Document 1
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melin
Journal of Thought, Summer 2013 da Mitchiner 65
1982
Act
Let’s Sit Together:
Exploring the Potential
for Human Relations Education at Lunch
Jennifer Ng,
Holly Morsbach Sweeney,
& Melinda Mitchiner
University of Kansas
Information
School lunch involves not only lunch itself but also the interactions
of people gathered together in the lunch room at lunch time. Research-
ers who have studied this particular social space have characterized it
as an important site of peer interaction, identity formation, and status
differentiation. Because these processes are influenced by such things
as race (Tatum, 2003), class (Eckert, 1989), gender and age (Eder, 1995),
and other manifestations of culture (Milner, 2006), researchers have also
Official
emphasized that the resulting friendship circles or cliques in a cafeteria
are not random. Instead, they are dynamic formations whose terms and
processes of inclusion or exclusion determine group membership, order
hierarchies of group power, and delineate relations within as well as
the
between groups (Adler & Adler, 1995; Bishop, Bishop, Bishop, Gelbwas-
ser, Green, Peterson, Rubinsztaj & Zuckerman, 2004; Kinney, 1993).
To counter the divisiveness and hurt that so often ensues from
lunch time interactions, students attending more than 2,500 schools in
the United States and abroad recently participated in the 12th annual
Teaching Tolerance campaign to “Mix It Up at Lunch” (Severson, 2013).
under
This event exemplifies a broad approach to multicultural education that
Sleeter & Grant (2009) refer to as “human relations”—efforts that foster
interactions between students who might not otherwise believe they
have much in common in the hopes of thereby overcoming stereotypes
and prejudice to instead promote empathy, respect, and a shared sense
of humanity. In the case of students at Mix It Up schools, a featured
aspect of their involvement is sitting in randomly assigned seating ar-
Released
66
Let’s Sit Together
rangements and having lunch with classmates different from their usual
lunchtime company for one day (Willoughby, 2011).
1982
What might the potential of such an idea be on the social relations
of a school if it were adopted as routine practice throughout the year?
This is the central question we pursued at Bishop Seabury, a notable
school where mixing it up is how they have always done lunch.
Act
Studying Seabury:
The School Context and Our Research Methods
Bishop Seabury Academy is an independent, college preparatory
school located in Lawrence, Kansas, a Midwestern community of ap-
proximately 87,000 people. Established in 1997 with 32 students, six
teachers, and one Headmaster, it now enrolls almost 180 students in
grades 6-12 and has a staff of 28 teachers and administrators. Tuition for
the school costs almost $12,500 per year, though Seabury is committed
to an economically diverse student body and thus allocates 10 percent
of its operating budget to providing financial assistance to students in
Information
need. Bishop Seabury also values racial and ethnic diversity, with al-
most a quarter of its students coming from minority backgrounds (www.
seaburyacademy.org).
The immediate entrance into the school’s main building is an open
room lined with windows along its south wall known as “The Commons.”
From 12:30 to 1:10 each day, The Commons functions as the school’s
lunchroom, where students themselves arrange 25 round tables that
Official
seat 8 people each. On every table, students also place a rectangular
Tupperware container with utensils inside, another container with salt
and pepper shakers, and a plexiglas standing frame that displays the
table number and the name of the designated staff member above it.
the
This information helps students locate their particular seat assignments
which are posted on a bulletin board every other Monday.
On Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, students eat lunch accord-
ing to a randomly assigned seating arrangement that includes one adult
member of the school staff. These mixed-grade combinations change every
two weeks, a routine that continues throughout the year. On Wednesdays,
under
students sit with their faculty advisors and advisory group, referred to
in Latin as their “altera familia” or “other family.” These advisories are
also mixed-grade groups, though students’ memberships in them remain
constant from the time they enter Seabury to the time they graduate.
Then, on Fridays, everyone gets to choose where—and with whom—they
want to sit, and seniors have the option of leaving the campus entirely.
Bishop Seabury’s approach to lunch made it an ideal setting for our
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 67
study. Not only were seating arrangements regularly mixed through the
year, they included the entire student body and its adult staff. Because
1982
this structuring of lunch began with the school’s inception, it also pro-
vided us an opportunity to consider how lunches have changed over time
and how school leaders have continued supporting the practice. Indeed,
as the Headmaster explained, relatively few modifications have been
Act
made, and they include now serving catered food in a buffet rather than
family-style arrangement and using a computer program developed by a
former student to generate the bi-weekly seating assignments instead of
having a staff member create them manually. The recent addition of 6th
grade to the previously 7th-12th grade school increased its enrollment
by more than 10 percent and prompted practical questions of whether
Seabury’s lunches could continue being accommodated in its existing
space. However, broad support from staff as well as students and the
reconfiguration of tables in an expanded Commons area have ensured
the continuation of this tradition into the foreseeable future.
Given our interest in exploring the social relations of lunch at Bishop
Seabury, we purposefully designed our study to include the views of stu-
Information
dents as well as adult staff through two primary data collection methods.
First, we conducted semi-structured, individual interviews each lasting
approximately one hour with eight staff members knowledgeable about
the school’s lunch practices. During these interviews, we asked explor-
atory questions to understand the intended goals of the approach, staff
members’ experiences with respect to its implementation, and any related
effects they may have observed. Respondents represented the varied roles
Official
of staff at Seabury, including the Headmaster, administrative support
staff, classroom teachers, and individuals who serve in dual capacities
as classroom teachers and extra-curricular program leaders.
