Autonomy is the right to self-government. Autonomy defines the relationship between the students of ISL and their establishment. It defines the amount of power one side can hold over the other.
In a school, this relationship has always been clear: teachers and the establishment hold the power. This kind of social relationship where one side has absolute authority and power over the other is usually viewed as controversial; in the context of a country or government, it is called dictatorship. In the context of a romantic relationship, it is called abuse. What is it in the context of a school?
As society’s views continuously alter on what is politically correct, the more this relationship seems fundamentally controversial; is it really okay, in any context, to any degree, to strip someone of their freedom? Is autonomy not a fundamental right? This power dynamic between teachers and students is normalised, but how ethically sound is it under the microscope, past the familiarity and bias that tell us it’s okay?
The issue with autonomy in our educational system is not whether it is limited. In fact, most people agree that it is limited and that it must be to some extent, even students believe they “shouldn’t have all the power” (Ila, Y12 student). This is because many agree that minors aren’t responsible enough to be fully autonomous, and that this is partly the purpose of a school; to reform young children and mould them into young adults. However, restricting autonomy (and consequently too much “hand-holding” (Ms. Gifford High School Principal)) can be harmful to the education of these young adults; it stunts the development of independence and responsibility; without which, students are therefore not given autonomy…(outline vicious cycle)
The clashing views on autonomy are to what extent exactly autonomy should be limited. Some students believe they “should have more [autonomy] than currently” (Esther, Y9 student) whereas others believe they simply need to be “taken more seriously” (Ila, Y12 student) because, although the establishment approves of and “encourages an autonomous student body” (Ms. Gifford, High School Principal), it still seems to be limiting it. This is particularly evident when it comes to project proposals by groups such as the Student Council or Eco Society who aim to provide better social services, but are shut down more often than not for various, ever-exhausting reasons. For example, Guido Van Zanten (Y13) who once proposed a green wall in the south campus foyer above the couches was denied a permit because it apparently violated fire safety protocol, and because it surpassed the maximum weight the entire school is allowed to hang on its walls before the foundation of the building is compromised. These seem like perfectly valid excuses, except the sheer number of denied permits raises speculation regarding the truthfulness of these endless excuses, especially when the school’s resources are consistently spent on the establishment’s ideas instead. For example, on the marketing team, specifically the ever-increasing presence of the school logo on every surface of the building e.g. the main entrance, by the balcony, or above the seating area where Guido’s green wall could have been, bringing life and greenery to the concrete walls.
In light of all these excuses, one can wonder if there might not be any leniency at all, and if more consideration and respect for the student body’s wishes might not result in greater autonomy.
In response to this, Ms. Gifford affirms that the establishment is always considerate and respectful of the student body, and that it firmly encourages ideas from the students. But if safety protocols prevent it, then it simply can’t happen, because defending the safety of students is always a priority, and definitely considerate and respectful. Despite the large number of them, these excuses are in fact valid. For example, the school logo above the seating area in the south campus is neither a fire hazard nor exceeds the maximum weight limit on the walls, and that is likely why it was approved instead of Guido’s green wall. There is no question of the responsibility and initiative students can take on for such endeavours, there simply seems to be a consistent lack of feasibility in the proposals brought forth by the student body.
Alternatively, students also believe that they should be granted greater autonomy on all scales, not just their input in large administrative changes. Three interviewees all independently voiced that “it’s the little [rules] that matter” (Ila Y12, Esther Y9, Miah Y12) such as the dress code, punctuality, absences, and more. According to them, these details should be left to the discretion of the students, and should not be nagged about by the establishment through various tedious methods, like waiting by the main entrance every morning at 08:25 to discuss punctuality with any late arrivals. It is felt that the effort exerted to control these details is not worthwhile and is more condescending and annoying than beneficial.
To better the educational experience of students at ISL, the establishment should maybe consider giving the student body a little more autonomy, by taking its voice and opinion more seriously, valuing it more compared to the wishes of the establishment itself. The students of ISL, however, should also consider managing the feasibility of their endeavours so that they can use the amount of autonomy they have more efficiently, ultimately resulting in a more balanced and harmonious relationship between the power of the establishment and the power of the student body.
