An anonymous suggestion review

An original fictional information text for reading practice.

The school’s lunchtime activities committee used to read suggestions with the author’s name at the top. Members noticed that ideas from popular pupils often received an enthusiastic welcome before anyone had considered what the activity would require. The new form separates the name from the proposal before the committee sees it.

Each proposal must say how many people could take part, what space it needs and what equipment would have to be borrowed. These details allow the committee to compare feasibility rather than treating an exciting title as a complete plan. The form also asks for one likely difficulty and a possible response. Admitting a difficulty is not an automatic reason for rejection. It can show that the writer has considered how the activity would work.

Committee members score the plans independently before meeting. At the meeting they must explain any large difference between their scores. A low score therefore cannot simply disappear inside an average without anybody examining its reason.

The committee keeps the original forms beside the final decisions. When a successful activity needs adapting later, the organiser can see which assumptions were made at the start instead of relying on an enthusiastic member’s recollection of the idea.

Explain why the committee has introduced this suggestion-review process.