craig aquino,
As students of the University of the Philippines Integrated School (UPIS), we are bound by its Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline. We must obey them, lest punishment befall us.
The homeroom advisers orientation held at the start of this academic year brought to light several issues with these rules.
For one, the rules are outdated. The current version of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline had its last major revision 14 years ago, in 2004.
Rule 3b is clear evidence of this. It prohibits the use of ‘instruments or equipment not needed during class hours like cassette recorders, walkman, radio, etc.’ When was the last time you saw a cassette or walkman in use in this generation?
While this outdatedness does not necessarily invalidate the rules and regulations, it begs the question: what other artefacts of time have been overlooked? The answer to this question is significant as rules are a reflection of society in which they are enforced. What was inappropriate then may not be inappropriate now.
Take, for example, the haircut regulations. Boys are required to keep their hair above the eyebrows at the front, neatly cropped at the sides, and neatly tapered towards the hairline at the back. The hair must also not reach the back of the collar.
Girls, meanwhile, have the freedom to keep their hair at any length as long as it is brushed away from their face.
Why are these regulations in place? Most proponents would argue that it is for discipline and neatness. These reasons, of course, are balderdash.
Rules can and have been placed to instill discipline in people. In fact, the example of prescribed haircuts have precedent in such societies as martial law Philippines, and current dictatorship North Korea. Less sinisterly, armed forces such as the military also impose haircut regulations.
What these cases have in common is that the rules were placed in order to strengthen an already existing hierarchy, and to promote subservience and obedience.
‘But it’s not just to discipline students! It’s also to make sure they look neat and presentable!’ some may argue. Why then the distinction between males and females?
There is a pervasive belief that boys with long hair are unkempt and unclean, regardless of how combed or fixed their hair is. Why is this so, other than the fact that some people in the past believed it to be true? If hair can only be neat short, why are girls allowed to have long hair? It is, at the very least, discriminatory for this distinction to exist, as it is arbitrary and not rooted in fact.
Another issue brought up was that some rules were unclear or vague. This includes the definitions of terms and implementation guidelines. If teachers themselves are confused about what rules to implement and how to implement them, how much more will the students be able to obey them?
Take the prohibition against deadly weapons; deadly weapons are defined as ‘any physical object that may be used to inflict harm or injury to others, including but not limited to firearms, explosive, knives, bladed objects, blunt instruments, and others.’
It is clear why deadly weapons should be prohibited: they are meant to cause harm, and to cause harm only, which means their presence threatens the safety of people in the school. However, the way the rulebook defines ‘deadly weapons’ leaves the term so open to interpretation that a water jug or fork could be considered a deadly weapon.
While it can be easily argued that it is common sense what a deadly weapon is, this could be used to punish students unfairly. Besides that, undefined terms, such as PDA or public display of affection, will lead to subjective and possibly inconsistent implementation.
This acts against the welfare of students which the rules are supposed to protect.
What then is the solution to these issues on school rules? Review and revision.
Whomever, or whatever committee, is assigned to perform this review must be critical in their decisions. They must take into account not only their views, but also the students’ as well. They must ensure that rules are worded precisely so that there is no doubt in the implementation of aforementioned.
Of course, the rules themselves are not the only problem. Implementation also is. Students, for example, are told on for violations that are not even in the rules and regulations. Students with dyed hair, girls with undercuts or polished nails have been called out for rule violations, when in fact they have done nothing against the rules.
Rules are also inconsistently enforced, with some people freely walking about the school without reprimand, while some are told on, to the point where they feel harassed.
However, before we deal with these implementation issues, we must first fix the rules themselves. Students will be encouraged to follow them, and as an effect be instilled with the values of honour and excellence.
Rules are a foundation upon which a society is built. In order to make sure the school stands strong and proud, the foundation must be well-built.//by Craig Aquino and Marlyn Go
Opinion: School rules?
 |
| Photo Credit: Marco Sulla |
As students of the University of the Philippines Integrated School (UPIS), we are bound by its Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline. We must obey them, lest punishment befall us.