Second, we conducted five focus groups with students, four of which
the
were organized according to students’ grade levels (6th, 7-8th, 9-10th,
11-12th) and one by students’ backgrounds as international students in
an ESL class. Our rationale for grouping students in this manner was
because we believed perspectives might differ by how long students had
attended Seabury and thus participated in the mixed-grade, assigned
lunch seating approach. We also wanted to be sensitive to the possibil-
under
ity that certain students—6th graders and international students, in
particular—might be more comfortable sharing their experiences in
more homogeneous groups. Each focus group lasted approximately 50
minutes and included general questions to gauge students’ views on how
Seabury approaches lunch, hypothetical questions to elicit comparisons
with other possible lunch practices, and reflective questions to consider
the potential impact of their particular lunch experiences.
Released
68
Let’s Sit Together
Concurrent with initial interviews and focus groups, we conducted
participant observations of lunch at Bishop Seabury three times a week
1982
for one month. These observations provided us opportunities to enrich
our understanding of lunch time routines, further detail examples of
social interaction, revise study protocols as needed, and corroborate
emerging conclusions across data sources. All interviews and focus
Act
groups were audio recorded and transcribed for later analyses which
involved inductive coding within individual cases first and then compar-
ing similarities and differences as well as frequency of mention across
cases and data sources. We also attended to participants’ metaphorical
language or analogies-in-use as methods to refine resulting insights
(Ryan & Bernard, 2003). In the sections that follow, we discuss what
we learned about Bishop Seabury’s rationale for its lunches as well as
its impact on individuals at the school. We then highlight aspects of the
approach that seemed important for its effectiveness at Seabury and
conclude with implications for other schools to consider if they were also
to adopt similar practices.
Information
Saving Seats for Everyone:
Why Do We Sit Together?
When asked to share their initial reactions to lunch at Bishop Sea-
bury, students frequently used descriptors like “surprised,” “confused,” or
“scared.” Some anticipated the experience of mixed-age, assigned seating
and sitting with adults would be “weird” while others thought it was
Official
an “interesting” idea and simply something “new” to try. As one student
stated, “I thought [the school was] making a big deal out of something
that wasn’t.” However, like all the students we spoke to, this student
ultimately came to appreciate lunch at Seabury. He explained, it was
the
more like eating dinner than lunch—something with bigger expectations,
sitting down, and social time.
Indeed, the Seabury staff we interviewed did view lunch as a social
time, and they sought to ensure as one teacher stated, that “in the long
run, over time, every lunch [is] counting toward something.” One of the
more basic goals was to
promote certain standards of decorum. This ex-
under
pectation was communicated through direct instruction, modeling, and
gentle reminders as needed, and it was apparent as students collectively
paused for daily prayer; stood to acknowledge the arrival of adult staff
or guests at the table; asked for the salt and pepper to be passed rather
than reaching across another person; and showed self-awareness about
potentially inappropriate behavior such as playing with their food.
When asked to reflect upon any life lessons that might have resulted
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 69
from their experiences with lunch at Bishop Seabury, students refer-
enced their developing social skills. A few sixth graders attributed their
1982
mindfulness about cleaning up after themselves to the fact that “certain
grades have certain jobs for lunch” so teachers and janitors would not
have to pick up after them. An upperclassman noted the impact of ex-
amples set amongst mixed-age peers and explained, “It makes you want
Act
to kind of act in an acceptable way.” And several international students,
a couple of whom shared that lunch in their home countries was simply
not eaten at school, explained what they were learning about manners
in the Seabury environment:
Student 1: First thing they have to do is pray. Then we sit and start
eating. You can’t sit down before the prayer.
Student 2: Also, you have to stand up when a teacher comes to your
table.
Other Students: To respect them…
Student 1: Yeah, it has to do with respect.
Information
The thoughtfulness of students who asked for permission to get a glass
of water and inquired whether others wanted any as a matter of habit
was yet another example a teacher offered. Consideration such as this,
she said, “encourages very positive behavior and not because I’m going,
‘You will ask them if they want anything.’ No, it just springs organically
from the whole environment.”
A second rationale for Bishop Seabury’s approach was that lunch could
Official
foster a sense of community in the school, especially through meaningful
conversation. As the Headmaster recounted, “One of the things we tell
[students is that their job at the table], when you eat, when you’re with
people…it is a place for discussion. You are doing two things with your
the
mouth at once. It is a place to share ideas, to build community. [Having
lunch] is not simply shoving food into your mouth.” Becoming acquainted
with peers as well as adult staff meant getting to know people as indi-
viduals rather than through superficially broad categories of difference
like “teacher,” “senior,” “international student,” or “newbie.” One staff
person commented, “At that lunch table, you are just someone having
under
lunch with someone else.” Another staff person emphasized the distinct
context of lunch being important, too. She stated, “We are outside the
classroom, and we are interacting as people. People that are just at dif-
ferent stages of our lives.”
Students also described enjoying conversations that exposed them
to new ideas or helped them connect to others with mutual interests in
a process of getting to know their peers and their teachers. One student
Released
70
Let’s Sit Together
memorably called the social time afforded by lunch a chance to have
a “complete conversation” threading through what might have started
1982
during the day’s school-wide “morning meeting,” advisory group, class, or
some other point. As one teacher acknowledged, lunches themselves were
only opportunities for engagement, and students seemed to recognize
the quality of resulting exchanges depended upon the participation of
Act
all individuals. “Good” tables were characterized as having adult lead-
ers who set a tone for the group’s involvement by asking open-ended
and interesting questions. “Bad” tables, which were fortunately a “rare
occasion” according to upperclassmen, were those where conversation
seemed awkward, contrived, or almost non-existent. In these instances,
many students indicated their willingness to step up and test their con-
versational abilities, and one sixth grader ventured, “It’s kind of like,
don’t be shy. That’s what it kind of teaches us.”
