I’m an advisor for a “student led” service learning club at the high school, and that’s in quotes because it’s always a question – is it really student led and what does that mean?
I came in with an educational theory, being someone who has done a lot of study and writing and practice, and the result of all that is a quiet background type of advising that is very intentionally restrained. I like them. I got to know some of them one by one, and since they are teenagers, the relationships develop over time as they develop internally. Many of them have no relationship at all with me, and some are just at that cusp of seeing me as an equal person and not just that adult in the back row. That waiting and becoming and getting in sync is part of the intentional theory and practice.
Another part of it is building a fire: adding kindling carefully to expand the nucleus of energy. A fire grows from where it already is; forced changes cause it to die. In the same way, a flower cannot be instructed in how to bloom, but it can be given stable soil and water and warmth, and then it becomes what it already knew how to become. Advising a student club is like advising a flower to bloom: you can only set guardrails and explain things in moments where there is openness to receive an idea.
I also came with a theory of democracy, knowing that in any group a core carries the weight and the periphery is less committed. That is nothing to lament; it’s how humans work. The competing political threads of idealistic equality versus centralized control find their balance here. Our president found that center. Different people are different kinds of leaders, so each leader and each core group will have its own flavor.
I also came with a sense of purpose, that we are successful if we failed at some things and learned along the way, especially if we worked through situations that forced us to expand our compassion or critical thinking. I believe the students should be doing 80% of the talking.
Some new advisors joined in with a different theory. I have some theories about why they joined and theories about their theories. It was two advisors, now six maybe? Adults take up the time talking now, and take up the space, so it no longer feels like teenagers. The youth fade away and may have become a minority. Communication channels among young children use words sparingly, sometimes not at all, and the amount of words is no indication of the richness of the connection. With teens it gets wordy and more complex, and some of the levels are engineered to bypass adult observation by being fast and subtle. (I remember this, why don’t other adults?) Anything teens create from that nucleus of the fire (from cooperation, I mean) springs from those authentic levels of communication, many of which are first-time feelings, social growth happening right as the idea comes to life. Adults can no longer do that. When the teachers sense the fire growing, it feels dangerously out of control, but they also want in.
One of the teachers said she “needs them to succeed” and therefore she had to ensure that a fundraiser was perfectly executed. If they were not going to do it correctly, then she was going to take it on and do it, or incentivize them to do it correctly with threats and grades. This is a person for whom Edison did not ever fail to create a light bulb, for whom success is repetition of an activity for no other reason than to circularly demonstrate success. With that approach, we write ourselves out of history. They talk about accountability. They take over because there is a power vacuum and some people can’t let a power vacuum be. There is a space where student leadership can grow into, where attempts that fell short should have been better planned, and so on. It takes restraint to leave that space alone.
One of the teachers implied that if she’s not there, no one will be around to pick up the pieces… of the presumed failures due to her absence. How do we learn and accept that things that we are not part of are not about us? How can we learn to see what is already happening before brushing away the existing fire in an effort to create a better one?
Our group has a flavor that comes from who the president is, where she is in life, including her limitations. For example, she gets words misaligned when under the stress of judgment or being in front of a group. So, she found over time that she can build in accommodations for that, which mitigates the way her brain is. In her case, pre-planning agendas and clear ordering helps. Other leaders will find other ways and give a very different flavor. Finding ways that work for the leader and that also keep other people drawn in is the essence of the educational value of service clubs like this. Without these kinds of experiences, she may not learn how to work with herself to balance what she needs with what the world of college and jobs actually offer. With this leadership experience, she has apparently made a bridge to those opportunities.
We, as advisors, support this by liking them, being on their side, and being restrained. Or we can crush it by judging them against arbitrary and impossible standards, and taking up all the class time telling them how inadequate they are.