprehensive answers to a series of questions crafted by The Gunnery News staff.

Choi 90 Image 07: Prefect Issued Published on May 12, 1988 before the election to inform the community about each candidate’s platform and initiatives to improve the community

Choi 91 Image 08: Prefect candidates’ responses to various questions crafted by The Gunnery News (May 12, 1988)

Choi 92 Image 09: The Gunnery News published in June 2, 1988; Prefects introduced in this image have been introduced through Ch. 7 of the paper

Choi 93 Image 10: The Gunnery News published in June 2, 1988; Headmaster, Mr. Michael Eanes, and previous year’s Head Prefect wrote editorials and letters to the community, explaining the significance of Prefect position on campus and advice for newly elected student leaders

Choi 94 Part C: Miscellaneous Image 01: Newspaper Article found in Taft Archive (October 9, 1971): An article that describes the election process of monitors at Taft; discussed in depth through Ch. 9 of the book

Choi 95 Image 02: (left) Photo of Ari Baum ’03 in the Yearbook 2002-2003; Mr. Ari Baum’s various leadership initiatives and interview are introduced in depth through Ch. 8 of the book (right) Photo of Dick Lehr ’72 in the Yearbook 1971-1972; Mr. Dick Lehr’s leadership initiative is introduced through Ch. 6 of the book

Choi 96 Image 04: A Visit to Holy Cross High School with Dr. Wojcik (top left) and Mrs. Krimsky (top right): Daniel Flaherty '18, Solomina Darko '18, Vincent Graziano '19, Julia Petrokaitis '20, Allysa Caybyab '19, Genarro Genua '21 and Michael Dane '21.

Image 05: A Conversation with Prefects (2017-2018) at The Gunnery (l. to r): Christian Kummer ’18, Sabryna Coppola ’18, Mark Choi ’18, Anthony Cochrane ’18, Sydney Fydenkevez ’18, Kate Hayward ’18, Gabby Lescadre ’18, and Kenyon Kay ’18 (Head Prefect)

Choi 97

Appendix C | List of Prefects *Note 01: Prior to 1945-1946, student council was the main functioning student government on campus, composed of eight to nine students; Prior to the student council, student leaders raised their voices through Mr. Gunn’s family meetings; Furthermore, Head Prefect was referred to Senior Prefect prior to the 1952-53 school year. * Note 02 (1972-1973): After carefully reviewing the yearbook, The Gunnery News from 1971 to 1974, and reaching out to the alumni development office, I concluded that the list cannot be found *Note 03 (1978-1979): please note that while thirteen qualified candidates ran for the election, only three were elected without Head Prefect// The Gunnery News (June 1979) reported: “The recent prefect elections at The Gunnery produced thirteen qualified and serious-minded candidates. Unfortunately, however, only three were chosen from the original number of juniors running for the position.

1940s 1945-46 Paul Martin Russ (Senior Prefect), Robert Paul Dore, David Curtis Sanford, III. 1946-47 Robert Paul Dore (Senior Prefect), Robert Carmine Zampano, Donald Thomas Grady, William Arthur McIlwain, Stuart Williams Tisdale 1947-48 Peter Dorsey Smith (Senior Prefect), Charles Ross Daniels, Edward Joseph McHugh, Richard Marvin Mockovak, Leonard Frederick Lombardi 1948-49 Edward William Tayler (Senior Prefect), Donald Eugene Courtney, Ivan Alan Hirsch 1949-50 Richard Ennis Lombardi (Senior Prefect), Donald Burr Christie, James Chatteron Clayton, William McCutcheon Posey, Ranulf Ueland

1950s 1950-51 Charles Albert Ault (Senior Prefect), Edward Burton Anderson, Kingsley Tuttle Leighton, Frederick Bruce Bradshaw, Ronald DeLevington Kirkbride 1951-52 Augustus G. Kellogg Jr. (Senior Prefect), William V. Emerson, George L. Peck, John F. Skillman, Roger A. Walters 1952-53 James Millinger (Head Prefect), George M. Auchincloss, James K. Page, James D. Shaw, Thomas D. Unsworth 1953-54 Michael H. Alderman (Head Prefect), Robert A. Phelon, William H. Boone, David P. Miller II, Harrison J. Turnbull 1954-55 David J. Schafer (Head Prefect), Kenneth M. Adams, Joseph A. Masterbone, John W. McKernon, Dwight D. Miller 1955-56 John Buffington Merrill (Head Prefect), Richard Drake Baldwin (Secretary), Colin Charles Colston, James Francis Conley 1956-57 , Peter H. Smith (Head Prefect), William N. Smyth, Charles Crawford, Charles F. Smith, Richard Hart, Richard D. Gebhardt, Barry S. Protage