Lunches were described as perhaps the most visible sign of com-
munity at the school, and ensuring everyone’s belonging to this com-
munity meant
reinforcing inclusiveness as a third objective. One staff
member described the use of mixed-age assigned seating at lunch as a
Information
“different, very creative, and very in tune with an adolescents’ psyche”
way to counter their seemingly inevitable tendencies toward cliquish
behavior. Another teacher noted, too, the reputation of teachers’ lounges
during lunch time as places where adults could isolate themselves
from students to complain or be catty amongst their colleagues. Yet,
Seabury’s structured lunches required the participation of adults and
thereby interrupted such inclinations. She insisted, “I don’t talk about
Official
my students. If I have an issue with a student, I’ll just go and speak to
the student candidly, you know? I don’t gossip about my students.”
Consistent with popular media portrayals and likely the life experiences
of many people, one teacher recalled her own high school lunch period as
the
being fraught with anxiety. She described, “It was a stressful time of my
day. I was worried, who would sit with me? Would my friends be there?
Or, would I be, you know, carrying my tray hoping someone was going
to let me sit at their table?” In contrast, the belief underlying Seabury’s
explicit insistence upon inclusiveness was voiced by its Headmaster, “It’s
the separation that breeds disrespect, lack of empathy.” The resulting
under
experience of lunch, then, was captured by one student who said:
You don’t have to worry about, ‘Oh my gosh, my friend is sitting over
here. I’m going to sit over there.’ And if someone wants to sit with you,
at my old school my friends would be like, ‘I’ll sit with you, but there
are no seats left.’ So, they would feel sad, they would feel bad. They
would feel discluded, and this way no one feels discluded.
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 71
Across staff and student respondents alike, there was clarity ex-
pressed about the purposes of Seabury’s approach to lunch and support
1982
for its implementation. Teachers referred to their commitment in terms
of having “drunk the Kool-Aid” or being “all in,” and the Headmaster
concluded, “I am absolutely certain that this is the best way I can think
of right now to have lunches.” The only thing that could affect this con-
Act
viction, he indicated, was:
If you talk to students and you hear, ‘Well, I look forward to Fridays [and
just choosing who I sit with]. And, [teachers] say we [engage everyone],
but we don’t really do it. I don’t understand why we do it, and there
are always side conversations. The teachers at my table generally don’t
take any interest.’ If I heard that, I wouldn’t change lunches, I would
start talking to the kids…
To the school’s credit, what we heard from students was generally quite
positive and included feelings of gratitude for “teachers [who] include
you so much” and have made lunch “how it should be.” In the section
that follows, we elaborate upon what insights might be gleaned from
Information
Bishop Seabury’s approach to lunch, paying particular attention to
features we believe contributed to its effective implementation. While
not generalizable across different school settings in a strict, statistical
sense, such explication can advance the efforts of interested individuals
seeking to determine the transferability of certain ideas from Seabury to
their own, local school context (Moss, Phillips, Erickson, Floden, Lather
& Schneider, 2009). In essence, we hope to contribute to what Battistich,
Solomon, Watson & Schaps call “a useful framework for considering ac-
Official
tion under particular circumstances” (1997, p. 150).
The Company We Want to Keep:
the
What Makes This Work?
As discussed earlier, educational researchers have recognized the
social significance of lunch, and the campaign to Mix It Up has grown in
popularity with educational practitioners. Yet, there is little published
research about such efforts or their impact. This, we believe, is an impor-
tant oversight as studies have shown feelings of belonging (Goodenow
under
& Grady, 1993) to caring school communities (Basttistich et. al, 1997)
have positive academic as well as social effects. In one of the few studies
available, Kindzierski, Leavitt-Noble, Dutt-Doner, Marable, and Wallace
(2013) found third graders who participated at two different elementary
schools felt uncomfortable and reported little to no connection with their
randomly assigned classmates after the day’s experience of mixed lunch.
Though the majority of these students thought the activity was “okay” or
Released
72
Let’s Sit Together
even said they “liked it,” they also described “barely talking” or “talking
about nothing really.” Overwhelmingly, they preferred that things “stay
1982
the way they are” at their schools.
Students we spoke to at Bishop Seabury also expressed wanting
things to stay the same at their school, though for them this meant con-
tinuing the practice of eating lunch with randomly assigned peers and
Act
teachers three days a week, having another day for sitting with their
mixed-age advisory groups, and spending the last with their choice of
company. The school’s lunch practices were readily associated with its
“safe,” “welcoming,” and “family”-like environment. And, when asked
hypothetically for their reactions to an announcement that students
would now be able to choose who they wanted to sit with every day just
as students in other schools did, one student replied, “I think if that were
to happen, the meek and timid people who don’t have anyone to sit with
at lunch time would form an impromptu revolution on the school and
on the Headmaster’s office to demand normal lunches back.”
Students on the whole acknowledged the purposeful design of
lunches and appreciated how the school’s intended goals were not
Information
just suggestions but were actually
normalized through formal policies
and procedures. One student in the 7th-8th grade focus group stated,
“We are forced into the best way to meet people. We can meet teach-
ers without other kids thinking you are weird for wanting to talk to
them or meet them. You can do this at lunch.” An international student
added, “For me, I not feel comfortable to make opportunity by myself
to make friends or to get familiar with other people so the assignment
Official
table is like a way to force me to make friends with others. It is a good
opportunity for me.”
