Editorial: We the people of Glen Rock High School, in order to form a more perfect high school…
Where are the checks and balances in school institutions?
The infrastructure of the United States’ federal government was created by the framers of the US constitution on September 17, 1787, and intended to balance the power of each individual who is a part of the federal government. The unique system of “checks and balances”, which was included in the constitution in an attempt to balance this power, has effectively kept the power in check. As a result, the United States’ governmental system is one of the most efficient and well-respected republican systems that has ever existed.
If this system has worked so well in balancing the influence of governmental powers in the United States, then why do High Schools in the US, which attempt to eschew the same extortion and political corruption, not have in-place this same system of checks and balances?
Luckily, we attend public school in a district where the administrative corruption is fairly minimal. But, suppose this wasn’t the case. Suppose that one day, Principal Arlotta spontaneously decided to punish a student, regardless of whether-or-not that student had actually perpetrated the crime that he or she was being convicted of. What would happen then?
Mr. Arlotta, Mr. Purciello, and all other powers-that-be in our school’s administration have an essentially absolute rule, especially regarding disciplinary and legislative matters. This means that when they wish to pass any sort of decree, they can do so indisputably: There is no separate executive branch to question the constitutionality of the new law, or to veto it in any way. The same is also true for discipline. If, for example, Mr. Purciello wanted to punish a student for something that he or she didn’t actually do, there is no judicial system that has been established to try the person who has been persecuted, and justly determine whether-or-not that person actually committed said crime.
This leniency in the potential influence of school administrations gives them far too much strength. This is power that can easily be abused to the point of corruption, and this leniency is exactly what the framers of our constitution made a very strong effort to avoid.
I propose that we all aid in facilitating the establishment of three separate legislative, judicial, and executive branches of school administration. Principal Arlotta and Vice Principal Purciello could serve as the president and vice-president of the executive branch, respectively. This would be separate from a legislative branch, which would be overseen by an entirely new, unbiased legislator, and somebody with a background in politics or social studies could serve as a judge in the judicial branch. All-student juries could be appointed in an attempt to reach a justly-conceived verdict.
Matt Zilvetti • Oct 20, 2013 at 5:39 pm
While I do believe this is a very well written article, there are quite a few things in here that I find to be somewhat untrue. First of all, Mr Arlotta and Mr. Purciello really do not have the ability to do whatever they want. They are regulated in part by the school board, who are chosen by the Glen Rock citizens. They cannot simply punish someone for no reason without there being consequences for it. Furthermore, I do not think that an all-student jury is very just. The jurors are much more likely to side with the student than doing what is right. In order to have a fair trial, the jury must be comprised of both students and faculty. Finally, who is to say that this new “legislator” and “judge” will be any more fair than Mr. Arlotta and Mr. Purciello?
Remember that the point of the teachers and administrators is not to make your life miserable. It is to help you and other students learn so that you can achieve your goals. If a student is misbehaving, they don’t punish him or her because they like to. They punish them to help steer them on the right path, and so the rest of us can be in a good learning environment.
Tim Mountain • Nov 7, 2013 at 2:22 am
Hey Matt, I appreciate the response.
First of all, this article didn’t solely address the power of our principal and vice principal, Mr. Arlotta and Mr. Purciello. By “administration”, I meant to include the school board too: Essentially everybody in our school system who has more power than the teachers. Perhaps I didn’t make that clear enough.
In any case, the fact of the matter is that if this entire entity (Mr. Arlotta, Mr. Purciello, school board, etc.) decides they would like to punish a student, there isn’t very much that the students or parents can do to reverse it. Some would argue that there isn’t much that an administrator can do in the way of punishment that a parent/guardian can’t reverse, but I have witnessed this philosophy to be rather fallacious. I would not have been inclined to write this article unless I’d witnessed more than one incident of unjust punishment on the part of the school administration. (Specifically unjust punishment which was not able to be reverted by parents.)
The reason that I proposed an “all-student” jury was because I’d assumed that having several opinions would be more effective in determining a verdict than just two: Mr. Arlotta’s and Mr. Purciello’s. However, after rethinking this proposal, I do agree with the idea of having both students and faculty members serve as jurors.
The reason I’d say that the new “legislator” or “judge” would be more fair than Mr. Arlotta and Mr. Purciello is that these new people would only control one branch of the school’s government. I do agree that these new powers could easily be significantly more unjust than Mr. Arlotta and Purciello are, (not to imply that they exemplify injustice at all), but that is exactly what the system of checks and balances would be put in place for. (I admit that I should have delved into that theory more extensively.) For example, it’s very possible that the next president that we elect will be incredibly inequitable, however, the Federal government’s system of checks and balances is put in place to mitigate this inequity.
I am fully aware that administrators and teachers don’t exist to make our lives miserable, I was only trying to say that they have the potential to. I am very grateful, in fact, that our administrators actively do not make our lives miserable. However, with the amount of power that they possess, they still have the potential to. That was one of the problems with, if you remember, “SOPA”, the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, which the internet freaked out about and rallied against back in 2011. The act itself was created with good intentions, but the outcry against it was focused on the potential for abuse which it allowed for. That is all this article is: It’s an outcry against a potential for abuse, despite good intentions being behind the thing which has the potential to be abused.