Ever since the beginning of schools, students have suspected teachers of playing favorites.
Remember all the way back to first grade, when you would whine about how unfair it was when the teacher liked one kid more than all the others? It’s still the same way in high school.
When the Student-Staff Luncheon was held last week, some of those suspicions came to fruition.
Teachers each picked one student to invite to a free lunch from Sol Food in the Quad, meaning only a select few students got to go. Let me be clear: a free lunch from Sol Food.
Though the administration cancelled the Achievement Luncheon last year for all students with a GPA greater than 3.5 because it was thought to create divide between students based on academic achievement levels, the Student-Staff Luncheon remained in place. The Student Staff luncheon does the same thing as the Achievement Luncheon, but even to a higher degree.
Singling out a student for any reason is wrong to some degree, but it’s simply hypocritical to let the teachers pick a guest to a luncheon after cancelling the Achievement Luncheon. It isn’t clear how commending a large group of people’s success is wrong, while rewarding a few individuals for being teachers’ favorites is not.
I know that the lunch is probably intended to allow teachers to get to know their students more or award some academic improvement, but it does not come off that way. It comes off as the “goody two shoes” lunch. There is a sentiment among students that it is really just teachers picking their favorite student to take to the lunch.
Canceling the Student-Staff Luncheon would a bit extreme, just as canceling the Achievement Lunch was but there is a better message to send than the current one.
For instance, to get beyond the “teachers’ pet” perception, teachers could maybe choose four or five students to bring to the lunch instead of only one. That would send more of a message encouraging group success and would not come off as much as teachers playing favorites.
The school could also frame the lunch differently to change the students’ opinions of it. They could call it the “Academic Improvement Luncheon” or something more creative. Teachers would be encouraged then to choose students that have improved over the year, or put in effort without getting the results, instead of just students that they like the most.
And while some could argue that the point is to reward a select few students because they deserved it, even though it might make other students feel bad, that was in essence the same argument to keep the Achievement Luncheon. That argument didn’t work then, and we can’t have it both ways.