Staff at Seabury recognized the importance of continually acting to
counteract certain cliquish or exclusionary behaviors they believed would
the
not otherwise be eliminated. And, when they discussed the intended goals
of lunch, lunch served as just one of several ways the school worked to
realize its objectives. This was evident in the Headmaster’s reply when
asked about what difference he thought lunches might have made on
individual students: “I tend to think of it as a composite between altera
familia in the morning, morning meeting, and lunch. I tend to see it
under
grouped together, so maybe I’m talking about more than just lunch…”
Arguably, the close
integration of multiple efforts contributed to Seabury’s
effectiveness, making lunches so vital as to be synonymous with the
school itself. As one student in the 9th-10th grade focus group reflected,
“You don’t realize in 7th grade, but those lunches are kind of important.
They’re like, Seabury. And I’d be upset if we didn’t do them anymore.”
Another teacher voiced similar sentiments and said, “[Lunches] support
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 73
the overall picture of the school.” She continued, “Why would we [get rid
of our lunches]? That is what Seabury is.”
1982
In contrast to the one-day experience of students seated randomly
at participating Mix It Up schools, Bishop Seabury’s approach continued
throughout the year. Its structure was not premised entirely upon either
free choice or assigned seating but instead seemed to satisfy students
Act
and staff with a
balance of variety and sameness. Students found the idea
of doing any one thing—sitting in assigned seats, with advisory groups,
or choosing their placement—potentially boring, even if it might at first
sound appealing. One student analogized, “It’s like donuts. You eat one,
and it is good. But you eat too many, it is bad.” And an international
who appreciated the variable routine likened it to a “rhythm” through
the week.
Differentiating between monotony and “a good sameness” resulting
from Seabury’s consistent lunch expectations and routines was important,
a staff member insisted, as the stability was intended to safeguard against
students feeling fear, concern, or tension. Another advantage of the varied
lunch formats was that it afforded members of the school opportunities
Information
for comparison through contrasting experiences. This was already the
case as many staff and students recalled the dynamics of previous schools
where they had attended or worked. Reflection upon differences generally
seemed to heighten students’ appreciation, as illustrated by one student’s
sentiment: “I like that [Fridays] only happen once a week. It makes them
more special. You look forward to them. …It’s nice to have it once a week
and like just have that freedom, but I don’t think I’d like it or it would be
Official
the same if we had it like that every day.”
Perhaps related to the benefit of contrasting experiences, students
also expressed how lunches prompted them to
reconceive the mean-
ing of “choice.” Interestingly, these more nuanced understandings of
the
choice—as something you did not know you wanted or as something
you needed to learn you liked and then would have freely chosen—re-
inforced the merits of Seabury’s approach. One student explained, “[If
I had the chance], I would tell [my parents and teachers] how cool it is
to sit with who I want…kind of who I want even if I didn’t choose. You
end up kind of wanting to sit with the people you end up sitting with.”
under
The idea of choice was also reframed by the Headmaster as a privilege
rather than an entitlement so that if on Fridays students formed groups
that excluded certain individuals, “We go back to doing the other way
because there is a responsibility on all levels.” When this happened once
amongst students in the 6th grade, they were temporarily not allowed to
choose their seats again and sat together as a single group of 6th graders
instead. Readings on community and conversations about, “‘What hap-
Released
74
Let’s Sit Together
pened? Why did it happen? Who’s excluded? Why did you do this? How
did it make them feel? Have you ever been excluded? What’s going on?’
1982
became part of the text of the class,” according to the Headmaster.
Recognition of
student development was central to the process of
learning about decorum, community, and inclusiveness at Seabury. The
staff members we interviewed gave numerous examples of communi-
Act
cating expectations, providing direct instruction, and offering positive
reinforcement as well as corrective feedback when needed. They also
assumed students would show initiative as they became more confident,
exemplify desired conduct in mixed-age interactions, and demonstrate
leadership as opportunities arose. Students described their growth over
time in congruent terms, with select comments such as:
I think 6th graders are really shy for about a week and don’t really
want to talk to anybody, but I think the older kids try to include you. I
think it just took us awhile. (6th grade focus group)
Teachers kind of lead…but the students help to set an example for the
younger kids. Last year, I did not know what to do at lunch, but the
Information
students would start talking and look at you, and you thought, I better
start talking or I will look like an idiot. So, it is like helping out your
friends to know how to do this. (7th-8th grade focus group)
Like when you’re a 6th grader, if you don’t have to talk to a senior you’re
probably not going to but then when it’s like thrust upon you, not in a
bad way, but like you’re going to sit with a senior and a bunch of other
grades, they are going to ask you questions and they are going to talk
to you. I think it helps, like, 6th graders and 7th graders become more
Official
comfortable around older kids in general. (9th-10th grade focus group)
And,
I think [mixed lunches] benefit international students more than other
the
students because they’re afraid to speak English and are more shy. So,
it’s more success for international students. (International student
focus group)
Upperclassmen had the longest range perspective, recounting:
Student 1: After you get older, you realize how helpful [lunch] was.
under
Student 2: I don’t think we really reflect every day on what lunch is
doing.
Student 3: Yeah, this is the first time we’ve really thought about it….
Student 4: Before now, I just thought about it as eating lunch with a
bunch of people, but now looking back on it, I realize that there was a
reason. (11th-12 grade focus group)
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 75
Students were able to describe their growth over time and with con-
tinued interaction, showing a maturity of sorts that one teacher related
1982
in the following way:
We push it, we push it, we push it. We control it, control it, control it. But
once you get to be a certain age, everything that we’ve been trying to tell
you and to teach you, you go, ‘Okay. That’s a sweater I’ll put on for myself.
Act
You’ve shown me that sweater. You’ve made me wear that sweater. And
now I realize that’s a good sweater. Now I’m going to wear it.