The homeroom advisers orientation held at the start of this academic year brought to light several issues with these rules.
For one, the rules are outdated. The current version of the Rules and Regulations on Student Conduct and Discipline had its last major revision 14 years ago, in 2004.
Rule 3b is clear evidence of this. It prohibits the use of ‘instruments or equipment not needed during class hours like cassette recorders, walkman, radio, etc.’ When was the last time you saw a cassette or walkman in use in this generation?
While this outdatedness does not necessarily invalidate the rules and regulations, it begs the question: what other artefacts of time have been overlooked? The answer to this question is significant as rules are a reflection of society in which they are enforced. What was inappropriate then may not be inappropriate now.
Take, for example, the haircut regulations. Boys are required to keep their hair above the eyebrows at the front, neatly cropped at the sides, and neatly tapered towards the hairline at the back. The hair must also not reach the back of the collar.
Girls, meanwhile, have the freedom to keep their hair at any length as long as it is brushed away from their face.
Why are these regulations in place? Most proponents would argue that it is for discipline and neatness. These reasons, of course, are balderdash.
Rules can and have been placed to instill discipline in people. In fact, the example of prescribed haircuts have precedent in such societies as martial law Philippines, and current dictatorship North Korea. Less sinisterly, armed forces such as the military also impose haircut regulations.
What these cases have in common is that the rules were placed in order to strengthen an already existing hierarchy, and to promote subservience and obedience.
‘But it’s not just to discipline students! It’s also to make sure they look neat and presentable!’ some may argue. Why then the distinction between males and females?
There is a pervasive belief that boys with long hair are unkempt and unclean, regardless of how combed or fixed their hair is. Why is this so, other than the fact that some people in the past believed it to be true? If hair can only be neat short, why are girls allowed to have long hair? It is, at the very least, discriminatory for this distinction to exist, as it is arbitrary and not rooted in fact.
Another issue brought up was that some rules were unclear or vague. This includes the definitions of terms and implementation guidelines. If teachers themselves are confused about what rules to implement and how to implement them, how much more will the students be able to obey them?
Take the prohibition against deadly weapons; deadly weapons are defined as ‘any physical object that may be used to inflict harm or injury to others, including but not limited to firearms, explosive, knives, bladed objects, blunt instruments, and others.’
It is clear why deadly weapons should be prohibited: they are meant to cause harm, and to cause harm only, which means their presence threatens the safety of people in the school. However, the way the rulebook defines ‘deadly weapons’ leaves the term so open to interpretation that a water jug or fork could be considered a deadly weapon.
While it can be easily argued that it is common sense what a deadly weapon is, this could be used to punish students unfairly. Besides that, undefined terms, such as PDA or public display of affection, will lead to subjective and possibly inconsistent implementation.
This acts against the welfare of students which the rules are supposed to protect.
What then is the solution to these issues on school rules? Review and revision.
Whomever, or whatever committee, is assigned to perform this review must be critical in their decisions. They must take into account not only their views, but also the students’ as well. They must ensure that rules are worded precisely so that there is no doubt in the implementation of aforementioned.
Of course, the rules themselves are not the only problem. Implementation also is. Students, for example, are told on for violations that are not even in the rules and regulations. Students with dyed hair, girls with undercuts or polished nails have been called out for rule violations, when in fact they have done nothing against the rules.
Rules are also inconsistently enforced, with some people freely walking about the school without reprimand, while some are told on, to the point where they feel harassed.
However, before we deal with these implementation issues, we must first fix the rules themselves. Students will be encouraged to follow them, and as an effect be instilled with the values of honour and excellence.
Rules are a foundation upon which a society is built. In order to make sure the school stands strong and proud, the foundation must be well-built.//by Craig Aquino and Marlyn Go
0 comments: