Graduation "experiences" shouldn't be mandatory
Hearing that a kid from St. Rose High School couldn't participate in graduation because he didn't attend the senior dinner and awards ceremony really annoyed me. At first, the principal said she wasn't allowing him to march because she had it "on good authority" that he had attended the Ocean Township High School prom instead. He didn't. He was working at Foodtown to earn money for college.
Granted, the kid, Maximo Arguello, should have known attendance was mandatory. He should have alerted the school that he had to work and could not attend. But to make such programs unwaveringly mandatory is ridiculous. Here is a kid who, during his last week of school, worked 48 hours at his job. He wasn't getting any awards. Why make him lose money that he needs to put away for college to watch his classmates get plaques and scholarships? Why should he be forced to participate in what the principal termed his "graduation experiences," and give up several hours' worth of work to clap halfheartedly, over and over again, and listen to boring speeches?
When the principal, Michelle Campbell, found she was wrong about Arguello attending another prom (which I also believe is a good reason to miss an awards dinner where a student's presence is really unnecessary -- why should someone's girlfriend or boyfriend be punished because of St. Rose's calendar?), she should have said, "OK, you were wrong to not notify us that you had to work and could not attend. And I was wrong to mete out punishment after hearing what turned out to be a rumor, and without giving you a chance to explain. In this case, two wrongs will make a right, and teach us both a lesson." Then let him participate in the graduation ceremony. But no. Instead, Campbell offered him the opportunity to graduate, IF he showed up for the rest of the week in uniform. Basically, he was asked to serve detention after the graduation ceremony. What kind of power trip is she on?
Max declined. Again, the kid has to work. To save for college. His father puts in 15-hour days doing maintenance at two apartment complexes so his children can get a good education. That type of personal work ethic taught by his father was a worthy lesson that Max picked up, and continued by putting in long hours himself, while attending school, to save for his own college tuition. Such responsibility shown by an 18-year-old -- particularly in a school where many of his classmates were much better off -- deserves respect and recognition. But it seems like Max's final lesson from St. Rose was one of intolerance and rigidity. That's disgraceful.
Granted, the kid, Maximo Arguello, should have known attendance was mandatory. He should have alerted the school that he had to work and could not attend. But to make such programs unwaveringly mandatory is ridiculous. Here is a kid who, during his last week of school, worked 48 hours at his job. He wasn't getting any awards. Why make him lose money that he needs to put away for college to watch his classmates get plaques and scholarships? Why should he be forced to participate in what the principal termed his "graduation experiences," and give up several hours' worth of work to clap halfheartedly, over and over again, and listen to boring speeches?
When the principal, Michelle Campbell, found she was wrong about Arguello attending another prom (which I also believe is a good reason to miss an awards dinner where a student's presence is really unnecessary -- why should someone's girlfriend or boyfriend be punished because of St. Rose's calendar?), she should have said, "OK, you were wrong to not notify us that you had to work and could not attend. And I was wrong to mete out punishment after hearing what turned out to be a rumor, and without giving you a chance to explain. In this case, two wrongs will make a right, and teach us both a lesson." Then let him participate in the graduation ceremony. But no. Instead, Campbell offered him the opportunity to graduate, IF he showed up for the rest of the week in uniform. Basically, he was asked to serve detention after the graduation ceremony. What kind of power trip is she on?
Max declined. Again, the kid has to work. To save for college. His father puts in 15-hour days doing maintenance at two apartment complexes so his children can get a good education. That type of personal work ethic taught by his father was a worthy lesson that Max picked up, and continued by putting in long hours himself, while attending school, to save for his own college tuition. Such responsibility shown by an 18-year-old -- particularly in a school where many of his classmates were much better off -- deserves respect and recognition. But it seems like Max's final lesson from St. Rose was one of intolerance and rigidity. That's disgraceful.
4 Comments:
AH..Clare ,it, not nice to diss your alma mater...........
As an employee at SRHS I do know that this is a great school with a great principal, who is not on some power trip. Why is it that ALL of the other seniors could make it to the awards ceremony? They all have other obligations.
I do know that in the real world if he needed a day off work for a birthday or family outing, he wouldn't just not show up to work. He would work it out with his boss. And I doubt that he's working 48 hours to pay for college when he's driving around in an '06 Lincoln Zephyr.
Just let me guess....this guy is NOT white .....is he ?
I don't think I've ever heard so much malarky in my life. This is nothing.
It's just another lesson for the kid from St Rose. That being that Life isn't fair.
St. Rose should send him a TS chit.
Post a Comment
<< Home