A few students suggested Seabury’s approach to lunch was something
they could imagine sustaining on their own if ever the formal protocols
were changed and every day became a free-choice Friday. Tentatively,
one student in the 7th-8th grade focus group said, “I might choose to sit
with someone I did not know, but maybe not with someone three years
older than me.” Another asserted more confidently, “I would sit with
someone I did not know and had not sat with during assigned seating
during the year. Sure, why not?” And to improve the existing system,
this same student inquired,
Information
Last year you could ask to sit with someone you had not sat with yet by
the end of the year, and it would happen because [a person] organized
and sorted the names. But this year, the assignments are sorted by a
[computer] program, so you can’t ask to sit with a teacher you haven’t
sat with. …Can you please make this happen?
Conclusion
Official
We selected Bishop Seabury to be the site of our study because of its
particular approach to lunch, and through our exploration we found it to
be an exceptional place both in terms of it being quite excellent and in
terms of it being quite rare. If other schools sought to implement similar
the
school-wide practices for lunch, they might struggle to find such unity of
vision and coordinated support from administrators, teachers, students,
and the surrounding community (see Severson, 2012, for example). And
given the sheer size of student enrollments or departmentalization and
bureaucratization in some schools, the practical reality of Seabury’s ap-
proach might seem inconceivable (Battistich et. al, 1997). Nevertheless,
under
we challenge educators to first evaluate whether actively promoting
interactions between social groups in their school is worthwhile. And
then, we hope interested parties will convene to consider how this might
be accomplished through lunches or any other aspect of their particular
context. Because the social dynamics of schools are so often the result
of default, this type of purposeful reflection and concerted effort would
be a valuable—and necessary—start.
Released
76
Let’s Sit Together
The affirming and readily adaptable nature of human relations
approaches like Seabury’s lunches make it popular amongst educators
1982
committed to multicultural education (Sleeter & Grant, 2009). For their
seeming ease of use, however, initiatives can be problematic when hast-
ily recommended on the basis of good intentions but without adequate
training, time for implementation, and opportunities for sustained and
Act
well-facilitated discussion (Pate, 1981). Educators should recognize,
too, that overt indications of everyone “getting along” can hide existing
conflicts that have been silenced in environments not conducive to their
safe acknowledgment. And even the most effective efforts to improve
human relations may still fall short of addressing outcomes indicative
of a socially just and wholly affirming institution—as in the case of a
school where students interact quite harmoniously but where academic
disparities persist predictably across groups by race, gender, and class,
or in the case of a school where acceptance is largely assimilative and
premised upon minimizing or disregarding differences that may be real,
meaningful, and important to explore.
Efforts to foster human relations have great potential, and Seabury’s
Information
structured lunches provide an illustration of what can be realized. Cul-
tivating one’s graciousness, empathy, and common bond with others is a
critical foundation for education. It is also a worthy endeavor as we prepare
future citizens to live together in the world. We conclude with appreciation
for Bishop Seabury’s work and also for the last lines of a poem referenced
during our interview with the school Headmaster. As a teacher of ethics,
his recollection of Margaret Atwood’s (1987, p. 53) words seemed a fitting
Official
connection to our study, and they resonate with us still:
All bread must be broken
So it can be shared. Together
We eat this earth.
the
Note
The authors would like to thank the students and staff of Bishop Seabury
Academy for their support and participation in this study. Inquiries about the
school can be directed to its Headmaster, Dr. Don Schawang, at 785-832-1717.
The authors also wish to acknowledge the assistance of Abbie Wenger and Allen
under
Schaidle with transcriptions related to this research.
References
Adler, P. A., & Adler, P. (1995). Dynamics of inclusion and exclusion in preado-
lescent cliques.
Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 145-162.
Atwood, M. (1987).
Selected poems II: 1976-1986. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Released
Jennifer Ng, Holly Morsbach Sweeney, & Melinda Mitchiner 77
Battistich, V., Solomon, D., Watson, M. & Schaps, E. (1997). Caring school com-
munities.
Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137-151.
1982
Bishop, J. H., Bishop, M., Bishop, M., Gelbwasser, L., Green, S., Peterson, E., Rubin-
sztaj, A. & Zuckerman, A. (2004). Why we harass nerds and freaks: A formal
theory of student culture norms.
Journal of School Health, 7(7), 235-251.
Eckert, P. (1989).
Jocks and burnouts: Social categories and identity in the high
Act
school. NewYork: Teachers College Press.
Eder, D. (1995).
School talk: Gender and adolescent culture. New Brunswick,
NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and
friends’ values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students.
Journal of Experimental Education, 62(1), 60-71.
Kindzierski, C. M., Leavitt-Noble, K., Dutt-Doner, K., Marable, M. A. & Wal-
lace, N. (2013). Teaching tolerance with Mix It Up! Student reactions to an
unusual lunch period.
Childhood Education, 89(1), 15-18.
Kinney, D. A. (1993). From nerds to normal: The recovery of identity among
adolescents from middle school to high school.
Sociology of Education,
66(1), 21-40.
Milner, M. (2006).
Freaks, geeks, and cool kids. New York: Routledge Press.
Moss, P. A., Phillips, D. C., Erickson, F. D., Floden, R. E., Lather, P. A. & Schneider,
Information
B. L. (2009). Learning from our differences: A dialogue across perspectives
on quality in education research.
Educational Researcher, 38(7), 501-517.
Pate, G. S. (1981). Research on prejudice reduction.
Educational Leadership,
38(4), 288-291
Ryan, G. W., & Bernard, H. R. (2003). Techniques to identify themes.
