“Days of” are being reimagined. This year, administrators have decided to replace them with “Community Learning Experiences” (CLEs). CLEs differ from “Days of” in a few respects: they increase the responsibility on students to create and lead programming, allow for a varied range of topics, and permit teachers to opt out of lessons and programming. This will be a trial year; in the long term, the proposed CLE structure may see continued change.
The Editorial Board believes the school needs to have these kinds of programming days. Having speakers, guided conversations and class exercises offers us the rare opportunity to be collectively present in listening to our peers and engaging with challenging topics. It’s in these “Days of” and the conversations that stem from them that we are truly able to work together to create the culture we want. “Days of” may not have achieved this perfectly, but CLEs don’t move us in the right direction. In fact, they are a significant step back.
One new part of the proposed CLEs is their application process. In the past, “Days of” were given to the same four groups to organize; as a result, the topics discussed remained the same from year to year. Switching to an application process, where the ability to present is opened up to everyone, makes sense. The near-silence with which the now-closed CLE application was advertised (emailed only three times teachers over the summer), however, does not.
Without applying, groups will not be considered for a CLE. This year, students who would have been interested in organizing a CLE on race weren’t made aware of this form until after the Sept. 29 deadline had passed. This means that something similar to the widely popular Day of Racial Reform will no longer be guaranteed. There were no Canvas or advisory announcements made about CLE applications, leaving most students completely in the dark about the opportunity. If CLEs are to be assigned based on the application, this must be widely publicized and sent to all students and teachers.
The desire to see more student involvement in leading these days was part of the switch to CLEs. It makes sense that on these days we should discuss topics students feel are important; it will make presentations and discussions more genuine and maximize our growth and learning. However, it should not be on students to be the primary organizers of these often-controversial, school-wide events that focus on pressing and inflammatory issues. That’s both unrealistic and unfair.
Last year, a student was forced into the center of controversy over his desire to speak at the Day of Racial Reform and Solidarity (DoRRS). After such an experience, it’s ridiculous to expect students to feel safe or have the confidence to increase their role in organizing days on potentially divisive topics.
The administration’s choice to place programming in the hands of students ensures that if those students most directly impacted by the kind of prejudice and inequities addressed by the programming don’t organize a CLE, there won’t be one at all.
This reinforces the privilege of people unaffected by the given issue: they can continue to comfortably ignore it, leaving the rest in a difficult position. This Editorial Board finds it unlikely that a group of white students will organize a CLE on race and racism. Why should students of color always have to be the ones to organize and advocate for conversations about race?
Furthermore, the school cannot expect already-busy students to organize the new CLEs with comparatively little support from faculty. The students with the most to say might themselves be unable to dedicate the time and effort required to create a day of lessons for a school of over 2,000 peers. That doesn’t mean we should just go without discussing certain issues. Ultimately, the adults need to step up: they should have significantly more responsibility in facilitating and planning these eventual CLEs than students.
Following intense community backlash and a high rate of student absences on DoRRS, CLEs will follow an optional model. Teachers will be able to decide whether or not their classes participate in programming. This new structure is antithetical to the purpose of school-wide programming. Allowing individual teachers to opt out, for whatever reason, disadvantages the students in those classes. It keeps all students from sharing the same experience, and engaging with difficult material. The optional model undercuts the vast potential for community growth this type of programming holds.
The Editorial Board believes the school should enter each year with four open spots for CLEs that will be given to groups based on a public application process, promoted via Canvas announcements, Advisory and assemblies. Committed faculty should be the primary leaders of these days, responsible for developing lesson plans, scheduling speakers and generally outlining the day. As the CLE model outlines, teachers should be able to view presentations in advance and work to fit them to their classes’ specific needs. They should not, however, be able to fully exempt their class from participating.
This quiet switch to CLEs has left much of the student and teacher community confused and out of the loop, which makes the Board wonder if the administration’s true goal is to eliminate school-wide programming days as a whole. This significant change should have warranted a community-wide conversation; instead, our reporters have received conflicting, uninformed information from usually reliable administrative sources.
Correction:
The original version of this article incorrectly stated that the CLE application was “emailed only once to teachers over the summer.” This is incorrect; the application was sent three times.
