The Comeback of Lions Den

by Serena Lin ‘28

In my first year at this school, I have always heard the legends of the Lions Den. But I have never seen the place despite passing frequently through Burnett and by the Lions Den. The only stories that I have heard about Lions Den were from some upperclassmen who were crazy fans of fries from the Lions Den, especially the fries. But with some pity, though I have always heard that the school is trying to reopen the Lions Den, they can’t find people to run it. So the Lions Den remained closed for a long time.

After one and a half year of hibernation, the Lions Den finally revived in January 2026, ran by staff of Flik. While old students are happy for the Lions Den to be back, new students are also interested in exploring this new food stop in the school. The Lions Den has now become a new highlight of school life. Available from 3-7pm, the Lions Den becomes a good place for students to take a break from regular school and practice while eating a snack.

I was astonished by the Lions Den when it was first opened. The space was way bigger than I thought. The large kitchen and friers differed a lot from my preconception of a small convenience shop. The Lions Den has a large menu, hot food includes fries, marinara sticks, and chicken fingers (which is not on the menu). There are also a large choice of different snacks and drinks. Whenever I walk by the Lions Den to get fries, the few minutes waiting for the fries to get prepared by the chef was almost the hardest to get through. But the freshmade hot food always cheers me up after a long day. 

The Lions Den indeed changed the students' lives a lot. Every time I pass by the Den, there's always a few students standing there, waiting for their food to be prepared. The comeback of the Lions Den also extended onto the Lion Term project for IV formers: making furniture, instruments, and games to put in the Den with recycled materials. Roughly around the same time as the Lions Den reopened, a vending machine was inserted in Burnett where Day Students stay. 

As a new aspect of student life, the Lions Den not only provided a new choice for food, but also provided a chance for students to communicate and boost the community. The hot food has always been a place of hapinness and peace for students. Thank you for the Flik staff who put effort in running the Lions Den and the School Faculty who put work in making the Lions Den run again.

Lion Term Across Forms

by Ingrid Namala ‘27

During Lion Term this year, Vth formers embarked on an entrepreneurial journey called “Lion’s Tank.” Students employed the hard-earned skills they cultivated in their III and IV Form years to formulate pitches and present them to a panel of Shark Tank-like judges from all walks of life.

Students were divided into five groups, each producing two presentations that were then voted on by select faculty members to determine which would proceed to the final Shark Tank showdown in the Class of ‘45 Hall. While the overarching goal of these pitches was to create a compelling, business-savvy narrative for the judges, the underlying theme was one of service. Each group prioritized creating a product that gave back to the world in some way. Five presentations advanced to the final round, and the top three groups received gift cards as prizes. When asked about her main takeaway from this year’s Lion Term, Manasa Mahesh ‘27, a Lion’s Tank finalist, said that “Entrepreneurship itself is pretty cool,” and that she “liked how [the] problem at hand didn’t need to be super big. It’s just a matter of finding a gap that needs to be filled, and coming up with a feasible solution.” This statement encapsulates the core of Lion’s Tank as it challenged students to identify a need, craft a realistic solution, and pitch a plan of action. 

Lion Term III Form

by Joanna Cheng ‘29

From March 9th to March 13th, students at St. Mark's stepped beyond the traditional classroom to participate in Lion Term. Lion Term is an annual five day experiential learning program where all students engage in a Form-based courses designed to engage in immersive, interdisciplinary, hands-on, responsive learning. For freshmen, Lion Term centered on the question: What is Service Learning?

Over the course of five days, my classmates and I moved between classroom lectures and off campus fieldwork. We began with lesson plans on food insecurity and housing insecurities, learning about the systemic causes behind these urgent issues. We also had the honor of hearing from Rwick Sarkar (2019 graduate from St.Mark’s School), a Food Project Youth Manager. Rwick spoke about how young people like us can meaningfully address hunger in local communities. From there, we put our learning into action.

Our group traveled to multiple service sites. At the Habitat for Humanity ReStore, we helped organize secondhand furniture and household goods. At Vets Inc., we sorted and organized donated items for veterans. At the Marlborough Community Cupboard, we arranged clothing donations. At Urban Missionaries, we similarly sorted secondhand items for those in need. At the end of the week, we ended with reflection sessions, in which we mapped out our community commitments and shared how our experiences connected to larger civic responsibilities.

I will admit, however, that I began the week with uncertainty. Before Lion Term, I viewed community service as something done primarily to fulfill a requirement.  I had wondered whether short-term volunteer work could truly make a difference and I questioned whether my own efforts would matter at all. 

