Thus far this semester, we have sat through nearly nine hours of Student Government across 13 meetings. I am left wondering, what have we accomplished? Whenever I ask the purpose of Student Government, I generally get two answers. First, to serve as a model for our future civic engagement, that, somehow, participating in Student Government convinces, or at least shows, Parker students how to interact in our actual governmental systems. Second, that Student Government enables student input into the broader administrative workings of the school. Student Government, in my experience, fails on both fronts.
Let’s address these failures point by point, starting with the goal of encouraging student civic engagement. As I understand, the 80 minutes a cycle the Upper School spends in Student Government is part of our state-mandated required instructional time. That’s really why all students are required to attend. This, of course, is not how our real government works. No one is required to engage in politics. To engage in our real world political systems you have to make a choice. You must go to a school board meeting, call your representative, and make an effort to engage. In our Student Government, though, you will be “involved” no matter what.
This requirement discourages students from doing the work of engaging. When the opportunity to effect change is brought to you, it breeds the exact kind of complacency we are seeing as our nation drifts into fascism. On top of that, I, and many others, find Student Government time better spent reading or doing homework which, though frowned upon, still counts as participation. The message that Student Government sends is that checking the right boxes counts as engagement and not that engagement with government institutions can lead to real change.
The Student Government structure, though not unique to Parker, similarly exacerbates this problem. Student Government is a direct democracy––where students vote directly on proposals––but we still have elected (and appointed) representatives in the form of Cabinet. Senate, a sub-body of Cabinet, is not akin to any governing body, but Senate “heads” and class “representatives” serve as discussion facilitators and spokespeople at best. Without exploring the merits of which democratic system is best, having a weird Frankenstein of both creates issues, best seen in the proposal and resolution system.
The proposal and resolution system, which is meant to put power in students’ hands, is hamstrung by being tied to the structure of Student Government. For a student proposal to come to a vote, it first must be approved by Cabinet to be brought to Plenary. Cabinet, however, is not a neutral arbiter. Last year, during the controversial Phaedrus proposal, The Weekly printed an opinion piece stating that Delilah Davis, the article and proposal’s author, “had multiple conversations with five different cabinet members… and each individual relayed a similar message. ‘We have been told to do everything in our power to ensure this proposal fails.’” That, of course, wasn’t news. It appears that there is often a thumb on the scale, scaring away me, or at least folks like me, from offering proposals about reforming the school or Student Government that would meet a similar fate. If Cabinet even allows it to go through, clearly more arduous than it ought to be, it is then presented to the student body.
During question and comments period––the bulk of debate on any proposal––typically only about a dozen students speak, trying to understand the proposal and/or advocate for it: most students disengage until the vote comes. The assumption, I believe, is usually that because the elected representative, like the Committee head or Cabinet member, has the best understanding of their respective job and wrote a solid proposal. Finally, it comes to a student vote that, in almost all cases, passes.
The Student Government structure does not encourage significant debate, discussion, or pushback because most students either don’t care, the stakes are low, or the students simply want it done. Either proposals should be written by and debated on by elected students whose responsibility is to understand them or our quasi-direct democracy needs restructuring to change the incentives for more relevant topics and encourage students to understand the issue being discussed.
To be clear, this is not a failure of individuals. No student in Plenary is failing at their job nor is anyone in Cabinet. They are all doing their jobs the way they are supposed to. What they are supposed to do is what creates more problems than solutions. Similarly, as much as I am annoyed by the disruptive disrespect during Plenary, I don’t blame people who completely disengage. Why wouldn’t you? When the power that you supposedly have is completely ineffective, why try at all? These failures are not from students—they are failures of institutions and failures of systems.
The failure to develop civic engagement is not the only problem with Student Government. The other—far bigger—issue is its fundamental deception around student choice. Student Government is not a “government,” but a lobbyist group. The power extends only as far as the administration wants it to. This is of course somewhat inherent to a school—students can’t be afforded all the power, but what is the point of deceiving us? Simply market Student Government as the harmless leadership playground it is and not as some grandiose method to shape Parker into an image that differs from other schools.
It’s this deception that makes Student Government so frustrating. Take for instance a hot button issue of the first semester: AP testing. As far as I can tell, most students either don’t care or actively want AP tests reinstated, yet it has only been raised in front of Student Government once, at a town hall in which students were told––by a member of the administration––that if they wanted AP testing to be offered, they should’ve gone to a different school. This seems like a quintessential issue for student input. Why wasn’t the student body consulted?
