The recent decision to reduce the frequency of house meetings raises concerns among the students here at BC High. There were suggestions made: We could alternate every other week, with two sets of six houses meeting with each other, thereby solving the problem of meeting spaces. We could have created a better system for House meetings themselves, planning them out months in advance.  Instead, we have compounded the problem.  How is it that House Meetings have gotten worse, not better, with time?

The House system works, but improvements are needed.  It fosters a more caring community, centered around a feeling of belonging and a more personal House identity.  However, with all its success, it is easy to lose ourselves in the flaws that still exist: House meetings are one of these flaws. As a Vice Captain, I have attempted to mold Romero into a place that is welcoming to other Houses, and create a community that I am proud to call my own.  However, the House meetings are lackluster.  Last year was full of fun activities and could be utilized for a plethora of other purposes as well.  We could have a speaker series and frequent House competitions, but most importantly we could actually do things. 

The main problem with House meetings last year was the stress—on the Head of Houses, on Captains, on Vice Captains, on Mentors.  The stress of planning things for the week along with loaded schedules facilitated an environment that was constricted by both time and lack of ideas.  Having too many House meetings dried up the creative juices of leadership, and some House meetings were repetitive; that was fine.  The point of House meetings was not to have a home run every day; it created a fun environment to take students’ minds off of school.  It was a healthy way to construct a space within the day where students could sit back and relax.  For leaders, there is an aspect of freedom that comes with not planning things out for every single week.  However, this also takes away from the much-needed time to relax within a day of school.

Another problem was the lack of meeting space.  Being shoved into McElroy (now Ignatius Hall) led to an inherently worse meeting.  There was no space, no excitement, and a lot of board games.  A suggestion for House meetings was to split the Houses into two groups that would alternate between meetings on Week A and Week B, creating a fundamentally better structure for House meetings by opening space around the school.  With the current system, we are in the same position with limited space, but now we also have limited time.

Finally, House meetings could address issues within the school and its culture.  We have problems with sexism, racism, and homophobia within our school community, and there is no place to talk about it.  Advisory does not cut it.  We need more time to sit down and address these pressing issues.  With a greater pool of House meetings, there was more time to effectively alternate between a fun meeting and a more serious discussion.  Now, we have to endure the lack of enthusiasm and real understanding as students praying for a fun activity are met with a lecture on school culture.  This does not work.  We need students to be engaged, and by destroying the time that House leaders can use to address issues, we are being put in a very tough position for planning.

House meetings should not go back to the way they were, but the way they are now does not work.  A medium would be a combination of the two, using the alternating pattern, but having meetings every week.  Having one group do serious activities to grow, but also have the prospect of a fun activity every week.  House meetings have potential, but the changes were not beneficial.