By Sophia Lashmar, Year 11
LGB rightfully prides itself on its academics achievements, which is justified by its decades of outstanding IB results. However, that is not to say that the school does not equally value the cultivation of social skills and the development of strong student-teacher communication.
Secondary School operates a mentor system in order to keep students up to date with the goings-on academically and around campus, and to deliver social-emotional support, as well as following the ULP curriculum. Students spend one or two short periods a week in mentor class, so they are made aware of assemblies, school news, extracurriculars and clubs, as well as staying up to date with projects and for mentors to check in on their wellbeing.
Although the mentor system is widely adopted worldwide, the pairing between students and teachers is often the step that does not allow for the full potential of the system to be utilized. Mrs. Sharma and Mrs. Shibaru, heads of student life at LGB, provided helpful insight into how LGB’s mentor system is organised and run. IB students are allocated to their mentors according to their higher level subject teachers, so that they have continuity in terms of a mentor throughout the IB program, but also so that they have shared interests with their mentors, who can offer them more specialised help and advice as needed. For the younger years, mentors are allocated to groups of students put together based on gender and language, and are sometimes also a subject teacher for that group. Heads of years put the students in groups, and the compiling of these groups is not as random as most High School students would think.
Many students at LGB feel as if their mentors are assigned haphazardly, and believe they would be able to have more meaningful and helpful discussions with mentors who already teach them in other subjects, with whom they already have a pre-existing relationship, and who are better aware of their academic capabilities. For some students, this is already the case and they have more opportunities to discuss and connect with their mentors, however other students do not benefit from this and could have mentors that do not teach them in other subjects.
In theory, this would be an ideal solution, however a system allocating mentors in this manner would be complex and could lead to issues with teacher availability, as most teachers already have IB-level mentor classes.
High School students might not have contemplated the numerous scheduling and availability issues involved with rearranging the mentor system. This leads to the frequently asked question: why can’t students choose their own mentors? If students could choose mentors who they are familiar and comfortable with, their one-on-one meetings would surely be more productive. The mentor-student relationship should be one of mutual respect, understanding and trust, but how can students be expected to discuss their academic performance, social lives and personal issues with teachers they do not even know?
For example, the Year 9 Character Project, the Year 10 Passion Project and the Year 11 Mastery Project are all individual, action-based initiatives to encourage students to engage with the community and develop their personal interests. Say a student has a third-language teacher as a mentor, but is designing a computer game, it would be far more productive and tailored to the student’s needs if they had a mentor with the capacity to help them with their project, and to cultivate an even deeper interest in the subject matter. These projects should serve to encourage students to take initiative, but how can they do so without relevant and proper guidance?
Another instance where students from lower years and mentors could be matched up more carefully is in the case of one-on-one meetings. When mentors are allocated to groups of students with whom they sometimes have no prior connection and little other contact with outside of the weekly mentor class, there is substantially less advantage to be gained from the arrangement. That being said, some mentor classes are already taught or have been taught in previous years by that mentor, which leads to a disparity in the mentoring experiences of different students. If students spend so little time in the presence of their mentors, who do try their best in the mere 45 minutes they are allocated, then how can this relationship be beneficial? The issue with developing strong student-mentor relationships is mainly time, as the one-period a week restriction prevents mentors and students from getting to know each other. While mentors and Heads of Year dedicate their valuable time and efforts to thoughtfully creating safe spaces in mentor groups and classes, the limited amount of time they spend together begins to outweigh the value of the arrangement.
Of course, it is understandable why the school does not adopt a new policy, as it would create a myriad of administrative and organisational problems. However, if timetabling and administration are the only reasons for preventing students from cultivating stronger mentor-mentee relationships and from creating safer spaces to discuss their progress, then the school’s priorities are in the wrong place. That being said, the school is open to feedback from students on mentoring arrangements so that the system can continue to develop in a way that best benefits the students. Students can reach out directly to the school’s leadership team.