But what has not appeared is a proposal or resolution to express the student voice. My view is that such a proposal has not been brought to a vote because the administration has said that the decision is made. What then, is the point of this body if student positions are only considered as long as they do not conflict with what the administration has already decided? Surely, a system that actually considered the voice of the student body on relevant issues would have at least floated the idea before going forward with it.
The other, far more chronic example is the Committee system. So as to not pick on anyone else, let’s take the MX Committee, of which I am a head. MX Committee’s bylaws state its purpose to, “with the help of a Committee, schedule all Morning Exercises, focusing on logistics rather than content.” However, when senate brought to Ms. Zeller the students’ concerns about who speaks at MX and what content is presented, the stated position (at least given in the debrief) was “MX is a Student Government Committee, so if you want different speakers or topics, you can make it happen.” But that’s simply not true. MX is not a Student Government programmed space. It’s an adult and Student Government Committee that manages the schedule and logistics. The administration cut MX time substantially in the new schedule anyway, which would’ve allowed for more diverse viewpoints. The admin deflected the onus on students for an issue wholly out of the control of the MX Committee and firmly in their control.
This same failure to offer students real choice is also impacted by our election system. At this point, it’s a running joke that anyone running for Student Government president will run primarily on making Plenary “fun.” This is largely an empty promise but it’s as good as a promise anyone can really make. Student Government has such little ability to actually affect change in the school, so that’s the only believable promise. Also, nearly 80 positions are offered each year, making it very hard to have substantive elections with real discussion. A more focused set of positions, and fewer larger groups running, would help make elections more about issues.
Even the Committee system, the system that includes the most students, is largely a failure. Most Committees don’t serve any real purpose. The ones that do (Phaedrus, PRIDE, The Weekly, etc…) often have analogues that function just as well outside the Student Government like other affinity groups or SCOUT. In fact, we’ve seen that being a part of the Committee systems can inhibit these groups because they must offer events to the whole student body, not just their members. A few more useful Committees (SAC, SIRB, MX, Curriculum) that don’t have analogues operate mostly outside of the framework of Student Government, only intersecting with Cabinet or Plenary during election season. Many of these “effective” Committees have specific bylaw carve-outs that allow them to avoid the general administrative bureaucracy of Cabinet and Student Government.
I assume at many high schools, students have no ability to affect change but there’s a reason it feels so deceptive at Parker. When selling itself to new customers, Parker uses the idea of “student choice” and “student voice” as a major benefit. We’ve all heard it over and over that we are an “embryonic democracy.” The Parker website describes Plenary as “More than 400 students meet[ing] weekly to focus on issues, challenges and concerns related to school life,” a statement that is not only dubious but also deeply misleading. Though some of us could come up with a time or two that Plenary has fit that promise, it most often does not “focus on issues… related to school life” but instead focuses on insignificant issues over academics or other truly “school” related issues. Parker markets one thing but offers another.
What then is the point of all this writing? Surely enough ink has been spilled about Student Government so what warrants another article about its failings? I believe no one has pointed out the real solution. Student Government needs to be completely torn down and redone. Student Government has remained largely unchanged over the years. It’s time for a new system, one based on the educational values of the school and the actual goals of a student government. The modern student experience serves primarily as a way to create empty leadership roles for students to step into and to offer a way out of real change for the administration. For too long we have had a system that creates apathetic students, inhibits real student input, and fails to develop needed skills. It’s time that it goes.
Though I don’t claim to have all the answers, here’s what I could construct from the ashes of our current systems. First, the Committee system should only serve to directly aid Student Government. Let student organizations govern themselves and have their members decide on leadership––seriously, why does the whole student body vote for Phaedrus or PRIDE heads–– and save committees for administrative functioning. Second, I think the faculty advisor ought to rotate each year to keep the faculty and administrative power less concentrated. Third, elected positions should be reduced, and where possible one person should run to increase accountability. Let’s call things what they are and be clear about their goals: Senate isn’t a “senate.” Finally, attendance should not be mandatory. There should be some real effort involved in becoming involved with Student Government.
No matter what comes next, I hope we can move the conversation from Student Government’s faults to why we continue to put up with it. Or perhaps Parker’s Student Government really does have more in common with our modern government: deeply flawed, ineffective, representing few of its participants, and remaining that way by inertia alone.