The Buzz

North Reading High Schoolers have always been restricted to some extent while in school.  They have grown accustomed to not having their phone on them during class and signing in to use the bathroom, and most students understand and follow these expectations with very little complaint. This begs the question: What caused the student resistance towards wearing their student IDs?  

A new mandate was introduced on December seventh with an email from the principal, Mr Loprete.  This email informed students of the new practice of requiring IDs to be visible at all times.  The email began, “This message is intended to provide you with an update on some recent steps we are  taking to continue to ensure a safe school campus for all.”  The email also ended with the sentiment, “It is my hope that … you see this as a reasonable step to keeping our students safe while on campus.”  While students are well aware of the importance of safety, this unspecific term still leaves many questions unanswered.  This change in student responsibilities sparked debate within the student body over whether or not to adhere to this new practice.  Feelings of uncertainty over the specifics of the IDs’ purpose (both now and in the future) resulted in many students choosing to refrain from wearing their lanyards until they felt confident in their understanding of the reasoning behind this decision.  This pushback persisted and resulted in the administration increasing their efforts to encourage participation, leading to a perpetual cycle of contention between the two bodies. 

The Student Perspective

When interviewed by the Buzz, many students gave explanations for their refusal to display their IDs, disclosing that they plan to wait until they feel like they are given justification for this expectation.  Referring to wearing her ID, one student affirms, “I could get behind it if there was a purpose…Like, if we had to sign out for the bathroom or something.” Another student, upon being asked about how being given more clarity would change her opposition to wearing them, explained that, “…if [the IDs] were explained and whatever they were for was being implemented immediately” she would comply with the demands made by the administration.  This same question was then asked to a group of students who were in agreement that if they understood a clear purpose or use for them, they would be far more inclined to wear their lanyards.  One student in this group argues, “We have to wait until something happens that convinces us that [the student IDs] will do something; that there is a possible route to where they’re going.”  This student goes on to voice that she does not understand the push for visible IDs now, without any mechanisms in place that can scan and record the information on the barcode to improve the efficiency of any aspect of day-to-day life for students.

Many students also had trouble with the decision to send the information regarding the new ID requirement by email.  This allowed many students to overlook these requests as informal and not grasp the strictness of its enforcement until experiencing it upon their arrival at school after the weekend.  Students were being asked to produce their IDs, something they never had to do before, and were given a nametag upon their failure to do so.  This only maintained the confusion surrounding these IDs due to the various theories that were circulating amongst the student body, none of which satisfying their curiosity for the truth.  One student, aggravated by her misjudgment of the rigidness of the enforcement of the IDs, leading her to have to wear a nametag as a temporary replacement, remarked, “We have an assembly for everything else, why not this?”  Upon conversations with many students around the school, there is a general consensus that part of their reasoning for disobeying the administration in regards to the student IDs and the requirement to wear them around a lanyard, is the lack of transparency in regards to the specifics of the lanyards.  The recent announcement for an assembly for all grades was taken in mixed ways by the student body, with some appreciative that information was finally being provided, however, some are disappointed with the length of time elapsed between the ID visibility initially being required and this assembly.  In addition to the assembly and email to students, an email was also sent out to parents consisting of a “Q and A” of frequently asked questions for parents, that details the new safety and how it will affect students’ every day lives.  It does not, however, include any additional information on the reasoning behind why the Safety Committee is requiring this initiative.

 Though some students choose to demonstrate their disapproval of this new policy by actively choosing not to wear their lanyards, they are not the only ones who have something to say about the matter.  A student who chooses to display her ID every day explained, “I might keep it on me to avoid being yelled at and … publicly embarrassed.”  The name-tag ID replacements proved to be extremely troublesome to students, whose preconceived notions about the reasoning behind the IDs did not add up with the introduction of these name-tags, leaving many students to wonder why they would need to be identified by name?  Along with these lunch checks, students are being stopped in hallways, in between classes, and in the mornings for these checks.  The second major reason (the first being lack of information) that students have reported for continued refusal to wear their lanyards was described in a survey, put out by The Buzz on social media, in which students describe the lunch checks and name tags as reasons they choose to rebel, “out of principle” one student explains.  Along with this survey, the Newspaper Club Instagram put up a poll in which North Reading High School students were given the opportunity to identify their stance on wearing or not wearing IDs.  From the poll, we gathered that of the 35 students who responded, 83% admitted that they do not wear their lanyards.  

