All Barberton High students should stage a WALKOUT!
As mentioned in Quick and the Dead blog about Homeland Security at Barberton High, 20 students were suspended for trying to plan a walkout in support of teachers.
The article states that the students wanted to express their displeasure at the labor dispute between the district and teachers. They were planning to distribute a flier calling for a demonstration on October 9 @ 10am at their school gym.
Schools Superintendent Elizabeth Lolli argued that the students could have done a "passive protest" by wearing buttons or making posters or speaking their mind, but no walkout or promotion of said walkout. She even tried to play down the punishments by saying that the suspended students could have been penalised up to 10 days instead of the one to two days that were given.
I am actually quite skeptical about the passive protest idea. Who knows what "dress code" could be enacted to prevent students from stating their position on the labor dispute, regardless if it was passive or active. Just by using the excuse of overzealous school safety and the light punishments, suggesting that the students use passive protesting is pretty much bollux. I would not be surprised if students were suspended for putting up posters or wearing t-shirts in support of the teachers.
Just imagine: Barberton students suspended over posters - school's excuse: they did not follow procedure or the posters did not meet the required measurements. Or getting suspended over the buttons - school's excuse: the pin attached to the button could be used as a "dangerous weapon" or it did not fit with the school's dress code.
We now live in a world where you need to file paperwork and follow extraneous procedures just to stage a protest. The amount of red tape actively discourages official planned demonstrations. Certainly, these are rules are justified for cities or large towns, but they require flexibility and a bit of common sense for these types of gatherings.
Or is it that administrators are just too worried about their young "pupils" being active in politics occurring at the "adult" level?
In any case, I find it unnerving that the school chose to enact swift action to punish these "active" students. If they so concerned about student safety, then how about every Barberton student choose not to go to school for one day? Honestly, all Barberton students should just stage a "sick day".
What can Superintendent Lolli do? Suspend everyone?
Comments
Posted by: Jeremy Smith
Posted on: September 29, 2006 01:11 PM
That link at the beginning over to The Quick and the Dead should be to http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/2006/09/29/homeland_security_at_barberton_high and not http://blog.case.edu/jeffrey.quick/mt-tb.cgi/9973.
Posted by: Heidi Cool
Posted on: September 29, 2006 01:18 PM
I think over-regulation and the prevalence of zero tolerance has led to a state of inflexibility in many school systems. Rather really listening to the students and their plan they responded with a cookie cutter solution to prevent a problem that wouldn't necessarily have happened in the first place. If students all arrive at the same time in the morning, and leave (excepting extra-curricular activities) at the same time in the afternoon, and during firedrills then how is that less dangerous than if they walk out at the same time in a peaceful protest?
When I was in third grade I almost got into trouble for political action, but the administrator listened to reason. I was called into the principal's office because I had been circulating a petition to remove the "bus guards" from our school buses. Our bus guards were 6th graders who abused their power by picking on the younger kids (such as me) thereby making the ride to and from school uneasy for anyone under 10.
When the principal explained the problem to my mother, my mother responded by commending me on following the political process and told the principal she should be proud of running a school in which 8 year olds confront their problems through such channels. Needless to say the principal felt sheepish and I was not punished.
(And within a month the bus guard program was disbanded!)
Today I'd probably be suspended for a week for promoting unrest or some such nonsense.
Posted by: Brian Gray
Posted on: September 29, 2006 05:14 PM
I do not think the school is trying to prevent political action. They need to guarantee safety in this lawsuit happy times we live in.Leaving in silent protest, instead of at the end of the day, is more dangerous. Schools are responsible for the children's safety until they start to walk home or leave the school bus at the end of the day. Therefore, if they stay on school property doing a protest, the school is still responsible for their safety and would probably need to hire extra security or involve the local police to watch the students in this outside-of-the-classroom-activity.If they start to walk home without parents notifying the school that they know it is occurring, you set up a scary liability issue if a kid is kidnapped, hurt, etc.
Posted by: frank jennings
Posted on: October 8, 2006 12:43 AM
I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT,THAT BEING FROM BARBERTON I KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT PLANNING TO WALKOUT OF SCHOOL BUT WERE WALKING OUT OF CLASS TO THE GYMNASIUM PEACEFULLY.KNOW THAT BEING SAID YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT I WAS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THE ADMINSTRATION UP UNTIL THAT POINT.I STAYED COMPLETELY OBJECTIVE.I DID NOT LISTEN TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS BEING SAID ABOUT DR.LOLLI(THE CURRENT SUPERINTENDENT WHO EXACTED THE PUNISHMENT IN QUESTION).SINCE THEN ,HOWEVER, I HAVE THROWN MY FULL SUPPORT BEHIND THE TEACHERS BECAUSE OF THE INEPTNESS AT THE HANDLING OF THE STUDENT PROTEST SITUATION AS WELL AS A FEW OTHER.BELIEVE ME WHEN I SAY YOU WHO ARE NOT FROM BARBERTON HAVE NO IDEA OF THE ABSOLUTE DISREGARD FOR THE TEACHERS AND STUDENTS.I THROW MY SUPPORT BEHIND THE TEACHERS NOW AND WILL NOT BE SENDING MY THREE CHILDREN TO SCHOOL FOR THE DURATION OF THE STRIKE.