Neuqua Valley High School student Rodney Boyd Jr. says he was given a raw deal by not being allowed to run for senior class president. Though he was class president sophomore and junior years, the class council sponsors, whose endorsement is needed to run for the office, refused to approve him, citing a drop in performance.
Boyd ran a write-in campaign and believes he received a large number of votes, but the school refused to count them, though Boyd says write-in votes have been counted before.
On Monday Boyd's parents appealed to the school board to either redo the election or to count the write-in votes, but the board didn't budge.
Do you think Boyd's votes should have been counted, or as the district said, the student council devised its own policies and it is up to the council to modify them?
There's some critical information missing, that I have a feeling would change this debate. Notice that Neuqua's Principal and the advisers that would not give their recommendation were not able to disclose the reason why Boyd was not allowed to run; in an educational setting, this either points to his grades or to discipline issues, both of which no one at the school is allowed to disclose.
Considering that Rodney is there to get an education and not to be senior class president, it would make sense that his request to be on the ballot was denied because of those issues. Although it could have been handled better, people have got to understand that the successful education of students takes precedence over all else. If Rodney was at risk of suffering academically because of a position as class president, or was already suffering academically as he became more involved, then the administration acted properly in their actions.
That's also completely ignoring the fact that Rodney knew of these requirements before he sought the position. If he was given steps to remedy the situation and earn the recommendations that he did not take, then he does not deserve the right to hold that position. People like to over-simplify situations like this down to 'Oh that poor child. Look what the school is doing to him', when in reality, it is nowhere near that simple.
1. Are the rules applied equally?
2. Can Mr. Boyd demonstrate where the rules were not followed.
3. Mr. Boyd has been President two times, did he take time to acquaint himself with the existing rules?
4. If Mr Boyd thinks the rules are unfair, trivial or irrelevant does he or his parents want to make their case public by releasing all of the information on his application to run and why it was denied?
A system without rules is no system, it is anarchy. Are the rules always fair or perfect or insure no one loses? No but its better than survival of the strongest and most aggressive which is the alternative to order.
If Mr Boyd knew the rules (or didn't bother to read them) and violated them in a substantial way, he could have appealed then accepted the outcome.
If the rules and appeals were followed; whining your way into the job hardly seems appropriate and diminished his past and possibly future achievements.
I'd rather be know as the guy who learned from my mistake and made a comeback then the whiner.
I have read that Rodney failed to comply with procedural issues on time and since learning to obey rules are part of a students education, it appears that he is learning a valuable lesson. If we don't pay our bills, apply for a drivers license renewal, etc. we end up being penalized. I personally think this seems a bit extreme but the students are receiving an education. I really don't understand why the Sun is making a federal case out of this.
I don't think that grades or discipline were necessarily the issues. I got the impression that the advisors felt he was not holding up his end of the deal as class president. I know that when my daughter served as a rep on class council at WV as a freshman, there was a specific number of hours that she was supposed to put in on different activities during the year. It was difficult for her to meet the number of hours because she was also playing tennis, running both indoor and outdoor track, and playing in band. That meant she only had November, December, and part of January where she was not in an activity every day after school and on Saturdays. Unfortunately most of the things the class council needed her for were after school and on Saturdays. The times between her sports were not the same times that things were gong on that the council was involved in. So she didn't run for class council her sophomore through senior years. She felt her leadership skills were better suited in her sports. She was not a star athlete, but her coaches would have told anyone that her leadership was invaluable. They nominated her for female scholar athlete of the year and she was the runner-up to one of her friends.
It is very difficult to be involved in all the things you want to do in high school. Especially once you attain the varsity level in a sport. I would guess that being on varsity basketball increased his involvement there and the advisors did not feel he was devoting the time he needed toward the class president position. Whether he was still able to achieve what needed to be done could be the debatable point here. He may very well have done what was needed through emailing, designating, etc. I got the impression that the family is taking the stance that he did his job in that position.
Keep in mind these are my guesses, but based on what I know from my own kids and from working at WV for a few years.
Notice that Neuqua's Principal and the advisers that would not give their recommendation were not able to disclose the reason why Boyd was not allowed to run; in an educational setting, this either points to his grades or to discipline issues, both of which no one at the school is allowed to disclose.
_____________
John, that is what I think as well, there must be an underlying reason. I wonder if this reason can and has been given to the boy and his parents behind closed doors? I haven't seen any comments on whether the parents were asked by the media if there were any disciplinary or educational reasons given to them which were not disclosed? That seems like it would answer a lot of questions.
The joke known as Napervillel School Dicstrict 204 rambles on!
Why there is no internal process (ombudsman process) to handle this is beyond me.
