Senioritized Feedback
The 2014-15 school year has been full of revolutionary changes in the Academy’s history. A new principal was selected after Principal Tom Hassan announced his retirement last summer, faculty began switching positions from their five-year posts and a strategic planning committee formed and discussed ways to improve upon the fundamentals of the school, including goodness and Harkness.
The committee convened over the summer to discuss the values upon which the school was built, and students were given two Wednesdays during the year off for the committee to discuss strategic planning. In StuCo’s recent email to the entire school, strategic planning was defined as a “broad strokes planning process for Exeter’s future.”
To incorporate feedback from students, the strategic planning committee has reached out to StuCo. In the past all-school assembly, StuCo concluded its three-part series of Harkness-style feedback from the student body. While it was a noble effort to gain feedback from Exonians, it had some inherent flaws.
Let’s take a look at how this works.
Three microphones are placed in the assembly hall: two on the lower tier, where upperclassmen usually sit, and one on the upper tier, where preps and lowers are seated. Students line up behind the microphones, are called on by StuCo President Benjamin Cohen and voice their concerns to StuCo where they are recorded for consideration. According to the same email sent by StuCo, “This [assembly] is a rare event in the Academy’s history, one that will affect students’ experiences for years, perhaps decades, to come. Student input to this discussion is key to the process. We need to be critical and discuss the workings of our school that could be made better for future Exonians.”
For such a crucial event in the history of the Academy, the way of collecting student input is perfect in theory but in reality is ineffective because it gets a skewed opinion, a small percentage of possible ideas and most students are uneducated on what strategic planning really is.
Let’s look at them one by one.
A skewed opinion. During my time at Exeter, I have found that seniority plays an important role. Four-year seniors rightfully have more credence and respect when they make a point. After all, they’ve seen more of Exeter, they’ve been here longer and they’re just more mature.
What this seniority system leads to in rare cases, however, is a skewed system of opinion from the student body. No one wants to the be that prep or lower who makes a discredited, “foolish” point that is disregarded or mocked. No one wants to damage his or her reputation by throwing a possibly fluked idea in front of the school, and the lowerclassmen that do have the courage to stand at the mic are almost always regarded as pretentious or annoying.
In a system where those that voice their opinions are disregarded or regarded poorly, and most sit quietly, afraid that what they say won’t be accepted, the student opinions received won’t be cumulative of the entire populace. Lower Connie Cai described the entire atmosphere as disrespectful. “It’s a very large, disorganized, not very respectful atmosphere,” Cai said. “I think it needs to start with us having a much more respectful assembly atmosphere.”
Sometimes the discussions can become more about complaining rather than constructive criticism about the topic at hand. Upper Katya Sociomara likes the idea behind the assemblies, but believes change is necessary. “I think that the assembly is a good start to trying to get more students involved,” said Sociomara, “But I also think that there should be easier and more accessible ways for students to voice their concerns, their hopes and their complaints.”
In addition to the atmosphere not being the most accepting, upperclassmen usually dominate the discussion, meaning a skewed representation of the student body. Because Cohen is the one picking the students, it can also lead to more upperclassmen. Sociomara echoed this concern: “I think it’s easier for Benjamin [Cohen] to see the upperclassmen because they’re on the ground floor.”
In a room where underclassmen are more afraid to voice their suggestions (don’t get me wrong, it’s nerve-racking for anyone to speak in front of the entire school) and harder to see, there is a clearly skewed opinion and bias being collected.
Secondly, only a small percentage of ideas are collected. For the 40 minute assembly period, only a finite number of students can speak their mind, and that is probably fewer than the number of students who have ideas regarding the betterment of the school. In addition, most times students are left at the mics, unable to share. This past StuCo assembly, StuCo allowed students at the mics to stay after and share their opinions. If everyone who had an idea, however, did that, classes would have to be postponed, because of the sheer number of ideas.
In reality, StuCo is only getting a small percentage of ideas from the students. Even these four ideas, however, poses a problem to the current system set in place: there is no order. Although meant to allow students to challenge any facet of the Exeter system, the broad questions proposed for the assemblies allow a wide-ranging amount of topics. StuCo meets once a week, and although efficient and very well run, only so much can be accomplished in one hour. Because of the wide gamut of ideas, many ideas aren’t put up for consideration—only a small amount of the ideas can be considered, oftentimes the overarching ones (the common ones).
Regarding the student dress code policy—the discussion has been taking months. In the end, only one or two ideas can be addressed, counteracting the goal of a range of student ideas to begin with.
Finally, most students are uneducated on what strategic planning really is. Most are just happy for a day off from school and usually when the topic is brought up, the most common reaction is confusion. ♥