However, I saw how small acts, from sorting clothes, organizing donations, listening to community leaders, directly support real people. My perspective shifted. After one of the sessions, I heard a staff member praise us for our efficiency, and how it had made a shopping room accessible for families was a powerful moment. 

Lion Term is more than a week of activities, it is rooted in "the power of experience to transform understanding." For me, that transformation was personal. I entered the week with biases I did not even know I had and left with a sense of my own responsibility. Lion Term did not just teach me about food insecurity or housing. It taught me that service is meaningful.

Rwick Sarkar’s presentation 

Students working at Habitat for Humanity ReStore

Students at Vets Inc.

Is Zesty Orange Chicken (Or Any Chicken) the Remedy to Seated Meal?

by Catherine Zhang ‘26

Short answer, no. 

Long answer, chicken parm might be the short-term relief, but no chicken is a long-term corrective. 

The problem with seated meals is not just the food; it is that our current system contradicts its community-gathering goal. I assume that there are several purposes of seated meals: first and foremost, a great opportunity for the whole community to get together; second, allowing people to build connections with others, ideally people outside of their regular social circles; third, ensure sugar intake because chocolate chips are only good during seated meals. 

In reality, if you sit in the main dininghall, your advisory is likely to cluster at one end of the table, while staring at another advisory. Food is often depleted before you even have a chance to dig in. It’s loud, boisterous, and you can barely have a conversation without getting interrupted by others. Small dining hall, in my opinion, except that some of the tables are tilted, is the best place to be in. But if you sit in Hinkle, you will likely have to cram yourself in such a limited space, constantly worrying about hitting the person behind you if you move your chair, or even just finding a way out. Finally, if you sit in the hallway, you benefit from being able to dismiss early, but you feel secluded from everyone else. I mean, who wants to eat in the hallway? 

And those are just the issues with the space, not to mention the limited food options and lack of proper utensils (sometimes). Let me draw the lines, though. I am not a hater of seated meals. I appreciate having the opportunity for the whole community, but I think the execution does not meet its purpose. 

So what is fundamentally paradoxical about seated meals that causes grudges in the community? 

The issue is, if we are claiming that we are an “intentionally small” community, why do people still have to sit in the hallways? If we are prioritizing fostering community connections at these events, why do we still end up talking with people in our advisory? And of course, why are we served with either fried chicken nuggets glazed with some sauce or braised beef most of the time? 

As for the first matter, that is up to the administrations to decide, which will certainly have to come with major changes at St. Mark’s. But what I am suggesting is that we need to re-imagine the spaces we have for dining. At least, provide a cozy, not-overcrowded setting for people to catch up, to talk, and to connect. A community is only stronger when people care for one another, and in this case, an undistracted conversation starter will do the job. 

Second, there needs to be a new system of table assignments if we are hoping to make community members interact with each other, especially people with whom they don’t normally interact. One promising solution can be putting everyone’s name (faculty included) into a random group generator of 47 groups (that is how many tables we currently have during seated meals), with some advanced setting of a number cap for each group according to how many can sit at a table and rotation throughout the year. There will be awkwardness and discomfort at first, but it will help spark conversation and foster new relationships. 

Finally, there needs to be a balance between community input on meal choices and dining service. It is hard to satisfy everyone’s taste buds and personal preferences, but the dining service can improve the situation by taking in more suggestions from community members, thus diversifying the menu. Ideally, there should be more food options, which depend on the dining service budget.

Again, there is nothing wrong with the idea of a seated meal or its purpose. But this longstanding tradition at St. Mark’s needs better execution as we move forward. If we truly believe in the power of a small community — not just the idea of it — then changes are necessary. Because right now, we are gathering the whole school together just to sit apart. 

The Backpack Ban

by Dingyi Ling ‘28

The Rule

The central corridor of the main building connects classrooms, admissions, and administration. Every student walks it daily. Every family of future St. Markers tours it.

Last fall, the administration banned students from leaving their backpacks there. 

Students must now leave their bags in designated zones, approximately 25 feet away, in either direction. The hallway is cleaner. The designated areas are not being used; bags are piling up, and students are taking longer to retrieve them. Especially after seated meals, the hallway has never been as crowded. 

Students were told two things: backpacks hurt the school’s image and obstruct access for individuals with disabilities, as sourced from the School Meeting announcement. It was not until this week, three months later, that the fuller picture emerged. The policy is tied to fire code compliance and ALICE safety protocols. The school is required to keep corridors accessible for emergencies. 

Though the fire code explains the rush behind the rule’s establishment, students were not given a proper explanation for all this time. Students, including the monitors who bridge the gap between students and the administration, do not have an opportunity to express their opinions. 

The Data

Does the student body agree with the school's perceived reasoning?

