So maybe not.
25 May 2004I’m out of rehab, as is the rest of the yeargroup (the merit of this is somewhat dubious, you can form your own opinions of us). It was… better than anticipated (which is not saying much in and of itself) – possibly even better than that. Contrary to the general bitching about it, the venue was great, the food was edible and even the house sessions weren’t that bad.
Outdoor activities were generally acknowledged to have been good, something which I agree with – we were really blessed with the weather we got – whilst it rained a bit, it didn’t affect the activities much at all (exception of perhaps people doing ropes courses, which aren’t always that great in the wet due to the whole slippage (and subsequent ropeburn) factor – lowropes would have been okay, but I didn’t get to try highropes), which was very cool indeed.
It wasn’t long enough, and now I feel like another weekend, but hey, life goes on (albeit somewhat more tiredly).
In terms of the actual “leadership” side of rehabilit… err… the retreat, the house sessions were IMHO far better structured than peer support training ever was – it was more directed (if a little more repetitive), and generally flowed better. So yeah, was fairly happy with that… of course, it’s kind of depressing, thinking that a house is (going to be) dependent on my yeargroup for leadership and direction – that’s not me being elitist or anything, I consider myself included fully in that statement.
Which brings me to another point, I suppose. On Monday evening (well, there was only one evening, it only went overnight), our year was addressed by the chaplain, Tim Bowden and headmaster, Mr. Heath. I’ve already whinged to a few people about this, with mixed responses, but for the sake of permanency (haha, such as my websites have been in the past, I suppose) and accessibility, I shall write here regardless.
Tim Bowdens talk (yes, there was only ONE talk – apparently very different to last years’ Retreat) was solid, if a little full of rhetoric (but that is just his means of communicating and getting the point accross, I think), however I took issue with something Mr. Heath has said in the past, and again, using the Retreat as an opportunity, repeatedly rammed this down our ears:
The school cannot surpass Year 12. Year 12 set the tone for the school.
Which is something that I believe to be one of the bigger lies I’ve ever heard from our headmaster. Prior to my entry into the senior school, my contact with ANYONE in year 12 was restricted to that which occurred through the house system (and look what has happened there – split tutorials, chapel and various other means of further segregating the house). I simply did not know anyone in years above me – until year 8, I did not have any friends in years senior to my own, and even then, this only extended to the year immediately above me.
Later that year, by an extra-curricular programme conducted by the school, I came to know Justin Sweeting and Greg Lockwood (Class of ’03), and through other extra-curricular activities in Year 10, I came to know Katy Cracknell, of the same year group. Thus, I’d say that if there were to be ANY influence on my activity within the school (as well as overall opinions, beliefs, behaviours, mannerisms, and anything else that shapes me as a person) imparted by the senior year of SACS, the FIRST year in which this may have occurred was last year.
Some may argue that attitudes shall permeate downwards through the yeargroups, thus affecting the attitudes (and therefore achievements) of the entire school. Okay, so I’ll admit – I do know people in the year below me. What I won’t admit to, however, is sharing attitudes (or even discussing more than in passing) regarding the school, or activities within this. IMHO, school assemblies more effectively demonstrate how people are (and can be) involved in school life than anything spoken in passing by yours truly. This is not because I actively avoid talking of such things – it just never arises.
So, if I do know people in years below me, what of people who do not? A dead end in this theoretical propagation of ideologies, assuming, of course, that people who do communicate with those younger than them redistribute such ideas anyway.
I spoke this afternoon to two people on the current student leadership team (briefly) about their response to this idea, and received a response which affirmed Mr. Heaths statement – at first glance.
No direct quotes, because I wasn’t taking notes whilst talking, but something I remember with clarity simply by its opposition to what I’d been told for the past two days is this – the actions of the leadership team do not go un-noticed by the younger years… because they are important. Not neccessarily a statement of arrogance, however this was said not of the yeargroup as a whole, but of the leadership team (i.e. school officers, etc.) as a separate entity. Maybe a slipup, maybe a genuine belief – something that I’d certainly say is more true, at any rate. Not to say that Year 12 generally cannot assume a ROLE of leadership – of course it can – leadership is not solely about influence, which seems to be the core quality behind setting a “standard” which cannot be surpassed.
But if a standard were to be set, surely this standard would need to be evident to the rest of the school! My problem is not “does this standard exist?” but rather “how do these influence the rest of the school?”. By the leadership team, certainly – they are in the public view of the school, and if anyone is to have contact with people in younger years, then it is them. However, the unquestioned importance (i.e. without exception) of the senior yeargroup as a whole in terms of the influence their attitudes hold upon the rest of the school is something which I don’t believe in.
The school CAN rise above its senior year. It can even rise above its leadership team – although not neccessarily in the capacity of leadership itself. Involvement within the school is not fostered by year 12 as a whole, but by the addresses and publicly viewed behaviours of the school officers. Most of year 12 isn’t involved in sport – yet this year St. Andrews has seen a suprising improvement not only in sport itself, but also in the support of this – the latter of which is not neccessarily something facilitated by the support of year 12 as a whole, either – rather, by a select number of students who CHOOSE to attend such things and encourage others to do the same! This support does not come from the whole of year 12, and any assertations suggesting that attitudes held by the school cannot surpass that of that senior year are plainly incorrect.
p.s. sorry about the size of this rant – I’ve actually cut it back a bit, it was a rant-inspiring topic ;)