WIN Isn’t Winning: The Student Case for P6

WIN, or “What I Need,” might be the one thing no one actually needs.

The Student Government WIN and P6 committee spent three months collecting student data. Across grade levels, students shared their thoughts about both programs. Clear patterns emerged in what they saw as successes and failures.

The Student Government surveyed 155 NSHS students, and 94.2% said they preferred P6.

WIN

The most common frustrations with WIN were unmet promises, limited advocacy, and overwhelming student-to-teacher ratios.

WIN first appeared to have valid intentions when initially introduced; however, two years later, many students say those intentions have not been fulfilled. Administration used RIC travel time and excessive P6 absences as justification for the schedule change. Because students travel to the RIC throughout the entire day, the claim that our intervention period must be in the middle of the day is irrelevant. One student also noted that “the same number of people, if not more people, skip WIN.” If attendance was a major concern, this solution has not solved it. Disciplinary action has remained minimal, despite continued absences, leaving many dedicated students frustrated.

Beyond attendance concerns, students feel WIN limits advocacy for learning. One student shared that “WIN does not allow for us to advocate for our own learning.” WIN does not offer individualized support; it mass-assigns students to spaces that do not meet their academic needs. Teachers consistently emphasize the importance of taking charge of our learning, but how can students do so with a system that rips that choice from their hands?

Students who attempt to use WIN productively feel “there are too many kids for the teacher to help one-on-one,” as shared by one student. P6 used to be an effective and flexible study hall period. Now, WIN created an overcrowded, counterproductive environment. 

Across the many responses, one sentiment stood out: “WIN is awful, but the admin won’t listen to students or staff.” Whether or not the administration agrees with this statement, it is clear that students feel unheard.

P6

P6, on the other hand, provided numerous academic and personal benefits for the student body. 

One student shared that she “was able to decide on what [she] needed and advocate for [herself].” She added, “This is what high school is supposed to be about. It's so that kids can build responsibility and time management skills to better themselves for the future, not be micromanaged.” High schools should strive to prepare their students for independence. Allowing students to choose how to use their time fosters numerous vital life skills and creates personalized learning environments.

Unlike WIN, this student, along with numerous others, felt that “P6 allows [them] to have more individual time with the teacher and overall a longer time with the teacher.” Without a mandated number of filled seats, P6 created space for tailored support and specific learning opportunities.

Our school seems to fear giving students real autonomy, and expectations continue to shrink alongside it. Responsibility should be encouraged, not avoided. Growth does not come from limitation; it comes from opportunity. How are students expected to thrive after high school if they are stripped of chances to make choices, manage time, and take ownership? Independence is not handed out with a diploma. If it is not built now, it will not exist later.

Next Week: Teacher Perspectives on WIN and P6.