The Board Meeting Switch
At a decile-6 co-ed school, the student council has eight minutes to present a $3,000 shade-sail proposal to the Board of Trustees. The written report has already been circulated, and the chair has said decisions must be evidence-based. Speaker A, Year 13, opens: “Kia ora koutou. Thanks for having us. Look, the sun’s brutal out there - kids are frying at lunch. We’ve done the numbers.” Speaker B, Year 11, follows: “The proposal requests $3,000 for two shade sails over the east courtyard. Our survey of 214 students found 78% avoid the area at lunch because of heat.” The board chair frowns at “kids are frying” and checks the clock. A board member asks about maintenance costs; Speaker A says, “That’s not really our lane, eh.” Speaker B answers with the warranty details. The teacher adviser has ten minutes to coach them before the next meeting.
1. Explain how each speaker’s language choices position them with the board. Use two specific examples and refer to the audience and purpose.
Read the worked answer
Speaker A uses colloquial hyperbole and slang - “kids are frying” - and a dismissive idiom, “not really our lane, eh.” The purpose is to build solidarity with a student audience, but the actual audience is a formal board. The effect is mixed: the chair’s frown and clock-check show the register is misaligned with the context. The phrase “our lane” also dodges accountability on maintenance, which is exactly what the board is asking about.
Speaker B uses precise, evidence-based language: “$3,000,” “two shade sails,” “survey of 214 students,” “78%.” This matches the chair’s stated criterion that decisions be evidence-based. B’s language positions the students as credible and prepared. However, B’s opening is a little flat; it lists the request without linking it to student safety. A stronger version would connect the statistic to a consequence: “78% of 214 students avoid the courtyard because of heat, which reduces supervised social space.” The judgement is that context - a formal decision-making meeting - rewards B’s register, while A’s rapport-building is useful only if it is framed as a short, purposeful opening.
2. Recommend which speaker should lead the next presentation, and identify one change the adviser should make to the other speaker’s script. Justify both choices with evidence from the setup.
Read the worked answer
Recommendation: Speaker B should lead. The board’s purpose is to decide on a proposal, and the chair has signalled that evidence matters. B’s script already contains the request, the cost, and the survey data, so leading with B frames the presentation around the board’s criteria.
A’s strength is energy and relatability, but “kids are frying” and “not really our lane” create two risks: they sound unserious to the chair, and they avoid the maintenance question. The adviser should keep A in the presentation but change A’s script to convert the emotional hook into a risk statement. For example: “Students are avoiding the courtyard at lunch, so they lose a supervised social space. We have the numbers, and we have a maintenance answer.” This keeps A’s voice but gives the board a reason to act and shows accountability.
The reasoning is audience-first: the board is not a student assembly, so the speaker who best matches the board’s decision criteria should lead, while the other speaker’s strengths should be re-scripted rather than removed.
3. The chair’s frown and clock-check are non-verbal cues. Explain what they suggest about the board’s expectations and how the students should respond in the moment.
Read the worked answer
The frown and the clock-check are non-verbal signals that the board is judging the students against formal meeting norms: relevance, precision, and time. The frown at “kids are frying” suggests the chair hears hyperbole where he expects evidence; the clock-check suggests the eight-minute slot is a hard constraint.
The students should respond in the moment by not arguing with the cue. A should stop the anecdotal framing and hand over: “I’ll let B take you through the numbers.” B should then answer the maintenance question directly rather than letting A’s “not our lane” stand. If a board member asks something they cannot answer, the best move is to say, “We don’t have that figure today; we can send it by Friday,” which protects credibility.
The judgement is that oral language includes reading the room, not just the script: the board’s non-verbal cues are evidence about what the audience values. Responding well means adjusting register, respecting time, and giving a clear next step.