The solution going forward is simple: If someone is not allowed to move forward in the current process, there is a review process available where the student has a review with the Principal, Vice-Principal, and a teacher of the student's choice. At the review, the two teachers who would not endorse him give their case, and the student and his selected teacher gives his case. The vote to allow it or not is made by the Three reviewers.
Duh!
[Note that this whole thing reaks of a popularity contest with the two teachers. John implies the student MUST have grade or discipline issues. Let me give another what-if:
The two teachers, in the never-ending quest to not hurt feelings and make everyone a winner, feel he has already won twice and it is time for someone else to get a chance. His grades have dropped slightly from a 98 average to a 92 average. The student they wanted to give a chance to win had grades that rose from a 72 to a 77 average. So, on paper, they look like they made a golden decision, but in reality it was morally corrupt.]
Another case of my child didn't get what he wants so I'm taking it to the top. Guess what? Life isn't about getting everything you want. Get over yourselves and move on. Life lesson - your boss will not give you a raise if you don't do what you are suppose to do and neither will a school district. Doesn't our board have bigger fish to fry right now???
Thanks for the speculation about grades and/or discipline issues.
Until some facts get presented that support an argument that there are existing rules in terms of a grade point minimum or disciplinary infractions that might render a candidate ineligible it would continue to suggest that this candidate was rejected based upon some arbitrary or capricious basis used by the adult advisors.
What has been reported is that the advisors didn't seem to think that this candidate did a satisfactory job in the past. Not only is this a subjective opinion, but it is also based on an adult value systems by advisors who have no vote in the actual election process. If the students who do the actual voting think this candidate did a lousy job it would be their prerogative to cast their vote accordingly. It is a shame the advisors don't have enough faith and trust in the student body to know or do what is right.
Regardless, the point where the advisors missed the boat by a country mile on this issue is that past performance, good or bad, is not a valid indicator of future performance. Even worse they are attempting to hold an existing candidate to a higher standard than any potential new candidate who has no established track record. And all the while they are ignoring the fact that these kids grow and change and develop and mature from year to year.
Seems to me the administration has picked the wrong people to serve as the student government advisors. It also seems that what the existing rules might contain is at best a very, very weak defense. Even if the rules were crafted by the students we have to acknowledge that bad rules supported by bad adult advisors are a recipe for situations like what has resulted.
NVHS is still a young school and hasn't had the years of experience to deal with and refine the rules for a lot of situations. Why a boilerplate set of rules were not established in the first place is anyones guess. Why a copy of WVHS rules which have seemed to have serve pretty well for several decades were not used is also a pretty good question.
Candidates should have to meet straight-forward, objective criteria that would provide an opportunity for the vast majority of students who choose to run for office to have an opportunity to do so. There is no logical need or basis for faculty or advisor sign-offs other than to verify that an objective set of criteria has been met. Then the faculty needs to step aside and let the students cast their votes without further adult meddling or manipulation.
Based upon all that has transpired it is only fair and right that the school board step in and deal with this issue from a policy making perspective and ensure that election rules consistent with other student governments and model examples are put in place. Then it is time for a do over on the election during the first week of classes next fall.
anon posted at 12:29pm
"Regardless, the point where the advisors missed the boat by a country mile on this issue is that past performance, good or bad, is not a valid indicator of future performance."
Um..no, past performance is THE key indicator of future performance.
If I recall correctly President George W. Bush, Jr. was a C student, was accepted in his IVY league university because of his father a/k/a connections, managned to get a DUI along the way and the citizens of the United States voted him President of the USA.
And we are being told that Rodney Boyd Jr. is NOT allowed to run for Class President??? The students are not allowed to elect him???
Maybe those guys who are denying Rodney Boyd Jr. should be denied their Big Fat Pensions and let us see how they feel.
A-TOWN,
You wrote: "Um... no, past performance is THE indicator of future performance."
Um... no actually and what better example of the validity of this statement than the stock market?
If past performance was THE indicator of future performance then how can anyone explain the likes of: Ken Lay, Jeffrey Skilling, Nancy Temple, David Duncan, Bernard, Madoff, Denis Kozlowski, Scott Sullivan or many, many others who were at one time highly thought of and well respected?
If people can change from good to bad how is it illogical for them to also change from bad to good?
If advisors are unable, unwilling, or incapable of teaching, leading, coaching, or mentoring student leaders to higher and better levels of performance then what is the purpose of creating schools and a learning environment for these activities in the first place and why are advisors being assigned to these positions? If there was something noteworthy about the performance of this student during previous terms of office it says more about the failings of the advisors and resolving whatever problems might have existed at the time then any failings of the student. An even more important question is how was the performance of the faculty advisors evaluated during the periods of prior service and what were the findings? Let's not forget for one minute that the faculty advisors are getting paid and for them professional expectations of how they perform this work and what they do to coach and mentor student leaders is their responsibility.