Field
Methods, 15(1), 85-109.
Severson, K. (2012, October 14). Christian group finds gay agenda in anti-bully-
ing day.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Official
Sleeter, C. E. & Grant, C. A. (2009).
Making choices for multicultural educa-
tion: Five approaches to race, class, and gender. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley
& Sons.
Tatum, B. D. (2003).
Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria?
the
New York: Basic Books.
Willoughby, B. (Oct. 20, 2011).
Mix it up at lunch: So what’s next? Retrieved from
http://www.tolerance.org/blog/mix-it-lunch-so-what-s-next
under
Released
Copyright of Journal of Thought is the property of Caddo Gap Press and its content may not
be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's
express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Document 2
Making Time
for Well-Being 1982
How to use the school schedule to
Act
support greater connection and balance.
Sarah Miles, Denise Pope, Jennifer Curry Villeneuve, and Samantha T. Selby
Henry David Thoreau
once said, “It is not
Information enough to be busy.
. . . The question is
what are we busy
about?” As Thoreau reminds
us, how we spend our time is
a function of our values—and
how time is allocated during
Official
the school day reflects what is
important to the community,
intentionally or unintentionally.
the
In the past two years, schools
have faced the herculean task of
attending to students’ physical
and mental well-being while
attempting to engage them in
meaningful learning. Educators
under
have added vital resources and
tools for students and school staff,
such as social-emotional learning
programs, increased counseling
and clinical support, and incor-
porating coping strategies like
meditation and breathwork into
the school day.
These resources and tools can
Released
be very powerful for many indi-
viduals in building and helping
them maintain their sense of
60 Educational Leadership / Summer 2022
ALICE MOLLON / IKON IMAGES
well-being. However, an important aspect of
school or do not have a trusted person to turn to
improving and sustaining the well-being of an
when they have a problem, it suggests educators
entire school community is also to make changes
need to increase focus on school belonging and
at the system level. In times of chaos and uncer-
connection. When students are not engaged with
1982
tainty, people crave stability and security. The
their classes or feel like their learning focuses
use of time in school has the potential to shape
more on performance and less on improvement
the quality and the quantity of the experiences
and understanding, and when teachers report
students, staff, and families have each day with
fewer opportunities to connect learning to the
Act
each other and individually.
real world, this represents a potential problem
with overload and lack
What Do We Need for Well-Being?
of time to promote
If we turn to self-determination theory to help
mastery. And when
us understand how to support positive physical
students and staff feel
In times of chaos
and mental health for people of all ages, life
like they are not given
experiences, cultures, and backgrounds, we can
ample opportunities
and uncertainty,
see that human beings have a universal need
for voice, choice, and
people crave stability
for autonomy, competency, and relatedness.
decision-making in
People are more likely to feel a sense of well-being
schools, this points
and security.
Information
when they can make decisions that are aligned
to a need to increase
with their interests, feel a sense of mastery and
autonomy and agency.
purpose, and are connected to others (Chirkov
et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2001).
The Schedule: Reflecting
Over the past 15 years, we at
Challenge
What’s Important
Success, a nonprofit school reform organization
While there are many levers in a school system
affiliated with Stanford University’s Graduate
that impact student and staff well-being, the
Official
School of Education, have conducted
student,
school schedule impacts
all stakeholders at the
faculty and staff, and parent surveys with school
school on a daily basis, making it an essential
communities to dig deeper into well-being and
component in addressing the well-being of the
the
engagement in schools. Through these surveys,
school community.
we glean important insights into the areas of
When we talk about the “school schedule,”
well-being that may be working well for students
we are referring to multiple levels of time spent
and staff, as well as those that may need to be
during the school day. First, there is the schedule
strengthened. We share our analyses with school
that occurs between the start of the school day
teams and discuss the implications of the findings
in the morning and the end of the school day,
under
on school practices and policies.
including after-school activities and meetings.
Findings from our 2021–22 school year surveys,
Then there is the cadence of the school year—the
revealing the effects of pandemic-related disrup-
start and end, when breaks and exams occur, as
tions on students, show a need for schools to make
well as other considerations about the use of time.
changes in areas specifically related to autonomy,
Though some aspects of the school schedule may
competency, and relatedness. In our work with
not be within a school’s control, the design of any
schools, we share school-specific data similar to
schedule is ultimately a reflection of the school
that in Figure 1 to inform our discussions with
community’s values and priorities. Opportunities
school leaders about the importance of supporting
abound to restructure big and small increments
Released
student and staff connection, engagement, and
of time in schools so the schedule aligns more
autonomy. In our experience, when students and
appropriately with educators’ goals to create
staff do not feel like they can be themselves at
healthier youth and adults.
ASCD / www.ascd.org
61
FIGURE 1. Sample Challenge Success Survey of Student and Teacher Experiences
Students
School Staff
1982
21,799 high school students
1,962 faculty and staff
13,346 middle school students
CONNECTION & BELONGING
Act
66% of high school and 68% of middle school students
84% of school staff have a colleague to go to if they
feel they have an adult to go to at school if they have a
have a personal problem.
personal problem.
32% of high school students and 29% of middle school
13% of school staff do not feel like they can be them-
students do not feel like they can be themselves at
selves at school all or most of the time.
school.
ENGAGEMENT & MASTERY
High school students:
32% of teachers report that they never coordinate with
Information
12% disengaged; 54% doing school (doing the work
their colleagues to ensure deadlines for major projects
but not finding it enjoyable or meaningful); 10% fully
or assessments are spread out.
engaged
51% of teachers have provided students opportunities
Middle school students:
to connect their learning to their experiences outside of
6% disengaged; 35% doing school; 23% fully engaged
the classroom at least twice a month.