Choi 98 1957-58 James Faulkner McKernon (Head Prefect), Christopher Finch Day, Allan Brewster Greenwood, Joseph Paul Jennings III, George Vernon Sheffield 1958-59 Jerry Sullivan (Head Prefect), H. Phelps Bristol, John C. Brown, George S. Sullivan 1959-60 Michael H. Smith (Head Prefect), Samuel S. Herrup,David E. Ladewig, Jeffrey G. Marsted, George S. McElroy

1960s 1960-61 Stephen C. Davol (Head Prefect), Robert G. Braman, John H. Clarke, Peter A. Manley, Peter D. Swan 1961-62 Duty D. Greene (Head Prefect), Jonathan S. Linen, Christopher R. Speers, John Harris, Charles H. Spencer 1962-63 David Sperry (Head Prefect), Robert M. Zavorskas, Norman O. Polk, William F. Nickel, David G. Littlewood, Sherman R. Hotchkiss 1963-64 Franklin H. Moore (Head Prefect), Russell E. Jones, Donald H. Brush, Richard D. Lilleston, Stuart J. McCampbell 1964-65 William O. Atherton (Head Prefect), Sandford D. Smith, Michael A. Sicher, Thomas Thomas, John S. Dean 1965-66 Jonathan W. Apgar (Head Prefect), Christopher B. Booth, Christopher J. Dunford, Robert N. Gilmore 1966-67 William I. Robinson (Head Prefect), John W. Chambers, Donald P. Green, Daniel K. Phalen, Emory A. Wyant 1967-68 David Hyde (Head Prefect), Donald Akin, David Borthwick, Benton Cook, Peter Sutton 1968-69 Kenneth H. Foreman (Head Prefect), Michael C. Cawley, Brittin C. Eustis, Mark J. Kudlow, Robert L. Pipes 1969-70 Jonathon Pines (Head Prefect), Otis Anderson, Thomas Dwyer, Stephen Garvan, Jed Yonge

1970s 1970-71 Mike Morin (Head Prefect), Chip Curran, Cliff Graves, Henry Royer 1971-72 Richard D. Lehr (Head Prefect), Robert R. Black, DeWitt Palmer Davenport, Curtis T. Dwyer, Donald R. Grody, Douglas D. Jarvis, Aun Mohammad, Benjamin G. Parks, Michael W. Patterson, Stephen E. Post, William St. Schwab, James D. Sturby, Christopher S. Sutton, Robert N. Whitemore 1972-73* please refer to note 02 1973-74 Ken Kunin (Head Prefect), Webb, Lowell, Blankman, Wollenberg, Twombly, Foster, Messenger, Bristow, Rossetter 1974-75 Jeffery Spielsinger (Head Prefect), Jeffery L. G. Hay, Keith Jefferson, Jeffery LacCroix, Eoin Slavin 1975-76 Scott Schereschewsky, (Head Prefect), Christopher C. Healy, Gregory B. Cliff, Dutch Barhydt, Keith Best 1976-77

Choi 99 Jonathan Wynn (Head Prefect), C. Young, Silver, Stern, Caimano, Young, Milas, Elgin, Ogilvie, Spence, Shroeder, 1977-78 Ken Stern (Head Prefect), Mark D. Shepherd, John P. Ghering, Nicki Lazare, Scott C. Milas 1978-79* please refer to the note 03 Chris Young, John Whittle, Andy Echols

1980s 1980-81 Hilary L. Cousins (Head Prefect), David H. Means, Hunter Jones, James M. Sachs, Terry M Gawel 1981-82 Jonathan L. Waechter (Head Prefect), Wayne W. Stout, Kim Zvik, Scott C. Craig, Robert A. Baker 1982-83 Steven B. Karas (Head Prefect), Michael Moller, Andy Jeske, Andrew Arich, Jon Bennett 1983-84 Peter J. Gallagher (Head Prefect), Barbara Huss, Lynn Pierotti, Gregory Geller, Christopher Choate 1984-85 Paul Stein (Head Prefect), Bob Houser, T.K. Knowles, Sheryl Adams, Michael Hayes 1985-86 Malcolm Chace (Head Prefect), Michael A. Herman, John F. Eckstein, Harry Kelleher, Beth White 1986-87 Missy Cuello (Head Prefect), Ian Arnof, Spencer Houldin, Michael Pankey, Carey Bodenheimer 1987-88 Brooks Anderson (Head Prefect), Hozefa Haveliwala, Katherine Kane, Zachary Brunette, Eugene Ray 1988-89 Andrew Crawford (Head Prefect), Ryan Nelson, Peter B. Herrick, Erik Steele, Andrew Victor 1989-90 William Penick (Head Prefect), Avanel Jarka, Timothy Pankey, Scott Hutchinson