The St. Marker surveyed 101 students (27.2 % of the student body) to gain deeper insight into their opinions on the policy. The questions are centered on their acceptability and views on the rule’s necessity: What are your thoughts on the policy? Do backpacks in the hallways affect the school's image? Is the hallway difficult to access with backpacks present? The survey was sent before the student body was informed of the fire code and ALICE protocols. Each response below reflects what three months without a sufficient explanation yields.

The survey does not include administrators, faculty, or disabled students — those voices will be the focus of a follow-up report, beginning with an interview with Dr. Robert Fish in the next issue.

As shown in the graphs, 74.3% of students dislike the policy. Furthermore, the majority of the sample disagreed with the school’s rationale for installing the regulation, where 84.2% of all respondents did not approve of either reason.

A further cross-tabulation based on the three opinion groups (“Hate it”, “don’t care”, “like it”) is conducted for the following two questions.

*"Like it" group (4 students) is omitted — sample too small for meaningful comparison.

Among the 75 students who oppose the policy, more than 80% oppose both rationales.

The more telling demographic is the "Don't care" group. Since these 22 students have no objection to the policy, they have no reason to reject its reasoning out of frustration. Yet more than half say the backpacks make the hallway hard to access, and 72.7% disagreed that backpacks affect school image. The results imply that with nothing at stake, students still do not accept an incomplete explanation for exclusion. 

This data does not dismiss the accessibility concern, as the survey cannot capture the experience of disabled individuals navigating this hallway. What it documents is simpler: when teenagers are asked to accept an inconvenience without the complete picture, the result is rarely cooperation, but resistance. These numbers reflect the predictable outcome of a communication gap.

The Argument

If the administration led with the fire code, the controversy would likely have ended before it began. Instead, students were given two justifications that did not align with their daily experience, and three months of silence in between.

Students were given two justifications: image and accessibility. The data shows the majority did not find either convincing. With fire code now the stated reason, the question is not whether those justifications were wrong — it is why they were the only ones students heard for three months.

The deeper issue is straightforward. When teenagers are asked to accept an inconvenience without a sufficient explanation, the result is frustration. The fire code would have been a sufficient explanation for most students and would have encouraged more students to follow the policy. 

The safety code mandates the backpack policy, and the initial decision had to be made quickly. But three months have passed. During that time, students could have been asked to suggest ways to improve the policy. St. Mark's is a boarding school. Most students do not leave at the end of the day — they live here. Every rule shapes a daily life, not a work shift. That should matter — not in whether the rule exists, but in how it is carried out. 

What Comes Next

Beginning with the next issue, The St. Marker will cover school policy as part of its regular reporting. A follow-up article on an interview with Dr. Fish on the backpack policy, including the fire code requirements and the reason behind the inadequate communication with students, will be featured.

Going forward, this publication will interview administrators and policymakers to report the reasoning behind decisions to the student body. The goal is a channel that does not currently exist — one where students learn why decisions are made, not just what they are. 

Though the backpack policy is small, it reveals the lack of transparency behind it. This is our St. Mark's — every St. Marker deserves to understand how it is run.

New Grading Policy

By Janina Manaloto ‘26

This year, the grading policy follows an 80-10-10 format: summative assessment (tests and projects) 80%, preparation (homework) 10%, and engagement (participation) 10%. Though some students view this new policy as a positive development due to the consistency of grading across all their classes, others consider it a drawback since summative assignments carry significant weight. 

Students with opposing voices provide a variety of critiques against the new grading policy. Some believe that the weight of assignment types should vary based on the subject. For example, engagement should carry more weight than summatives in language classes since more emphasis is put on overall students’ interactions with the language through speaking, writing, and listening during class. Other students have expressed their stress over this new system. They may feel at a disadvantage if their stronger areas are in participation rather than test-taking. Yet, the impact of summative assignment grades overshadows the other two grading categories to some extent.

Overall, there are varying opinions among students about this new grading policy. As the school year progresses, many hope that the system will promote fairness and consistency in assessment.

Why Sunday Detention Missed a Mark

By Joey Huang ‘28 and Nathan Zhou ‘29

Every school needs rules. Without them, the classroom would become noisy, deadlines would be ignored, and learning would be impeded. Sunday detention was initially introduced to keep these rules in place, and many teachers view it as a strong, meaningful message to students who do not follow the rules. Via Sunday detention, students may have time to reflect on their actions, finish their homework, and experience the consequences for violating the rules. In theory, this does indeed sound fair! 