60% of high school students report that most or all of
79% of school staff often/always enjoy their job.
Official
their classes focus on improvement.
78% of school staff often/always find their job
59% of high school students report that in most or all
interesting.
the
classes the main goal is understanding the material.
80% of school staff often/always find their job
meaningful.
AUTONOMY & AGENCY
15% of students participate in decision making on cur-
65% of staff participate in decision making on curricu-
under
riculum at least 2–4 times/year.*
lum at least 2–4 times/year.
30% of students participate in decision making on
48% of staff participate in decision making on school
school policies at least 2–4 times/year.*
policies at least 2–4 times/year.
*data collected from faculty/staff on student behavior
23% of teachers report that they have never provided
opportunities for students to choose topics or skills to
focus on in class and 22% of teachers do this at least
twice a month.
Source: Chal enge Success, 2022: https://challengesuccess.org/take-a-survey/
Released
62 Educational Leadership / Summer 2022
So how can schools use the school schedule to
deepen connections, promote greater autonomy,
and allow for more experiences of mastery
Well-being in school doesn’t just 1982
and deep engagement? The examples we share
below come directly from our work at Challenge
happen; it has to be made a priority.
Success with middle and high schools during this
challenging year.
Act
n
Tutorial or office hours. Many schools offer
Using School Time to Deepen
a tutorial or study hall period during the day
Connections
to allow greater access to teachers and other
The organization of time in the school schedule
supports.
can facilitate or impede connections between
and among the school staff and students.
Well-Being in Practice
Here are some ways we have seen schools use
After noticing how few students interacted
time to deepen connections and foster greater
at lunch or even took breaks during the day,
belonging:
one Challenge Success high school changed
n
Lunch periods. Today, not all schools have
its bell schedule to allow for students to share
Information
a designated lunch period, while many that do
a common lunch period with a diverse mix of
don’t allow sufficient time or protect it as nec-
their peers. Before this change, students had no
essary down time. Ensuring that students and
formal lunch time—they just squeezed in lunch
adults alike have a specific time for lunch allows
whenever they had a free period (and some of
everyone to take a break, slow down, see friends,
them didn’t have one!). A common lunch period
and “break bread” together. It places a value on
promoted a stronger sense of belonging and
stopping to fuel your body and allows for more
connection, allowed students time to eat with
Official
peer-to-peer, and student-to-faculty connection.
their friends, and created space for planned
n
Time for advisory. High-quality advisory pro-
activities at lunch that attracted a much higher
grams, where small groups of students meet reg-
percentage of students. As the principal shared
the
ularly with an adult advisor, can foster students’
in one of our surveys:
need to feel known. They can be “safe spaces”
We didn’t have a lot of student culture [building]
for students to share struggles and support each
during lunchtime. In fact, it was a little bit of a
other. Typically, the most effective advisory
ghost town. [The change in schedule] forced them
programs follow either a formal or informal cur-
to use those minutes for lunchtime to just relax
riculum plan that includes sample lesson ideas
and to be with their friends, rather than continue
under
their day and do their homework. It helped our
and intended outcomes, as well as some profes-
culture quite a bit because now we have student
sional training or a guidebook for all advisors
activities at lunchtime.
prior to the start of the school year on how best
to support students’ well-being. Advisory can
In another schedule change, schools con-
meet daily or weekly, but the bell schedule should ducted “connection audits” in which they
allow ample time (between 20 and 60 minutes,
matched staff to students with whom they
depending on frequency) to ensure meaningful
already had a strong relationship. These con-
interaction. Some schools have converted the
nection matrices often revealed which students
“old” homeroom concept into effective advisory
might be in danger of falling through the cracks.
Released
time, but it needs to be longer than the typical
Schools used advisory time to ensure these stu-
10-minute homeroom that is mostly used to take
dents could have more frequent and consistent
attendance or listen to announcements.
interactions with a caring adult.
ASCD / www.ascd.org
63
Time for Mastery and
sufficient time for students to study
a tweak as [having longer passing
Engagement
and prepare.
periods] seemed to be at the time, it
Students and adults need time during
n
Later school start time. Later start
has changed just how our kids feel and
1982
the school day to focus, to practice
times for school account for adoles-
act on campus.” Another said:
what they have learned, and to reflect. cents’ circadian rhythms and allow
We had a two-minute passing period.
When they have short class periods
them to experience morning learning
Kids would burst out the doors, they
with little time between classes, they
while in a more awake state. This is
would run to their next class. There
Act
are less likely to experience multiple
also a good reason to alternate which
wasn’t time to use the restroom or to
modalities of teaching and learning,
classes students attend first period and
get a drink of water or say hi to their
friends. It was just,
move! And even
ask questions, or find time to reflect
to eliminate a “zero” period, a class
us, as the adults, were like, “Come on,
on their learning. As a result, their
which is offered before the start of
you guys, you can make it.” [When
sense of mastery and academic
the school day.
we extended the passing period]
engagement may suffer.
we talked to the students and said,
Some ways schools might find
Well-Being in Practice
“We’re doing this so that you have less
stress and [more] time to do what you
time to give students these
Several Challenge
need to do. You have time to breathe
opportunities to reflect
Success schools
between classes and make that cog-
and solidify their
have noted that
nitive shift, maybe from science to
Information
learning include:
the pace of their
history.” Everybody was able to really
de-stress. We had a lot less tardies, not
n
Longer class
school day was
periods. Longer
contributing
surprisingly.
periods allow for
to student
varied modalities
and staff
Promoting Agency
of instruction and
stress. They
and Autonomy
learning, such as
made simple
When students and faculty can
Official
individual work or
yet significant
control how they use their time and
group time. Mastery
changes by
have opportunities to make decisions
learning requires
expanding the time
and choices aligned with their needs
the
reflection and opportu-
between classes known and interests, they are more likely to
nities for questions. Typical
as the passing period. Some
thrive. Healthier schedules prioritize
class periods often deprioritize
schools lengthen passing time from
choice in courses whenever possible
these aspects.
