By: Footprint Editor Karenna Martin

Few students are without a strong opinion on the Board of Education’s proposed closed campus policy.  Freshmen and seniors alike have voiced their views on the policy, and it’s safe to say that most students are opposed to the new plan the Board is considering.  At the Board meeting on October 27^th, parents and current high-schoolers came together to voice their opinions on closed campus.  Students who spoke at the meeting emphasized the sense of personal responsibility that students gained from going to Chuck’s, and how learning to deal with this pressure would benefit teenagers later in life.  An observer at the meeting, I silently applauded community members as they cited the importance of learning responsibility as young adults.

Only a few minutes after the Chuck’s discussion, a seemingly unrelated point was brought up.  Some parents and a Board member spoke of investigating alternate grading systems.  One such system would evaluate students based, for the most part, on measurable content knowledge and test performance.  During the discussion, one middle-school parent expressed frustration over a zero that one student received for failing to turn in a signed envelope for a grade, and another zero received for an incomplete homework assignment even though the student “knew all the answers.”  Test scores, the parent argued, are a more accurate representation of what a student knows and therefore should be the main basis for a grading system.  A more successful system would place less emphasis on homework and more emphasis on test scores.  As the parent spoke, I looked around the meeting and saw students and parents nodding their heads in agreement.

Wait—so students should have the privilege to go to Chuck’s so they can learn responsibility, but being graded on responsibilities like homework isn’t fair?

To be clear, I don’t support the closed campus policy.  Juniors and seniors should be able to cross a road, especially when they’re allowed to drive to school.  I’m not suggesting that we need more homework, either; we don’t.  Students can’t have it both ways, though. 

We can’t sing the praises of learning responsibility and then turn around and not turn in homework, which is a measure of self-motivation and maturity. 

The principle doesn’t just apply to homework.  Students can’t expect to keep the privilege of going to Chuck’s if they’re disrespectful to teachers or if they skip class.  If kids want to keep going to Chuck’s, they must show that the opportunity is, in fact, improving their sense of responsibility and easing the transition into adulthood.  Otherwise, the “learning responsibility” argument is no longer valid.

Going to Chuck’s is a tradition that is over half a century old, and it should not be entirely taken away.  Yet in the face of such a drastic policy, we as students need to be willing to compromise.  We cannot abuse the privilege that the administration and Board of Education have granted us.  We cannot leave out of the wrong doors, or be late to class after crossing the street for lunch, or engage in illicit activities in the parking lot.

So many students are quick to complain about the proposed policy and list all of the benefits we get from this small measure of freedom.  But how can we show the Board the effect that this responsibility has had on us if we don’t perform the basic requirements that are asked of us in our day-to-day life?  If we claim that being able to leave campus increases our sense of responsibility, we actually need to be responsible.  If we claim that the privilege is preparing us for adulthood, we need to actually act like adults.

If students want to keep Chuck’s, we need to be on our best behavior.