Yet from a student’s perspective, Sunday detention feels more like a punishment than an opportunity for self-reflection. Sunday is often the only day students can truly relax after a long stretch of homework, athletic activities, classes, and tests. Especially for IV, V, and VI formers, students are sometimes overwhelmed by excessive coursework and stressed out due to their preparation for college applications. Losing a Sunday morning to detention is not just a lesson or a punishment anymore; it acts as a burden, adding more stress and leaving students with little time to rest or recover before the week begins.

What makes it worse is how easily students can end up in detention. Imagine staying up until midnight fighting through your homework only for your alarm to fail the next morning. Even if it happens just once, you will be drafted to the “St. Mark’s Detention League”. Under the current rules, that tiny slip could cost you your entire Sunday. Instead of encouraging responsibility, this rather creates anxiety over accidents that are beyond our control.

Sunday detention can also have a negative impact on students’ lives in other ways. Missing out on a day of rest after a demanding school week may further contribute to stress, anxiety, and even mental health challenges. Taking that away can increase burnout and lower overall performance in the following week. Furthermore, sitting silently in a classroom does not guarantee that students actually reflect on their behavior, with many just counting down the minutes instead of learning from the experience. Moreover, Sunday detention treats a forgotten alarm the same as repeated misbehavior. It ignores context and effort, making discipline feel mechanical and unfair. 

After speaking with the Dean of Students, Dr. Fish, he stated that the school is actively listening to students’ feedback and working to make changes that benefit them the most. He said, “I love it when students express disagreement with any rules they think should be improved. A healthy school environment is one where students have different, constructive opinions that can help make the school a better place, and the school should genuinely consider any student’s opinion, no matter who.”  

Losing a sleep-in on a Sunday morning certainly is not fun. Having a Sunday detention scheduled stresses the mood going into the weekend, and the dean's office is well aware of that. However, showing up to school and being present is a responsibility that comes with being part of the community. Skipping a commitment not only undermines the sense of belonging but also hinders academic growth. 

Last year, without this detention policy, attendance at chapel and school meetings was miserable. With no consequences for skipping, many students simply chose not to attend. These gatherings, however, are vital—they bring the school together and foster a stronger sense of community. Furthermore, the “bandwagon effect” sets in: once a few students start skipping, others will follow. Sunday detention is designed to break this cycle and encourage students to take every school commitment seriously. 

“When a student violates the community standard, there needs to be a consequence that is both effective and immediate in order for them not to violate the rule again,” explains Dr. Fish, the Dean of Students. An immediate consequence in the same week is thus necessary for a change in behavior. And ever since the Sunday detention policy has been implemented, there has been a notable rise in attendance at assemblies and chapel. Now, the school community comes together to sing, reflect, and pray for one another.

In the long run, Sunday detention teaches responsibility and reinforces the idea that education should come first. Knowing that skipping class will cost part of their weekend, students may think twice before making that choice. Rather than serving as a punishment, this policy emphasizes the importance of being present in school programming. 

The Problem with the Perfect Score

By Saanvi Sandineni ‘29 and Olivia Sun ‘29

Every week, students across the country face another quiz, unit test, or exam— each one promising to measure what they have learned. Grades and scores have become the ultimate markers of “intelligence,” shaping how students see themselves and how others judge their abilities. But can a test grade really capture the depth of someone's understanding or potential? Some argue that tests provide a fair, objective way to track progress and hold students accountable across all schools and backgrounds. Others believe they ignore creativity, critical thinking, and the nuances of stress and anxiety that make tests a sore spot for many students. These are the parts of intelligence that cannot be measured by a set of right or wrong answers. The question remains: do tests reflect real intelligence, or simply the ability to recall information under pressure? 

In Defense of Standardized Testing

Standardized tests often get a bad reputation among students—and it is easy to see why. Long hours of studying, stressful exam days, and the endless bubble sheets can make these tests feel more like a chore than a helpful tool. But take a closer look, and it’s clear that standardized testing actually plays an important role in keeping the student body on track. By measuring everyone against the same standards, these exams ensure that all students, no matter what class or teacher they have, are learning the essential skills they need. A 2018 study from the Brookings Institution found that standardized tests help schools measure student learning fairly and consistently, giving educators a clearer picture of what is working and what is not. To really gauge the benefits of tests, we interviewed one of our own teachers here at St. Mark's. She concluded that tests were indeed “a good way to keep things standard across all classes and ensure all our kids are learning the information they need for the future.” Also, they make it easier to see if students are truly grasping the material rather than just memorizing facts.

