Faring Well With Fair Use
This school year, a new Discipline Officer is in town — err, Discipline Officers.
The Discipline Office is intended to properly implement the school rules and regulations and ensure the safety and well-being of the community, but with five batches of students, just a single Discipline Officer would have her hands full.
That is why Eileen Sarmago of the Values Education unit, Maria Veronica Torralba of the Physics unit, and Lualhati Callo of the Physical Education, Health, and Music (PEHM) unit are the new chiefs in town.
Yet the new D.O.’s have a problem.
Posted along the corridors of the buildings are signs that say “No cellphones/gadgets allowed in this area.” A new Discipline Office is here and they intend to bring change, but the school community doesn’t seem willing to accept that just yet.
Fair use policy, unfair?
The fair use policy has always been that section in the student handbook concerning the authorized use of gadgets inside the school premises. It has been there for as long as we’ve entered the school. It came as a surprise then that the D.O. suddenly became stricter in the implementation of the rule when it comes to the students’ cellphones.
Before, students freely roamed around with their cellphones in hand. Now, cellphone usage is only permitted in designated areas or within the supervision of a teacher. It emphasizes the cellphone’s primary use: communication.
In the past few years, the D.O. claimed, it seemed to be lacking in the policy’s implementation. According to the D.O., this resulted to an increased number of gadget confiscations which they are now hoping to lessen.
“As an academic institution, it is the responsibility of the school to devise ways to guide students and keep them from getting distracted,” Torralba stated.
Majority of the student body, however, don’t agree with their style of discipline. This is why Jose Salinas of Batch 2018, along with fellow students Reich Tiamson, Jasper Refuerzo, Trey Novales, Irene Rivera, Gabby Fara-on, and some other smaller contributors, filed a petition.
“What surprised us the most was that we didn’t have any prior news about this, the change, so the change was so sudden. We were wondering why the students didn’t get a stance on this, so we thought the best form was to talk to the DO’s about the revision but that didn’t really go well. So, we decided to file a form of petition,” Salinas said.
Revising the revision
They had to gather the initial signatures from the Student Body before writing the petition. After they had collected enough signatures, they sought the help of the Student Council (SC) ‘16-’17.
On the writing process, Salinas said, “We generally went through the process of debating, so they had several points… Generally, we would write our viewpoints as how we both viewed it and based on interviews that we had with students. So we went around, gathered what people wanted to see in the changes, as well as a few teachers. And then we wrote this, and then they gave us the counterarguments, why we could do it or why we couldn’t do it.”
Regarding the “counterarguments,” Salinas claimed that a big point of the debate had to do with the proposed sanctions. As with any policy, there had to be some punishment for not following the rules. However, with the former fair use policy’s sanction section, Salinas said he is worried about how there was no provision for the case that a gadget were to be lost or damaged under the care of the D.O.
“What we were arguing was that, to change, instead of confiscation […] so, before, the former fair use policy, it involves confiscation of the device for one week, two weeks and then up to the end of the quarter. And we thought that in case the devices were damaged or lost, the DO couldn’t be held accountable because there was no provision for this,” Salinas said.
He continued, “What we argued was that we should have community service instead, and what the point of the debate was they were vying for lower community service hours and we were vying for higher community service hours because it wouldn’t make a point. People wouldn’t really feel the sanction if you had just one hour of community service. So the scaling became two hours, five.”
The D.O. had been happy that students took part in policy-making. Though they had some disagreement regarding policy revisions, there was an “open dialogue” between the petition writers and Torralba.
“And I guess that’s one of the more successful points of this,” Salinas said.
Both Sides: Fair
According to Salinas, in their meetings with the DO, they discussed the shortcomings of both sides on the matter.
“On the students, the main point was that some students really didn’t get the point behind the change and that was because the DO observed/noticed the increased number of cellphone usage for non-academic purposes. And, students really didn’t get that. I mean, of course you’re in school, you’re supposed to be focused on your studies and that it wasn’t really a place for playing games. There’s the argument that you can do it for relaxation but that’s a whole different matter altogether,” Salinas said.
He continued, “One of the main shortcomings of the DO we discussed was the disparity in the implementation of the rules. Like how one teacher would say, “It’s okay to use your cellphone out in public as long as you’re studying.” And, another teacher would immediately take your phone without even discussing to you what you violated. And, another thing was, I believe one of the more serious matters was how the DO failed to issue, or some teachers failed to issue receipts for the cellphones. So, again, there’s the issue of accountability there.”
However, one of the things that surprised Salinas was how the meetings, instead of being full of one heated argument after another, were calm.
Intimidating as they seem to be, the people behind the DO are approachable. According to Torralba, the new D.O. wants to implement a “firm and consistent but sensible” style of disciplining. If there’s one thing they don’t want to do, it’s to create a divide between them and the students. In fact, they want to stress the importance of communication between the students and staff in order to achieve understanding with one another.
“Disciplining students is not the sole responsibility of the Discipline Office and the Discipline Committee. It is a shared responsibility among all teachers, personnel, administration, and parents,” said Torralba.
All About The Status Quo
Eventually, their concerns were raised to the Management Committee. This led to the development of a designated phone usage area in the fourth floor auditorium.
Still, Salinas and his fellow petition writers, wish to seek further revisions and developments.
“We feel like the 4th floor can’t possibly accommodate the entire student population, especially during the busier times like hell week,” Salinas said.
Additionally, Salinas believes that the D.O. should teach responsibility instead of implementing prohibitions.
According to him, this leads to “[their trying] to find sneakier ways to use it. So, [students] would go to the CR’s, the library archives, the smaller classrooms on the third floor, and they would use their cellphones there. But they would still do the same thing. Play games or non-school related matters and what we were arguing was that instead of teaching them na bawal, you teach them that they should use their cellphones properly for academic use while they’re in school.”
However, the D.O. thinks somewhat differently. The D.O. believes that a true scholar can handle their time wisely. It is in this belief that they wish students to comply with the implementation.
“I suggest they focus on academic work from 7:30 am to 4:30 pm (or until dismissal) instead of thinking about entertainment. During their free time, they can work on their homework, photocopy stuff, coordinate with groupmates, consult with their teacher, etc. After all, they are scholars. Is it too much to ask of a Pisay scholar to focus on school work during the day? Once they reach their homes or dorms at night that’s when they unwind and entertain themselves,” Torralba said.
But what about recreation? Surely, school can be tiring? To solve this, the D.O. encourages students to utilize activities which the school does not restrict: interact with each other, play sports, play musical instruments, or play board games at hand in the Center for Youth Welfare and Development.
This year’s D.O. put the spotlight on prioritizing schoolwork instead of entertainment. In fact, according to Torralba, library visitation has increased since the revision was put in place because it is one of the free areas where one can use a laptop/tablet for academic purposes.
That’s something they’re happy about.
Whether or not one believes that the fair use policy is good, the mere fact that this issue is brought to light says something: Pisay students are in it to challenge the status quo and authorities welcome that challenge.