Let's also not forget we are talking about teenage students. They have their classes and studies, sports, and other school activities along with a social life, family, and other interests. They are volunteering their time to serve their school. This is neither professional employment nor a career where expectations might be different or the consequences of failure more severe.
Taxes,
Fair or unfair, if your parent attended an Ivy League School, you attended the feeder school in this case Andover, and your Grandfather was a US Senator, your father was a Congressman, Director of the CIA and Ambassador to China before he was President, you would also get a preferential admittance to Yale or Harvard on the chance you might do something significant or donate a few million later on. Both are private schools.
IMHO the question here is was Mr. Boyd treated equally under the rules with the other applicants?
Everything I have read above is speculation, The Boyds are not forthcoming with the facts which looks like they are trying to whine their way to the top.
Hide behind the secrecy of the school rules protecting their privacy while complaining about the rules.
I invite the Boyds in their own words to post the facts here on this site and sign a release allowing the school to do the same on this site.
If he was treated unequally, I'll be the first to support him.
Put up or shut up!
PS
When President Obama was the Legal Council for ACORN, was he the one giving them advice on how to intimidate Bank Presidents into making uncollectible loans by picketing their houses?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes on June 10, 2009 10:28 AM
If I recall correctly President George W. Bush, Jr. was a C student, was accepted in his IVY league university because of his father a/k/a connections, managned to get a DUI along the way and the citizens of the United States voted him President of the USA.
I like a review committee/ombudsman approach as suggested by Anonymous (June 9 at 10:08 a.m.). That way it's not an issue of a couple of teachers deciding that they have a different favorite this year. Like the National Honor Society, grades aren't the be all/end all of admission -- it's also about getting voted in by teachers. If you're not popular with them (or you ticked them off) you don't get their approval.
To: Taxes, Taxes and more Taxes on June 10, 2009 10:28 AM:
You are correct.
In fact, Ted Kennedy is a noted and proven alcoholic, still is, murdered a young woman, was kicked out of several schools for cheating, and now is the "Lion of the Senate" and is used as a shining example for millions of young men & women throughout the country.
Why isn't young Mr Boyd allowed to run again? Did he not bring the right teacher an apple?
Curious point. If this kid was not doing the job, why wasn't he fired?
And if the students at Neuqua had any integrity, they would totally boycott the schools events by student council including the "elected" officers not taking office.
Students need to learn to stand up to fascism.
Shoe Peterman,
Why wasn't this kid fired? I'm going to speculate that he wasn't fired because: 1. they don't have a rule that allows them to remove someone for office just because they are doing a poor job, 2. the advisors weren't doing their job either and instead of addressing the issue(s) they simply did nothing, or 3. the advisors knew they were going to deny approval for the next election and let the kid fail deliberately to justify the action they planned to take.
A boycott of all student council sponsored activities would work as would a boycott by officers and representatives from taking office or holding any meetings. If there is no student government next year there is no need for advisors and if there is no need for advisors then they don't deserve to get paid to do nothing. HIt the advisors where it counts... in the pocketbook... and you will see some action.
That or replace the advisors and hold another election.
Who ARE you people?
anon 12:48....madoff,skilling and the like may have well respected at on time, but they were always of poor character..and eventually all their issues caught up with them.
The stock market is the largest form of organized gambling in the world. and I am sure you have heard the saying "he who gambles lives in shambles"
Furstenau's Backhand,
Who are we? We are your friends, your neighbors, maybe even one of your family member... a spouse, a child, a parent. We live all around you, maybe with you, next door, or across town. Some of us are adults, some are a little younger, some are just average mom's and dad's, some work for the city or other branches of government, some are elected officials.
Face to face we may guard our words. Over the backyard fence we might tell you what we think you want to hear or what is "politically correct". (Don't you just hate that term?) Potluck gives us the ability to speak from our hearts and minds on how we truly feel on a variety of issues.
And we would love to hear what you have to say!
As to why Mr Boyd was not allowed to run, we don't know it's all speculation. Boyd did not come clean with the media.
Who knows what the Advisers did or did not do, the below comment assumes that Boyd is unable to control himself.
Calling on students to boycott the school's student government to get Boyd back into office seems irresponsible at best. Intellectual child abuse would be a good description.
I hope you don't work in a school or with children where you can ruin their minds.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
By Anonymous on June 11, 2009 1:40 PM
3. the advisors knew they were going to deny approval for the next election and let the kid fail deliberately to justify the action they planned to take.
"3. the advisors knew they were going to deny approval for the next election and let the kid fail deliberately to justify the action they planned to take."
That was just a speculative comment. Based upon the response I must have either hit a home run or awfully close.
A boycott is now the equivalent of intellectual child abuse? Are you serious? Perhaps we should abandon teaching American history then for fear inflict ing intellectual child abuse? Get real.