But fairness is not the only reason standardized tests can benefit students. They also motivate learners to study more effectively and retain knowledge longer. When a big exam is on the horizon, students cannot rely on shortcuts—they have to review, practice, and truly understand the material. Research from the Harvard Graduate School of Education in 2019 supports this, showing that students who prepared for standardized exams were more likely to remember what they learned over time. While no one is likely to say that standardized tests are “fun,” they do encourage good study habits, accountability, and a sense of academic discipline. In a way, these tests help make sure everyone has the tools they need to succeed, both in school and beyond.

The Case Against the Perfect Score

A test is not a good measure of academic ability because the ability to memorize a set of given information is not the same as being able to consciously understand the reasoning behind the tasks and know how to execute the steps rationally. For instance, while some people fully comprehend all the concepts, they struggle with taking tests due to their test anxiety.

The factor of test anxiety always seems to appear, no matter how much a person studies or prepares. No matter how prepared they are, they might be prone to forgetting the material. Thus, test anxiety is an uncontrollable factor in the process of test taking that can greatly hinder a student’s ability to perform to their best. A personal reflection by a student echoes, “Growing up, I would always feel some level of test anxiety while taking, like, state testing. And I don't think I generally get to perform to the best of my ability.” In addition, data show that high test anxiety can hurt performance regardless of intelligence. In a survey of 200 teens, 187 reported having some sort of test anxiety. 54% of students from the sample fell in the range of moderately high to extremely high test anxiety. The majority agreed that tests are not the best indicator of intelligence, especially when there are more effective ways to address understanding.

Building on this foundation, we interviewed the students and teachers in St. Mark’s, asking for their views on standardized tests. Most comments concluded that tests are indeed not a good measure of intelligence. Though they are held in high regard, there are better ways to evaluate students’ knowledge on a topic. Another belief shared by many is, “Assessment can be useful when employed correctly, but it can’t be the sole factor that determines a student's overall intelligence.” A teacher replies to the opinion, stating, “It simply shows how well you can take the test, not necessarily whether you are good at math or successful as a writer.” For example, a student with a very, very high intelligence quotient could perform very, very poorly on a standardized test if they don’t prepare for it, showing that tests are not great tools for judging subjects, but rather for measuring the ability to memorize all the material instead of processing it cognitively. 

Taken together, these statements are only a few gathered among the student body. The evidence above shows that tests, by popular opinion of both teacher and students, are not known to be a good measure of a student’s ability to understand and utilize the material given. Instead, it is a test on the skill of taking a test, making it, to some degree, invalid when it comes to judgment on a student’s academic capabilities.  

So maybe it is time to rethink how we define academic success. After all, we are taught that learning should be about understanding, not just bubbling in the right answers. 

Maybe it is time to rethink what we are really measuring. Though tests are normally seen as a “fair” way to track knowledge and accountability, they can only show what we remember at the moment, but cannot capture creativity, curiosity, or the pressure that shapes the outcome. Equating scores with intelligence risks valuing memorization over true understanding. In the end, the smartest students are not always the best test-takers; they are those who continue to learn long after the test has ended.

Phone Policy and Dress Code

By Zoey Lee ‘27

Along with the many new administrators this year came new policies, including the phone policy and the enforcement of the dress code using the phone policy. The execution of the phone policy kicked off with a great start at the beginning of the year. Teachers made sure every student turned their phone in at the start of each class. Unsurprisingly, the effort to maintain this policy has quickly waned over the past two months. Teachers no longer count them, and rarely explicitly ask for phones. Nevertheless, the act of submitting phones has not brought a drastic change to my classroom experience. There were two significant effects. One being random alarms going off in class, forcing the teacher to identify the phone causing such cacophony; the other is that students constantly forget to retrieve their phones at the end of class. I think the whole thing is just an inconvenience. Everything you can do on a phone, you can do on a computer. The one thing that has brought me enjoyment from this whole thing is hearing all the different names that people call the phone container: purgatory, phone jail, phone parking lot, phone caddy, etc.

As for the dress code, it has not been enforced in the past years, so there was a developed “norm” separate from the actual dress code. People barely knew what the actual dress code stated. The “norm” seemed to draw the line at sweatpants and busy graphics. I wish the dress code could have been changed to align with the norm rather than its current rules. Also, I find “blouses” to be a vague term. I see people wearing tight t-shirts all the time. Does that count as a blouse? I also do not understand how tank tops are more conducive to a productive learning environment than t-shirts. I have also seen teachers wear t-shirts. Although the administration is trying to enforce the dress code by saying that teachers will take our phones and hand them to the Dean’s office if we’re out of dress code, I have only ever seen one actual case of this. I can say for sure that I’ve seen more instances of people being out of dress code. There is a discrepancy between what they say they will do and what actually gets done. To me, it seems like the administration cares, but teachers don’t as much.