Sidwell’s recent introduction of the new house system aims to enhance community engagement for Quaker Days, EJC Days and Mental Health Awareness Days. Despite its good intentions, the initiative faces significant challenges and is likely to struggle.
Currently, many students skip these community days, choosing to stay home, rest and study rather than participate in the activities. Previous efforts to boost attendance, such as providing breakfast refreshments, have had minimal impact. The introduction of the house system is an attempt to address this by adding a competitive element, but its effectiveness remains questionable.
The house system intends to foster school spirit and engagement by dividing students into four competing houses that accumulate points through participation. However, the system’s success relies heavily on the appeal of the incentives offered. Currently, the only incentive mentioned is the vague promise of “a reward” for the winning house, which lacks specificity and fails to generate enthusiasm among students. When asked if the new house system would encourage students to come to community days, sophomore Henry Clark stated that “no one who doesn’t already [show up] is going to show up just to get points for their house.”
This feedback underscores a critical issue of the house system in its present form; it insufficiently motivates students to participate in community days. Students are unlikely to alter their behavior based on a nebulous reward. The system, as it stands, feels like a hastily implemented idea that could have benefited from more development and clearer objectives. Junior Cate Oswald echoed this sentiment: “I just don’t know that much about it. I already go to the community days but I don’t think it will help at all. If they want people to come to the community days, they need to let people know what’s going on and make it worthwhile.”
To improve the effectiveness of the house system, several key issues must be addressed. First, there needs to be a more tangible and compelling reward structure. Students are unlikely to be motivated by vague promises; however, concrete incentives, such as meaningful prizes or recognitions, could make a difference. Additionally, better communication is crucial. Students need to understand the purpose and benefits of the house system and see how their participation contributes to their house’s success.
Another approach could be to involve students and faculty more directly in shaping the incentives and rewards. By engaging the student body in discussions about what kinds of rewards would be appealing and how the house system could be structured to maximize its appeal, the school might foster greater participation. However, until some changes are implemented, it is unlikely that the house system will have a significant effect on attendance for community days. Right now, students continue to feel that a day off is preferable to participating in an activity with an unclear benefit. For the house system to succeed, Sidwell must move beyond abstract concepts and develop a system that provides clear, meaningful incentives for student engagement.