5 minutes to 8 or 10, while others try
and time for extracurricular activities
n
More time between classes. It is
to reduce back-to-back classes by
without trading off student and staff
exhausting to switch gears from one
incorporating breaks, lunchtime,
sleep. Students and staff value free
under
topic and group dynamic to another.
or advisory in between, which can
time during the day where they can
Schools can incorporate adequate
reduce the amount of passing time
choose how best to spend it.
time for students and teachers to make needed in the school day. While it’s
Some elements of the school
those transitions and slow down the
admittedly complicated to try to find
schedule where educators might
pace of the day.
any extra time in an already-packed
better promote agency and autonomy
n
Test and project calendars. Stu-
academic schedule, these changes
include:
dents often complain that they are
decrease the “hustle and bustle” of the
n
Electives. Electives give both stu-
“slammed” with tests and due dates on
day, decrease disciplinary issues in
dents and teachers the freedom to
certain days or weeks. A calendar for
hallways, and increase instructional
choose to take or teach what they are
Released
major assignments and assessments
time because students and teachers
interested in and enjoy doing.
in each course can reduce overload
are more settled when class begins.
n
Extracurriculars. Many students
and emphasize mastery by allowing
As one principal shared, “As minor
participate in extracurricular activities
64 Educational Leadership / Summer 2022
EUROVECTOR / SHUTTERSTOCK
primarily for intrinsic reasons, and
key lever to promote whole-school-
participating in extracurriculars can
community well-being—particularly
be linked to well-being. However,
at this moment of heightened chaos
1982
we do know that “too much of a
and uncertainty. The schools we work
Reflect & Discuss
good thing” is a real possibility. It is
with have found success with both
Does your school’s schedule
important that practices and meetings
large and small changes to their school
reflect well-being as a
are not occurring late into the night or
schedules to emphasize well-being for
Act
priority? Why or why not?
early in the morning.
everyone. Promoting ample time to
n
Flexible time. Free periods allow
build strong connections, allowing for
How does time affect your
students and staff the ability to pri-
meaningful work, and increasing
own well-being—either
oritize meaningful tasks without the
positively or negatively?
student and teacher agency and choice
need to wait until after school hours
is all time well spent.
to get homework, grading, or prep
Do any of the schedule
work done. Some schools require stu-
changes the authors mention
References
dents to physically be in a classroom
seem like a doable option for
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., &
during flex times to have them count
Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating
your school? Which might be
toward instructional minutes; other
autonomy from individualism and
most effective in your setting?
independence: A self-determination
Information
schools find ways to account for
theory perspective on internalization
instructional minutes via longer
of cultural orientations and well-
course periods and electives, thereby
being.
Journal of Personality and Social
is genius!” That’s been a huge game-
allowing kids to spend flex time
Psychology, 84(1), 97–110.
changer for us and an easy win, and the
wherever they want.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). To be
students felt heard.
happy or to be self‐fulfilled: A review
n
Weekends and breaks. Rest and
of research on hedonic and eudaimonic
recovery are essential parts of
Another school district recognized
Official
well‐being.
Annual Review of Psy-
learning. No-homework weekends or
the need for students and families to
chology, 52, 141–166.
breaks, as well as scheduling exams
have a break over holidays. School
before breaks (as opposed to after) are
leaders sent the following message to
the
examples of practices that emphasize
emphasize why they were promoting
Sarah Miles is a former 5th grade
rest and recovery.
the break from homework:
teacher and social worker and is now
Our high school faculty have made a
the director of research for Chal-
Well-Being in Practice
commitment to support well-being.
lenge Success.
Denise Pope is a senior
Another change students and parents
We will not be assigning homework
lecturer at the Stanford University
report appreciating the most are
this year for Thanksgiving, winter,
Graduate School of Education and
under
homework-free holidays or weekends.
and spring holidays. The hope is that
the author of several books, including
students can take this opportunity to
These schoolwide policies commu-
spend time with their families, work
Doing School: How We Are Creating a
nicate support for what we call PDF:
on hobbies, read a book for pleasure,
Generation of Stressed Out, Material-
playtime, downtime, and family time.
and/or finalize college applications. We
istic, and Miseducated Students (Yale
As this middle school principal
are very excited about this proactive
University Press, 2001) and coauthor of
shared, a little goes a long way:
approach to reduce student stress and
Overloaded and Underprepared: Strat-
workload. Enjoy your time!
egies for Stronger Schools and Healthy,
We began exploring the concept of
Successful Kids (Jossey-Bass, 2015).
homework-free nights as recom-
Jennifer Curry Villeneuve is a senior
mended by Challenge Success. We tried
A Key Lever for Well-Being
Released
research and evaluation associate with
several last spring, and you would have
Well-being in school doesn’t just
thought that we were handing out gold
Challenge Success. Samantha T. Selby
happen; it has to be made a priority.
candy bars. Parents and students that
is a research associate with Challenge
are hard to impress were like, “This
How we use time in schools can be a
Success.
ASCD / www.ascd.org
65
Copyright of Educational Leadership is the property of Association for Supervision &
Curriculum Development and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or
posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users
may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
1982
Act
Information
Official
the
under
Released
Document Outline
