Where I Stand — Guest columnist Kelly Sinnott: Examining schools, rules

Tuesday, Dec. 23, 2003 | 8:34 a.m.

Editor's note: Nearly 900 students from 41 high schools participated in the 48th annual Sun Youth Forum on Nov. 25. The students were divided into groups to discuss various topics. A spokesperson was chosen from each group to write a column about the students' findings. Kelly Sinnott of Valley High School writes about the discussion in her group, "School Days."

THE FIRST TOPIC we discussed was the tardy policy at schools in Clark County. Although most people agreed that some kind of tardy policy was a good idea -- encouraging good habits in the future workplace -- opinions varied on how to deal with late students.

We found that different schools deal with tardiness in different ways. The most extreme policies -- for example, if students arrive even 5 minutes late they will be faced with a required parent conference -- were seen by many to encourage absence.

Why come to class at all if you will be so severely punished for being late? Other students said that their first-period teachers took points from assignments for tardiness; many people agreed that this was a better solution to the problem.

The next thing we discussed was also a school district policy: the banning of facial piercings in schools. Everyone agreed that this policy was a bad idea. We saw it as a limitation on individuality and the way students express themselves.

However, we tried to determine the district's reasoning on this issue: Why would they ban such an innocuous avenue of self-expression? Some said that administrators see facial piercings as a distraction, but the point was made that people who will be distracted by a simple eyebrow ring could be distracted by anything.

The students who are there to learn will not stop the learning process when they see one of their peers with a piercing. Another argument for the banning of piercings was that they presented a health risk. However, this is an individual risk, one accepted by those with facial piercings.

The only other explanation we could come up with for the rule is that the people responsible for it are adults, who tend to be less accepting of body modification such as a piercing.

We moved on from this topic to a discussion of proficiency testing and the lowering of a minimum score requirement to graduate. This issue was very divisive for our group; some people were adamantly against lowering the required score, while some supported making it easier to graduate.

Those who argued for a maintenance of or increase in the passing score said that lowering it would result in a less-educated, less-intelligent society. They said that the problem is not with the test itself, but with the education system, and the test is a means to force the system to become better.

Those against the higher required scores on the proficiency test said that students have taken different levels of math, and some who are otherwise qualified to graduate do not have adequate experience to pass the test. They agreed that the school system should better prepare students to pass the test, but that it should start out at a lower passing score while the system improves.

An interesting point raised was that the unique economy of Las Vegas benefits from making it easier to graduate; as a result of lowered proficiency scores, more students will have high school diplomas, allowing them to enter our tourism industry.

The counterpoint to this was that the parties who actually benefit from this are the owners and executives of the hotel-casinos; the average worker would have a higher quality of life if they had done better in high school and had gone on to obtain a college degree. With this degree they might get a higher-paying job and put more money back into the local economy. Everyone would benefit from a more educated society.

Our next topic of discussion was the school district policy regarding public displays of affection. Like tardiness policies, there seemed to be a wide range of disciplinary policies in place across the district regarding affection at school.

At one school, even a hug to console a friend merited punishment, indicative of a "zero tolerance" policy. Everyone conceded that this was going too far. However, most people agreed that some kind of policy should be in place. A common opinion was that school is not the place for affection between boyfriends and girlfriends: the free time we are given at school should not be used as "make-out time."

One of the most controversial issues raised concerned the Pledge of Allegiance. Some people thought that everyone should have to stand and say it. Others thought that all students should at least stand and show respect, even if they did not want to say the pledge. Still others argued that everyone should have the right not to stand or say it.

When asked to vote on this issue, about a third of the people in the room believed that students should have the right to choose if they wanted to say the pledge. We were not able to come to a consensus on this difficult issue.

The next issue we discussed was the education budget and teachers' salaries. We all agreed that more money should be put into education, but we disagreed about which aspects of the budget should be cut and where remaining funds should go when faced with a shortage of funds.

Some people said that programs such as music and sports should be saved, while others advocated a raise in teacher's salaries. In order to draw more teachers here, they argued salaries must be competitive with other school districts in the nation.

To my surprise, many people thought that teachers should accept cuts in pay because they teach for the love of it, not the money. I think that this would drive many would-be teachers away from the profession; they should at least have money enough to live on.

One of the last issues we discussed was the Millennium Scholarship, and how the minimum GPA to receive it is being raised. Most people agreed that it was a good idea to continue raising the GPA as it will drive students to succeed in high school.

Our moderator had us vote to conclude what rules should be in place regarding this scholarship. We decided that students should have at least four years Nevada residency, that there should not be any particular classes required in high school to receive the scholarship, that students must maintain a 2.5 GPA once in college to keep it, and that if the 2.5 GPA is lost, you shouldn't have to pay back the scholarship money if you remain enrolled in college.

Students appreciate the opportunity to receive this scholarship and hope that it will stay in effect, as it rewards hard-working students with the opportunity to receive a college education.

I found that my peers in this room were insightful and intelligent, and I greatly enjoyed discussing these topics with them. On some issues, the group's opinions varied widely, but on others we were able to come to a consensus.

Overall, my experience at the Youth Forum was interesting and enlightening. Thanks to the Las Vegas Sun, I was able to hear the voices of my fellow high school students and have my voice heard as well.

archive