Lakeside has few rules, which has rarely been a problem in recent memory. But with 10 JC cases in just six months and policies that vary wildly between departments, is our current approach working? I’d argue yes — though change is still necessary.
Lakeside is a school that was founded on principles, not rules. I remember that throughout middle school — perhaps the time at which our morals are most in flux — teachers and administrators emphasized that Lakeside does not have rules that one must follow, but rather it has values that one must uphold. A seventh grader does not return a phone because a handbook says “stealing is not allowed and will result in punishment.” Rather, they do it because it is the honest thing to do. Both Lakeside and the seventh grader stand to gain from a values-based system: the school need not spend its time enforcing specific or even contradictory rules, and the seventh grader is free from indecision paralysis when the time to break a specific rule inevitably arises. In case you think you can craft a rule that cannot be broken in good faith, challenge a room of people to dream up a scenario that does so — you’ll find a contradiction in under a minute.
I’d argue that a values-based approach is the one that a school — especially one that has the luxury of choosing its student body — ought to take. Besides clarity and ease of enforcement, stressing honesty and integrity rather than dos and don’ts forces students to understand the underlying basis of their actions, engendering in them a sense of civic responsibility (rather than anxiety-induced piety) that they will carry forth into the world writ large. And isn’t that the ultimate purpose of a school? Educational institutions are useful insofar as they cultivate functioning members and leaders of society, not just essay-churning machines.
But what we often seem to forget is that the “values-based system” this institution was founded upon applies not only to students but also to institutional actors. Of course, for adults, the absence of rules implies something different than it does for children. We generally expect 30-something-year-olds to be honest and respectful, especially when they act as agents of Lakeside. However, a school founded on principles will tend to afford these same teachers more leeway than a school founded on rules might.
For example, you might recall that different departments at our school have taken radically different approaches when it comes to doling out extensions and revisions. In some, there exists a strict code that all teachers must follow for all their courses, while for others, different courses have wildly different policies. As you might imagine, I’m a fan of the latter since I believe it fits better with the values-based approach I extoll. Admittedly, permitting variability allows more bias on the part of individual teachers, but bias is inherent in any decision taken by any human — no matter if they are an instructor, counselor, administrator, or governor. Indeed, returning a question about an individual student to adults who know them best will naturally give students, rather than assignment deadlines, the benefit of the doubt.
Even though I still believe that inflexible rules are a net negative, there are demonstrable benefits to having them: for one, it helps students understand the assignment. Take the case of deadlines and revisions I posited earlier. Are students really going to familiarize themselves with the intricacies of seven different syllabi? No. Are students going to complain if Big History allows revisions on tests and World History doesn’t? Yes. Coherent policies are comprehensible and fair. Individuality can seem, at times, random.
And, in the face of 10 JC cases in little over five months, that is the question I believe this institution must answer. What balance should we strike between a values-based system, which is ostensibly on the side of students and helps them to develop crucial life skills, and a system of rules, which would be easier to interpret and likely viewed as fairer? I don’t have an excellent answer to this tough question, but I’m able to offer a perhaps unsurprising suggestion.
Lakeside should emphasize an approach based on values and then reservedly self-correct with the occasional rule or two. Of course, it’s hard to pin down exactly what that statement means without a concrete example, so let me give you one: cellphones. It might become an expectation that students are not scrolling Reels during classes, assemblies, or while sitting with each other during lunch in the WCC. If this expectation is often broken, then Lakeside could supplement it with specific rules for specific situations — i.e. a “cellphone bin” for particular classes. (Don’t read too much into this example — it’s merely a hypothetical).
Ultimately, it will be up to current and future Lakeside students to help shape school policies and determine how the school balances rules and values. But the way in which Lakeside answers the question of rules vs. values will not arise quickly. Lakeside’s policies will likely be a result of the thoughts of the current underclassmen, rather than the current upperclassmen.