1990s 1990-91 Sheila Boyd (Head Prefect), Brett Matthews, Joon Chung, Sam Herrick, Adam Clark 1991-92 Nicole Morgan (Head Prefect) Felix Rouse, Peter Houldin, Jarrett Berman, Jill Jankowsky 1992-93 Maurice Parham (Head Prefect), Andrew Corsaro, Rhasheda Daniels, Chris Fonte, Lamar Villere 1993-94 Miguel Padro (Head Prefect), Erica Levine, Katie Rainge, Ryan Polizzo 1994-95 John Kaloidis (Head Prefect) Pre, J. Long, D. Sass, J. Vincent, B. Levenson, M. Neimic 1995-96 James V. Grant (Head Prefect), Doug Baker, Allison Congdon, Miranda Pasch, Emily Wierdsma, Rocky Matias 1996-97 Omar Slowe (Head Prefect), Andra Cecchinato, Mike Messina, Lenny Raimondi, Chris Timmis 1997-98 Robert Bullwinkle (Head Prefect), Nick Johnson, Joel Clark, Tara Fischer, Lenny Raimondi 1998-99 Benjamin I. Stoddard (Head Prefect) Kevin Garrity, Tina Vetter, Kat Clements, Sarah Sladen, John Tabin 1999-2000 Mike Kim (Head Prefect), Crystal Taylor, Elyse Chambers, Mike Angelicola, Nick Patnaude

Choi 100

2000s 2000-01 Chelsea Stein (Head Prefect), Sarah Boulanger, Marlon Fisher, Jed Mahoney, Ryan Kelly 2001-02 Leigh Buckens (Head Prefect), Steven Francis, Heidi Giraldi, Ryan Cassella, Matthew Brown 2002-03 Lane Goldberg (Head Prefect), Ariel L. Baum, Megan Lovejoy Deja, Tessa Schultz, Jesse Soffer 2003-04 Andrea Marron (Head Prefect), Samuel Bramson, Mark Rhoads, Justin Sherman, James Walsh 2004-05 Malachi Garff (Head Prefect), Vincent Marron, Caleb Elston, Kate McMann, Weston Ulbrich, Gregory Chere 2005-06 James Estreich (Head Prefect), Emily Alter, Joe Clapis, Nate Elston, Liz McKenna, Josh Vidro 2007-08 Patrick J. Brennan (Head Prefect), Emily Bell, Lindsay Lincoln, Zackary Grossman, Peter MacKenna 2008-09 Joseph Mashburn (Head Prefect), Kurt Bailey, Patrick Loglisci, Margaret Theobald, Adam Katzenberg 2009-10 Jessica L'Heureux (Head Prefect), Johnathan Charles, Helene Dacey, Samuel Mandl, Lisa Kirk, Shane Gorman

2010s 2010-11 Adam DeSanctis (Head Prefect), Lauren Castaldi, Andrew Powers, Chuyan Huang, Isaiah Boswell, Taylor Rogerson 2011-12 Samuel Aguirre-Kelly (Head Prefect), Taylor Dube, Charlotte Carew-Miller, Elle Sutherland, Darby MacKay, Cameron MacKay 2012-13 Ian Riley (Head Prefect), Harris Owens, Tristan Kishonis, Wyatt Clark, Erin Sullivan, Paige Silengo 2013-14 Luke Perda (Head Prefect), Megan Salerno, Kori Rimany, Tim Reitman, Andrey Yuzvik, Amanda Payne 2014-15 Nathaniel Joslin (Head Prefect), Logan Adams, Colin Kanuch, Caroline Judd, Laura-Delight J. Van Tartwijk, Virginia Dodenhoff 2015-16 Ataman Ugur (Head Prefect), Nathan Fydenkevez, Hildy Maxwell, George Spano, Jennifer Hylwa, Samuel S. Joslin 2016-17 Matthew Danner (Head Prefect), Calista Connors, Eric Hoffman, Grace Van Tartwijk, Oliver Williams 2017-18 Kenyon Kay (Head Prefect), Christian Kummer, Anthony Cochrane, Kate Hayward, Sydney Fydenkevez, Sabryna Coppola, Cole Varney, Gabby Lescadre 2018-19 Maddie Aitken (Head Prefect), Katie Broccoli, Katie Namergut, Caleb Dorf, Will Graney, Jared Rainville, Tony Zhang, Sage Mines

Choi 101