A team of students and teachers turns design thinking on the advisory system
Earlier this year, Ms. Scandurro--the Head of the Upper School--decided that we needed as a community to take a look at our advisory system. Teachers serve as advisors to small groups of students to help them with the academic, extracurricular, and social-emotional pressures of high school. These small communities spring into existence and dissolve each academic year. The Advisory Design Team--a group of 4 students and 3 teachers--formed to help the community discover how it could improve in this area. This team meets on a weekly basis to apply the design process to the complex challenge of meeting the needs of students, parents, teachers, and the administration of the school.
The team began their journey by conducting informal interviews with students, teachers, and administrators about the current advisory system. In the course of these interviews and a subsequent compiling of information, several themes emerged. These include the relationship between advisor and advisee, advisory conferences, the size of the advisory, the selection of advisors and advisees, and the structured-ness (or unstructured-ness) of advisory time. Armed with these themes, the team created a survey to understand as a community where students and teachers stood on these issues. The team then probed more deeply carrying out formal interviews with both students and teachers.
It was clear that many advisors felt strongly about being an advocate for their advisees. The discussion turned to supporting the whole child and to forming meaningful connections built on trust, both between advisor and advisee and between advisor and parent. During these interviews, the team also hit on a key discovery: there is a tension between unstructured time (that allows students to form relationships with one another and for advisors to form relationships with advisees) and structured time (that is needed for individual, one-on-one mentoring and support). The team felt that both times were important, and both times could each provide opportunities for establishing meaningful connection and building trust.
With these new ideas to guide the discussion, the team brainstormed how they could foster connection and trust through the advisory system, producing a list of ideas that they then turned back over to the students and faculty to discuss. One Wednesday morning in March, the team gathered teachers and students in mixed small groups to discussion these issues in depth. The issues included: 1) Joint advisories with two advisors, 2) Two-year advisories, 3) Training for advisors, 4) Not all teachers being advisors, and 5) Doing homework during advisory time. Below is a snapshot of the key words that came up in discussion.
The team began their journey by conducting informal interviews with students, teachers, and administrators about the current advisory system. In the course of these interviews and a subsequent compiling of information, several themes emerged. These include the relationship between advisor and advisee, advisory conferences, the size of the advisory, the selection of advisors and advisees, and the structured-ness (or unstructured-ness) of advisory time. Armed with these themes, the team created a survey to understand as a community where students and teachers stood on these issues. The team then probed more deeply carrying out formal interviews with both students and teachers.
It was clear that many advisors felt strongly about being an advocate for their advisees. The discussion turned to supporting the whole child and to forming meaningful connections built on trust, both between advisor and advisee and between advisor and parent. During these interviews, the team also hit on a key discovery: there is a tension between unstructured time (that allows students to form relationships with one another and for advisors to form relationships with advisees) and structured time (that is needed for individual, one-on-one mentoring and support). The team felt that both times were important, and both times could each provide opportunities for establishing meaningful connection and building trust.
With these new ideas to guide the discussion, the team brainstormed how they could foster connection and trust through the advisory system, producing a list of ideas that they then turned back over to the students and faculty to discuss. One Wednesday morning in March, the team gathered teachers and students in mixed small groups to discussion these issues in depth. The issues included: 1) Joint advisories with two advisors, 2) Two-year advisories, 3) Training for advisors, 4) Not all teachers being advisors, and 5) Doing homework during advisory time. Below is a snapshot of the key words that came up in discussion.
The Advisory Design Team is reviewing these feedback it received and will make its recommendation to the Upper School administration in the next several weeks.