The Administration’s Perspective 

As previously mentioned, the general consensus among students is that the information they received about the lanyards was too vague and unclear, leaving them unsure about whether or not to participate in things they do not fully understand.  In order to get many questions answered, a student journalist from the Buzz sat down with principal, Mr. Loprete, and vice principal, Mrs. Alonzo to hear their side of the issue.  Mrs. Alonzo described this policy regarding the IDs by saying, “They’re now being required to be visible…so that students can easily be identified as students of North Reading High School.”  She went on to clarify that this identification aspect of the student IDs is not for the students’ or staff’s benefit because they most likely know the students already, but instead, is intended for “if anybody has to come in from the outside in an emergency situation, they need to be able to quickly identify who’s a student and who’s not.”  Mrs. Alonzo also goes on to delineate, “Should there ever be a crisis where we have to evacuate and reunify someplace else, you will need to prove you are a North Reading student to get into the building where we’re reunifying.”  This brings clarity to many students’ questions about the functionality and timing of these IDs being put in place due to the fact that they are for emergency purposes, which, Mr. Loprete points out, saying, “There have been school safety things that have come up in our area.”

There is also talk amongst the student body about the role the School Committee plays in this decision and brings up concerns about certain steps being taken now, prematurely to any vote on the matter by the School Committee.  Without a formal vote by the School Committee, the student ID visibility requirement can not be implemented into the handbook, and, therefore, can not be made formal policy.  Mr. Loprete describes his views on the School Committee’s involvement by saying, “This is not policy, this is practice, so, the school,…we can take certain steps within our practice to make decisions around what we think is best for the campus; best for learning, that is outside the school committee.”  Mr. Loprete also discussed how the initiative for the visible IDs came from the Safety Committee and that they were becoming a trend around our area for the reasons Mrs. Alonzo touched upon earlier.  Scott Buckley, the school committee chair, responded to questions about the stance of the school committee on the issue by saying, “If the SC [School Committee] was to consider a policy, I would ask questions about the reasons for wearing IDs, however, I personally have trouble disagreeing with recommendations from the School Safety team.”  He also agrees with Mr. Loprete that the school has leeway in internal policies, allowing the school to make decisions that they believe are best.

The students themselves posed questions in response to a survey posted on The Buzz’s social media.  From these questions, many students asked why there was such an emphasis being placed on having the IDs, “on your person”.  To this, Mrs. Alonzo responded, “It can’t be on your backpack because if you’re leaving quickly, you’re not carrying your backpack.”  Mr. Loprete also explained, “Everybody has to recognise that, at times, their rights and how they make the choices they make are going to impact somebody else.”  This brings the conversation back to the emergency element of the IDs and the school’s proactiveness to any danger that may or may not occur.  Mr. Loprete urges students to understand how going to a combined middle and high school impacts the severity of safety precautions that are needed to keep students safe, and notes the safety incidents occurring in nearby schools as evidence.  He repeatedly emphasized that safety is his number one concern and he plans to do everything he can to ensure the school is as safe as can be.

Students also wonder why this expectation is being brought about now, when they have had their IDs for over a month already.  Mrs. Alonzo described the various drawbacks that led to a delay in the instatement of this expectation including a combined effort with the middle school, so both schools would be participating in this practice simultaneously.  This was a drawback because the middle school needed to reorder their IDs so that all the IDs in both schools would have a barcode on them to allow them to eventually have a functional purpose in students’ day-to-day lives.  Another source of confusion for students stemmed from the wording of an email that they received, leaving many students gaining the impression that the lanyards were on a trial run or optional.  In response to this, Mr. Loprete responded by explaining, “My hope is that when I say expectation, right, it’s pretty clear that this is what’s expected of you.”  The principal went on to ask the rhetorical question, “Is that a recommendation or a requirement?”